Ashton Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html Quite an old article, so some of you might have already seen this. So what do you all think about his claim? Has Philisophy been abandoned for so long that people who do practice it, are swimming in a quagmire of repeated phrases unable to escape to push philosohpy forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuelS Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Science comes out of philosophy, as long as science is alive, philosophy must be alive and well. It's sad that such a brilliant mind with such reach doesn't even understand the origins of his own discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Looking at academic philosophy within the last 100 to 200 years, it is certainly true. Too many unimportant focuses and questions that scientists don't care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwain Dibley Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 It appears that what passes for modern philosophy these days is either garrulously esoteric to the point of being nothing more than inane prattle or, devoted to finding ways to generate dictums on how others should live their lives. I would suggest that a proper order would be science then philosophy. Science says "here is the answer", philosophy asks "to what purpose or why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 In order for a scientist to give you an answer, you have to ask him a question. In order for a philosopher to give you an answer, he has to ask himself a question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacbot Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 It appears that what passes for modern philosophy these days is either garrulously esoteric to the point of being nothing more than inane prattle or, devoted to finding ways to generate dictums on how others should live their lives. I would suggest that a proper order would be science then philosophy. Science says "here is the answer", philosophy asks "to what purpose or why". True, we have a lot of witchdoctors these days..., but I would not call them philos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Ironic that he thinks philosophy has so much to do with where we came from and how we got here, as opposed to where we're going as a species based on our code of ethics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwain Dibley Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Philosophy is primarily concerned with where we came from and how we got here, providing the insights that, hopefully, help you figure out where you are and where you choose to go. Ideologies are more concerned with devising selective philosophical truths that drive you forward to a predetermined destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 So much confusion in this topic comes from the history of philosophy, where philosophers attempted to address everything. Many philosophical roles are now specialized disciplines, such as: physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, and so on. As Stefan argues, morality is the only specialization philosophy has anymore. I believe the basis of epistemology and non-empirical reasoning can still be considered philosophical topics, as they are not really scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Hawking is such a smart guy yet he can't string 3 words together to save his life. It's called the non aggression principle. Stephen Hawking: Aggression could destroy ushttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-aggression-could-destroy-us-10057658.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Just a quick note that might shed some light on his comments... He is a Liberal Socialist... better known as communist. His view that philosophy has failed is probably the result of his failed philosophy. Actually, it reminds me of a mark twain (yeah I know Samuel Clemons) quote: "It is easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled."Many people will kill an entire branch of science (in their minds) if it contradicts close held personal beliefs or an adopted philosophical principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Just a quick note that might shed some light on his comments... He is a Liberal Socialist... better known as communist. His view that philosophy has failed is probably the result of his failed philosophy. Actually, it reminds me of a mark twain (yeah I know Samuel Clemons) quote: "It is easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled." Many people will kill an entire branch of science (in their minds) if it contradicts close held personal beliefs or an adopted philosophical principle. I've never understood socialist atheists. If you say something about religion and moral they immediately say "you don't need a religion to give you morals". They immediately turn to the state, though, when you ask them why they don't do things that are "evil". They say you don't need a religion to control them, but they want the government to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts