• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

“Philosophy is dead." - Stephen Hawking

Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”
Click to expand...

Stephen Hawking tells Google 'philosophy is dead'

To be honest, even though I have a soft spot for philosophy I have to agree with him. It needs to keep pace with science if it is to remain relevant.

What do you think?
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Jeremiahcp said:
Stephen Hawking tells Google 'philosophy is dead'

To be honest, even though I have a soft spot for philosophy I have to agree with him. It needs to keep pace with science if it is to remain relevant.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I find some philosophical writings quite useful. Obviously science is a branch of natural philosophy. So it's difficult to tell what he wants to say by that comment.

Anyways philosophy of cosmology is alive and kicking.
People - Philosophy of Cosmology

Here is book to look out for in the library
The Philosophy of Cosmology
 
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I don't know if it's possible for philosophy to have kept pace with science. I think they did for a long period of time, but this was probably a result of our scientific limitations. Philosophy isn't dead, but it's more like something which provides fundamentals and background, rather than an actively-progressing field in itself.
 
L

Logikal

Member
Jeremiahcp said:
Stephen Hawking tells Google 'philosophy is dead'

To be honest, even though I have a soft spot for philosophy I have to agree with him. It needs to keep pace with science if it is to remain relevant.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

That would be like me stating "all scientists are Neanderthals. All they want is sense verification on everything or else they claim there is no knowledge. The problem is everything is not send verifiable so science is not enough!!!!"
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Jeremiahcp said:
To be honest, even though I have a soft spot for philosophy I have to agree with him. It needs to keep pace with science if it is to remain relevant.
Click to expand...
What does it mean for philosophy to "keep pace with science"?
 
Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Mister Emu said:
What does it mean for philosophy to "keep pace with science"?
Click to expand...

How about including physics and advanced mathematics in the course work required to get an undergraduate degree in philosophy. As it is now philosophy is a cop out degree for those who are not smart enough to get a STEM degree.
 
Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
And, for all these reasons, arithmetic is a kind of knowledge in which the best natures should be trained, and which must not be given up.

I agree.
Let this then be made one of our subjects of education. And next, shall we enquire whether the kindred science also concerns us?

You mean geometry?
Exactly so.
Clearly, he said, we are concerned with that part of geometry which relates to war; for in pitching a camp, or taking up a position, or closing or extending the lines of an army, or any other military manoeuvre, whether in actual battle or on a march, it will make all the difference whether a general is or is not a geometrician.

Yes, I said, but for that purpose a very little of either geometry or calculation will be enough; the question relates rather to the greater and more advanced part of geometry --whether that tends in any degree to make more easy the vision of the idea of good; and thither, as I was saying, all things tend which compel the soul to turn her gaze towards that place, where is the full perfection of being, which she ought, by all means, to behold.

True, he said.
Then if geometry compels us to view being, it concerns us; if becoming only, it does not concern us?

Yes, that is what we assert.
Yet anybody who has the least acquaintance with geometry will not deny that such a conception of the science is in flat contradiction to the ordinary language of geometricians.

How so?
They have in view practice only, and are always speaking? in a narrow and ridiculous manner, of squaring and extending and applying and the like --they confuse the necessities of geometry with those of daily life; whereas knowledge is the real object of the whole science.

Certainly, he said.
Then must not a further admission be made?
What admission?
That the knowledge at which geometry aims is knowledge of the eternal, and not of aught perishing and transient.

That, he replied, may be readily allowed, and is true.
Then, my noble friend, geometry will draw the soul towards truth, and create the spirit of philosophy, and raise up that which is now unhappily allowed to fall down.

Nothing will be more likely to have such an effect.
Then nothing should be more sternly laid down than that the inhabitants of your fair city should by all means learn geometry. Moreover the science has indirect effects, which are not small.
Click to expand...

" . . . .geometry will draw the soul towards truth, and create the spirit of philosophy, and raise up that which is now unhappily allowed to fall down."

Socrates/Plato The Republic

Yet you don't need a lot of math to get an undergraduate philosophy degree I think pre-calculus is the norm; except for maybe some specialized philosophy degrees.
 
Last edited:
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Jeremiahcp said:
Stephen Hawking tells Google 'philosophy is dead'

To be honest, even though I have a soft spot for philosophy I have to agree with him. It needs to keep pace with science if it is to remain relevant.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think philosophy complements science very well. Carl Sagon demonstrates this relationship between philosophical and scientific thought beautifully and practibly as it applies to a givin subject.

Science of course is sterile by itself givin it's a practical application involving direct observation and manipulation of various elements.

Any philosophical thought comes from the results that science uncovers and serves as a motivator and driver that science discovers, and observes through our own wonderment and awe as new discoveries uncovers the truth of things by which we clamer for more information and observation of what mystifies and astounds men and women for generations, for which the imagination itself has no limit, not unlike science in comparism by way of new discovery and the frontiers that are opened that can be embarked upon.
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Jeremiahcp said:
How about including physics and advanced mathematics in the course work required to get an undergraduate degree in philosophy.
Click to expand...
How does that improve philosophic thought? I do support including difficult and rigorous scientific courses for all disciplines in college/university, and I thoroughly enjoy physics as a discipline (enough to take it as an elective in my own undergrad).

You still haven't answered the question though, what it means for philosophy to "keep pace with science". Does philosophy need to produce new lines of though/frameworks as fast as science produces material information?
 
Jeremiahcp

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Mister Emu said:
How does that improve philosophic thought? I do support including difficult and rigorous scientific courses for all disciplines in college/university, and I thoroughly enjoy physics as a discipline (enough to take it as an elective in my own undergrad).

You still haven't answered the question though, what it means for philosophy to "keep pace with science". Does philosophy need to produce new lines of though/frameworks as fast as science produces material information?
Click to expand...

How are your suppose to philosophize about the nature of reality if you don't know physics? And how do you expect to understand physics if you don't know math? Also understanding a mathematical science definitely helps with reasoning skills, problem solving, and logical think further more a decent understanding of math is need to properly comprehend a fair amount of scientific research.

"You still haven't answered the question though, what it means for philosophy to "keep pace with science". Does philosophy need to produce new lines of though/frameworks as fast as science produces material information?"

The heck I didn't. I am talking about education here. A lot more goes into a STEM degree than a philosophy degree. Scientist are being better prepared to handle the hard questions.

They just need to learn more. I don't see how any philosopher can expect to offer innovating insight without some understanding of say cognitive science, neuroscience and physics. All of which are gonna require math. In my opinion a philosopher should be the most learned discipline, but if you take a look at the standard course work for a B.A it is a bit weak. I also think they should study history, writing and literature.
 
Mister Emu

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Jeremiahcp said:
How are your suppose to philosophize about the nature of reality if you don't know physics?
Click to expand...
How does physics effect moral philosophy? Give me a scenario where someone's misunderstanding of calculus was a fatal flaw in their philosophical construct.

Jeremiahcp said:
The heck I didn't. I am talking about education here.
Click to expand...
Well, I hope you'll excuse my confusion. I didn't take "philosophy should keep pace with science" to mean 'philosophers should stay informed on scientific topics'. Further, I think you'd find that many philosophers, at least the good ones, are aware of scientific discoveries that are relevant to their philosophical pursuits.

Jeremiahcp said:
Scientist are being better prepared to handle the hard questions.
Click to expand...
Given the record of prominent scientists' (Krauss, Harris, Dawkins, etc.) forays into the philosophical that can most generously be described as poor, I'm unsure that is a proper conclusion.

Jeremiahcp said:
I also think they should study history, writing and literature.
Click to expand...
I just checked my undergrad university (Xavier), and they do study all of the topics you've brought up (math, science, history, and literature) with emphasis on philosophical application. What you seem to be suggesting is not having an undergrad philosophy degree at all; you simply couldn't fit in-depth history, literature, mathematics, and all pertinent hard sciences into four years along with studying, you know, philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top