Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.philosophy    |    Didn't Freud have sex with his mother?    |    170,335 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 169,637 of 170,335    |
|    D to Peter Moylan    |
|    Re: Philosophy, ancient and modern    |
|    25 Jan 25 18:45:17    |
      From: nospam@example.net              On Sat, 25 Jan 2025, Peter Moylan wrote:              > interesting". I get the impression that philosophers as a group are now       > finding themselves in the same position as Dawkins's God of the Gaps,       > desperately looking for fields of enquiry that have not been claimed by       > someone else.              I don't think it is that sinister. The gold standard for me, when it comes to       philosophy in the modern day and age, is ethics. I think philosophers fill an       important function in our society analyzing the ethical implications and moral       dilemmas of our time, _and_, of the future, when it comes to the technologies       we       develop, how we use them, and how they affect (or will affect) our lives.              Other areas I think philosopher are (arguably) relevant is logic (could be       argued that this is now math however), philosophy of science, and to some       extent       the resurgence of philosophy of how to live a happy and meaningful life (could       be argued that this is on its way to be sucked up by positive psychology).              Another area I think might have been revitalized is philosophy of mind in this       day of AI?              Then there is of course history of philosophy and philosophy of history. I       think       it could be argued that a knowledge of those branches might aid us in making       informed decisions.              > Physics continues to throw up interesting questions, but not many       > non-physicists are willing to tackle them. How many philosophers have       > debated the issue of whether string theory is a valid view of reality?       > Or, to take a major issue that's almost within living memory: is the       > Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics valid? Most physicists have       > an opinion on that, but few non-physicists do. The question is too       > mentally challenging.              I don't know. But I would imagine that plenty of philosophers debate multiple       worlds and other interpretations.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca