Philosophers Determine Society's Zeitgeist?

[Cognisant]

Are philosophers the great movers and shakers of history, do the revelations and paradigms they disseminate change the way we think, the things we believe, the values we hold, does all the world shudder to the echos of society's thinkers thoughts, or is this just something philosophers themselves like to think?

Or in other words do our internet forum arguments actually affect the real world?

 

[redbaron]

Natural philosophy has given way to physics.

Individual philosophy is still relevant, though in a lesser way. Certainly spiritual beliefs are declining in society at large. I can't say I find much use for philosophy that much any more, I am kind of past it I guess.

I've said this before on the forum, but the things that have the biggest impact on the way we think and act is technology and knowledge. The development of agriculture, transport, computing, or even just the discovery that the world was round. Any one of these things on their own could possibly account for a greater change in long-term societal structure on a collective level, than all of the works of all the philosophers in the world combined.

On an individual level I think philosophy will always remain relevant (or at least for a very long time), but the things that will bring about paradigm shifts in the collective have always been and I suspect will always be knowledge and technology.

 

[AlisaD]

I think that the old philosophers (the Greeks, the Chinese) had a huge influence on the development of the societies they lived in, as well as the society we live in today.
The modern ones (at least the professional ones, the ones who try to write books and give lectures and stuff) I feel are somewhat at a loss, as everything reasonable has already been said and they are stuck either generating something new, but horrifically obscure and useless for all but a select few who can make sense of their musings; or are forced to repackage old wisdoms and present them in new forms, which just makes their work seem like a load of self-help gibberish.
That is not to say that our forum arguments don't affect the real world. I believe that most of the people who spent a significant amount of time on this forum were changed to some degree (some were just horribly scarred, but let's not get into that). Those people then go on and interact with other people, and so the world changes little by little. I think that the value of this forum, and other forums like this, lies in the fact that they allow people to test their thoughts on a live audience, in a lot of the cases have them chewed up and spat out, disfigured and barely recognisable, but still it allows us to speak to others about our ideas which aren't always easy to discuss in the real world. In a way they give us the chance to be philosophers, and for those of us who are willing to listen they reduce the danger of becoming completely isolated in our own bubble of certainty that our views of the world are infallible.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Mass Media determines a society's zeitgeist. Media =/= any sort of great inquiry into metaphysics either of course. They just parrot what they and the rest of the zombies want to hear and/or wish were their truth (its all about the ephemeral experience). "Repeat something enough times and eventually the people will believe even the most absurd lie" -Albert Einstein

Mass Media tells zombies what to do/ how to think: literally PROGRAM them (e.g. television programming) = Zeitgeist.

Oh, I'm sure the chattering heads/ actors on CNN/ Foxnews/ MTV/ Hollywood movies etc will all claim eachother and themselves to be great philosophers. The pied piper would claim as much, too.

I heard today that Miley Cyrus is going to be a common individual to dress up as for Halloween. I can't think of any individual whose public presentation would be anything less possessing of anything of spiritual value (soul) or more inherently zombie-esque. 'Twould be unbelievable until I remember the aforementioned facts.

Most people = utter zombies.

Mass media = the blind leading the blind.

 

[Pyropyro]

Are philosophers the great movers and shakers of history, do the revelations and paradigms they disseminate change the way we think, the things we believe, the values we hold, does all the world shudder to the echos of society's thinkers thoughts, or is this just something philosophers themselves like to think?

Well there are philosophical and religious figures that do affect their cultures even now.

I think the world shudders more at the guns and gold raised by the followers of such philosophers.

As for self-proclaimed thinkers umm... let's just say its better for all parties involved to leave them in their private worlds.

Or in other words do our internet forum arguments actually affect the real world?

No it's more like intellectual masturbation (orgy?) and catharsis more than anything. Although I get offended by some posts, I guess its better that they express it here than in real life.

 

[Duxwing]

Philosophy remains alive and well. The studies of language and logic have particularly seen recent shifts, e.g., Kurt Godel's theorems. And won and lost debates change the beliefs of real people who then shape the real world.

-Duxwing

 

[walfin]

We are real people. And so, yes. Everything here ultimately affects the real world since it affects our minds. Even if subconsciously .

Extrapolate to all other philosophical debates.

 

[Rook]

The impact of philosphers may be more centered on the future than on the present. We have all had contact with some or other philosophical work of times past, but how many of us have read current works? Perhaps humanity is so concerned with its material doings, that it is easier to adopt some or other historical philosophy(religion included) than constantly take the current ones into consideration. Thus philosophers who are currently not all that famous, may be the voice of humanity representing our era hundreds of years hence.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

...No it's more like intellectual masturbation (orgy?) and catharsis more than anything...

this makes a lot of sense.

 

[Words]

Figuring out the way we think and the way we believe is mostly done. It's science. It's an indestructible philosophical foundation for knowledge and how to arrive at knowledge. It's not yet completely established, but it will inevitably prevail. The problem is social science. This branch has epistemological problems. Humans aren't as predictable as atoms. But I do think humans can be...

On the other hand, figuring out our values is a neverending thing. As society changes, expectations change and value systems change.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Are philosophers the great movers and shakers of history, do the revelations and paradigms they disseminate change the way we think, the things we believe, the values we hold, does all the world shudder to the echos of society's thinkers thoughts, or is this just something philosophers themselves like to think?

Or in other words do our internet forum arguments actually affect the real world?

Are you yourself inhabiting the real world? If so, then you affect it. The act of struggling, of seeking, pondering and searching IS the action that affects both the individual and others. The experience (rather than the delineated philosophy) I believe to be the energy that sends ripples and touches the world.

 

[Analyzer]

Philosophy has no question created the structure of society.The particular study of ethics and psychology is interesting as it determines why people adopt ends to achieve means and what ought to they adopt in the case of ethics.

 

[Vrecknidj]

There are academic fields, such as mathematics, that have "applied" variants (at least, in the US universities, this is how they're described). In philosophy, probably the subfield with the most application is ethics. From biomedical ethics to engineering ethics to jurisprudence to policy, that particular branch of philosophy continues to serve.

For instance, every respectable facility in the civilized world that engages in animal research has a powerful reason to be accredited by AAALAC. Similarly, every hospital of note has ethics review boards, every university has ethics review boards, etc.

So, yeah, philosophy is still important.

 

[Puffy]

Natural philosophy has given way to physics.

Individual philosophy is still relevant, though in a lesser way. Certainly spiritual beliefs are declining in society at large. I can't say I find much use for philosophy that much any more, I am kind of past it I guess.

I've said this before on the forum, but the things that have the biggest impact on the way we think and act is technology and knowledge. The development of agriculture, transport, computing, or even just the discovery that the world was round. Any one of these things on their own could possibly account for a greater change in long-term societal structure on a collective level, than all of the works of all the philosophers in the world combined.

On an individual level I think philosophy will always remain relevant (or at least for a very long time), but the things that will bring about paradigm shifts in the collective have always been and I suspect will always be knowledge and technology.

Does physics in turn lead back to philosophy?

I agree that modern philosophy should be in synthesis with up to date scientific models of reality. But I don't think values are separable from human practice of the scientific method; it's why Kuhn argued that every new paradigm (Copernicus, evolution, relativity, etc) is rarely accepted until a new generation comes along that is willing to appraise the information with fresh eyes. Ones philosophy affects their science (sometimes to the extent of closing out information that disagrees with it). Likewise, each new scientific paradigm is as much a shift for the philosophy of an age (or should be).

I think I have an inherently "everything is interconnected" POV, and see humanities and sciences as feeding into each other. I think science will always raise philosophical questions, and be used to support philosophical positions, and that in turn those positions will affect future science and so on. Basically, I can't imagine philosophy becoming obsolete in the near future; I agree with Alisa that professionally it's largely cryptic and probably going to need to go through some changes though.

 

[Rook]

For me, physics has always led to the question: why? This question is so far left out of science, as there is no definite medium through wich to answer such an subjective enquiry. Thus one is tempted to move from science towards philosophical concepts such as nihilism, and at a greater degree of scientific ignorance, religion. Science and philosophy are interconnected, but they tend to focus on different spheres, the how and the why. In our modern times, science has a great impact on society, greater than ever before, while philosophy still holds sway over billions of people through religous ideology. Thus, science and philosophy can develop side by side, but somewhere one must give way to the other to some degree within our society. That will be the breaking point, where humanity either lives in scientific enlightenment or metaphysical abstraction.

 

[Cognisant]

Ignore this.

Testing, testing, 1 2 3

Edit: An earlier post required approval, just checking to see if all my posts do.

 

[redbaron]

Does physics in turn lead back to philosophy

I don't think it does, no. I think that there are many things that are philosophical in nature, until testable methods of parameterizing them are developed. I find it hard to answer this question because I think we are probably viewing it from different angles.

I suppose the way most people look at this is: physics explains how the universe exists, 'but why does it exist?'

I don't think a question like this is an example of physics leading back to philosophy. It's simply an example of a philosophical question that we can't define testable parameters for (yet?). If ever we manage to define them, the question will no longer be in the realm of philosophy.

I agree that modern philosophy should be in synthesis with up to date scientific models of reality.

Honestly I don't even think this matters. At the least it doesn't matter to science. Any idea that is philosophical is only as such, simply because a way to define a predictive model for it has not been developed.

It's why Kuhn argued that every new paradigm (Copernicus, evolution, relativity, etc) is rarely accepted until a new generation comes along that is willing to appraise the information with fresh eyes.

Agreed for the most part. Although this is not as common now that society is much more in tune with secular values. There's not as many people actively working to stop the progress of knowledge that confronts social norms (at least in the western world).

Ones philosophy affects their science (sometimes to the extent of closing out information that disagrees with it).

I would agree that it sometimes, 'can' affect science. Science done correctly, is the complete opposite - philosophy has no impact whatsoever.

I don't want to derail from the main point of the thread at the moment on this line of discussion though. I'm happy to discuss it though if you want.

I think I have an inherently "everything is interconnected" POV, and see humanities and sciences as feeding into each other.

I think science works in the opposite direction, and doesn't lead from humanities at all.

It starts with mathematics - the language of predictive capability.
Next is physics, the first natural extension of mathematics - predicting how the world works with mathematics.
Then chemistry - predicting how the world interacts.
Neuroscience/biology - predicting how organisms interact with the world and how they work.
Psychology - How organisms interact with each other.

To explain this in a visual way, I drew a little pyramid. It starts at the base (mathematics) and works its way up.

Spoiler

Beyond these are the humanities, which are at the top of the pyramid.

To note, I need to point out that this is an explanation of the way that scientific knowledge is built. Individuals and individual philosophies don't necessarily follow this process.

I can already see where this will be going, and I'll probably have to clarify this. If you'd like to make this into another thread, I can try and explain this in more detail - how studies of humanity arise from science. I'll try a short version.

The how (physics) came long before the why (philosophy). As in people were figuring out how to physically figure things out, long before they questioned why it worked. People crafting tools and technology long before ever considering any philosophical. Philosophy started thousands of years ago, but I would posit that physics and mathematics (not advanced concepts that we think of) were the keys to basic survival long before the contemplation of social sciences/humanities were ever an issue.

I think science will always raise philosophical questions, and be used to support philosophical positions, and that in turn those positions will affect future science and so on.

To be honest, philosophy has no impact on scientific study at all. Perhaps in the past, currently not at all. The reason for this is related to the point I made before: if it's philosophical, it's because testable parameters don't exist for it yet. If testable parameters don't exist, it can't be tested by science.

 

[Words]

The how (physics) came long before the why (philosophy). As in people were figuring out how to physically figure things out, long before they questioned why it worked. People crafting tools and technology long before ever considering any philosophical.

Is that really "physics"? Physics is a science. You're talking about ordinary mechanical thinking. Physics is far from plain crafting and tinkering. It requires a perspective shift about how the physical world works. Consider the law of gravity. Back then, humans take this physical phenomenon for granted. Newton had the initiative to generalize or idealize and consider it as a pattern and not an isolated phenomenon.

Science isn't a human instinct. It has a long historical foundation rooted in Western thought.

Philosophy started thousands of years ago, but I would posit that physics and mathematics (not advanced concepts that we think of) were the keys to basic survival long before the contemplation of social sciences/humanities were ever an issue.

Mathematics outside of counting numbers, addition and subtraction requires a lot of contemplation, and is also useless under survivalist conditions. Look at where mathematics flourished. It flourished in civilizations, not hunting and gathering societies. Pythagoras, Descartes, Alkhwarizmi were all a part of civilization, particularly the upper class.

Philosophy as defined as purely the "why" is absolutely limited. Logic, Epistemology and Metaphysics, just to name a few, are not only about the why. Reducing Philosophy to ethics is innacurate.

 

[redbaron]

*sigh*

I knew this would happen.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to physics by its most simplistic definition: knowledge of nature.

Physics today is more complicated because we've figured out many of the more simplistic concepts to do with the natural universe. That is to say, the things that the term, 'physics' refers to is fluid because our knowledge is ever-changing.

Kind of how, 'spirituality' to the Mayans meant human sacrifice. I guess what I'm doing is considering that just because the concept is more basic, does not mean similar methods were not used.

Is that really "physics"? Physics is a science. You're talking about ordinary mechanical thinking. Physics is far from plain crafting and tinkering.

First, I want to point out that all science is actually built on the process of 'crafting and tinkering'. We just use the words, 'hypothesizing and experimenting' instead.

Boats have existed for tens of thousands of years - before the advent of civilization. Boats are not exactly, 'plain' crafting and tinkering, and even if they hadn't defined abstract mathematical formulas to follow when building them, they are still privy to the knowledge of how to apply them.

I suppose you could call this engineering, if you don't want to call it physics.

Also, a question: do people need to be able to define concepts of momentum, inertia and gravity to be considered knowledgeable about them? If they can apply concepts like this to create new technologies, does that not qualify as having knowledge of these concepts, even if they don't define them as such?

Also I just want to point out, I did specify:

(not advanced concepts that we think of)

Physics was, 'natural philosophy' before it was physics. The term physics is a modern one, coined only a few hundred years ago. What I'm interested in though, is method. I would surmise that the way the design for an optimal boomerang was developed, would be similarly related to the testing, observation and refinement that we do in science.

Why? Because even theoretical physics is about crafting and tinkering. People try to create mathematical models to create reality. They test the model against reality, and check if it works or not. If it doesn't they alter it and change it and try again. The process is repeated however many times as it takes to find a model that DOES explain reality.

- start with an idea
- test it
- observe and note the result

Science isn't a human instinct. It has a long historical foundation rooted in Western thought.

I think that its foundations go much further back than, 'western thought'.

Is it very basic? Yes. Though I don't think that means it's not scientific. I'd say that building weapons is much more of a scientific process than you're giving it credit for, and that even early hunter-gatherers and tribes would have gone to efforts of passing down information about these methods, and teaching how they apply to the real world.

 

[Words]

I suppose you could call this engineering, if you don't want to call it science.

yes, terminologies and semantics are quite important.

Also, a question: do people need to be able to define concepts of momentum, inertia and gravity to be considered knowledgeable about them? If they can apply concepts like this to create new technologies, does that not qualify as having knowledge of these concepts, even if they don't define them as such?

You can't go very far in technology without establishing these concepts, codifying them and making precise mathematical models about them. The creation of such models requires understanding.

What I'm interested in though, is method. I would surmise that the way the design for an optimal boomerang was developed, would be similarly related to the testing, observation and refinement that we do in science.

Perhaps that is how it is in current science, but the way I see it while there are a growing number of ways to fulfill the function of the boomerang apart from utilizing a boomerang itself, the assumption is that there must only be one explanation for a physical phenomenon. This is the difference between engineering and science.

Why? Because even theoretical physics is about crafting and tinkering. People try to create mathematical models to create reality. They test the model against reality, and check if it works or not. If it doesn't they alter it and change it and try again. The process is repeated however many times as it takes to find a model that DOES explain reality.

What defines what "works"? What if there were many possible explanations? What decides what must be explained? What if there were two explanations, and both worked in application, but these are two different explanations? Theory-testing is one thing, but theory-formation is another.

All science at its core is built on the process of 'crafting and tinkering'. We just use the words, 'hypothesizing and experimenting'.

- start with an idea
- test it
- observe and note the result

Unlike crafting and tinkering, hypothesizing depends on fundamental knowledge and not simply on what has previously worked in the past.

 

[redbaron]

This is so far from the point I was making - you're nitpicking at the singular, incredibly isolated example I used (with redundant statements).

We'll just call it engineering and move on.

 

[Words]

This is so far from the point I was making - you're nitpicking at the singular, incredibly isolated example I used (with redundant statements).

We'll just call it engineering and move on.

I do acknowledge the merit of this position though. I think it's called pragmatism or instrumentalism. I posit that most scientists think this way. It's also, like you said, native to basic survival thinking. However, I think it's incomplete though I can't explain exactly why.