What are the characteristics of a Philosopher?

[Knotted]

To put it somewhat poetically, they freed us from the shackles of superstition. Do you think that neolithic man would have got around to building a steam engine if he'd just thought about it for long enough? Well here's the thing: he had fucking millennia and did fuck all.

But get this: a few hundred years after philosophy gets a grip (proper decent philosophy, empirical and logical and English-speaking) we have the internet and cancer treatment and liberal democracy and Sky+ boxes and the emancipation of women.

Do we get to blame philosophers for nuclear bombs, poverty and global warming as well then?

But seriously, a hunter-gatherer society is not going to start inventing the steam engine. It doesn't matter what they think. They can have whatever superstitions they like or the most marvelous enlightened philosophy (incidently why isn't a superstition a philosophy?). They are not going to invent the DVD player.

Perhaps philosophy and civilization/science/technology tend to occur together. Even more likely - its probably just that significant times tend to produce more striking philosophy. Philosophy as such is a constant.

The idea that philosophy produces great civilization is central to a lot of religious belief. Perhaps Islam is the most striking example of this. This is my concern here. Why are reasonable, enlightened people spouting religious clap-trap?

I want to get away from the idea that just because something is the foundation then it is of fundamental importance. A subject at the foundations of other subjects is really of less importance.

 

[fractionMan]

I want to get away from the idea that just because something is the foundation then it is of fundamental importance. A subject at the foundations of other subjects is really of less importance.

Yeah, who needs foundations? Just build it out of straw.

 

[selamlar]

Keep a fire for the human race
Let your prayers go drifting into space
You never know what will be coming down

Jackson Frickin Brown!?! You are joking? You have had a week to think about that, and the best you can come up with it Jackson Brown. Although its better than quoting Pirsig, I suppose.

everything is indefensible

You did notice that max got banned for this kind of shit, didn't you. People really don't seem to be interested. Cod philosophy ftl

Oh and they cant be a woman, because the female intellect is inferior for such delicate matters

Uhu. Brains overheat, dontyaknow. Poor delicate little things.

 

[Santino]

Perhaps philosophy and civilization/science/technology tend to occur together. Even more likely - its probably just that significant times tend to produce more striking philosophy. Philosophy as such is a constant.

I don't understand this. Science and technology aren't like the weather - they don't just happen. No doubt socio-economic conditions are useful for certain social arrangements to take place and encourage intellectual development (e.g. the institution of slavery allowing higher class Greeks the leisure to sit around thinking about mythos and logos and that rather yummy cup-bearer), but some cunt has to sit down and work some shit out. Someone has to say, let's examine all these old beliefs we have and determine whether they hold water, and if not then how can we better understand the world? That's what philsophers - rational enquirers - did, and where they did it successfully (e.g. in 6th century BC Greece, or 17th century Europe) civilization developed.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, technology precedes reflection in a lot of cases, although they are both part of the general culture.

 

[Santino]

Well, technology precedes reflection in a lot of cases, although they are both part of the general culture.

What is 'general culture'? What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

Also, can you give an example of a technology that has preceded 'reflection'?

 

[The Groke]

The primary characteristic of a philospher is not being max_freakout, i-am-your-idea or Gorski.

 

[Fruitloop]

What is 'general culture'? What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

Also, can you give an example of a technology that has preceded 'reflection'?

You what? The Chinese invented gunpowder, the printing press, discovered Pythagoras's theorem for themselves - the list could go on until it became quite dull.

Technologies that precede their scientific explanation include chemistry, metallurgy, inheritance of biological characteristics (what we'd now call genetics) - again, not a particularly short list if you want to name them all.

 

[Santino]

Actually, my question was: What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

And not: Please list some inventions of the Chinese.

 

[Knotted]

I don't understand this. Science and technology aren't like the weather - they don't just happen. No doubt socio-economic conditions are useful for certain social arrangements to take place and encourage intellectual development (e.g. the institution of slavery allowing higher class Greeks the leisure to sit around thinking about mythos and logos and that rather yummy cup-bearer), but some cunt has to sit down and work some shit out. Someone has to say, let's examine all these old beliefs we have and determine whether they hold water, and if not then how can we better understand the world? That's what philsophers - rational enquirers - did, and where they did it successfully (e.g. in 6th century BC Greece, or 17th century Europe) civilization developed.

Well you have a broader notion of what philosophy is than I do. I don't know. Is any thought philosophy? I can't argue with the idea that science and innovation are to do with scientists, engineers and inventors innovating.

I've tried to focus on foundational questions, then we can agree that this is to do with philosophy. I think the foundations of a theory are arbitrary and that careful philosophical work on them comes after the theory has been formulated and even then it is never really settled. (Yes this is different from the material foundations of a house, fractionMan).

 

[Fruitloop]

Actually, my question was: What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

And not: Please list some inventions of the Chinese.

Well then the answer is capitalism, mostly. I don't understand what's so important about those particular three though, or what Eastern philosophical mindset would allow you to invent a suspension bridge or a flamethrower but not an engine. It's a question of what your society requires I guess, and chance, to a considerable extent.

 

[Knotted]

Actually, my question was: What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

And not: Please list some inventions of the Chinese.

This is a complex question, but I can't be the only one who finds this line of reasoning pretty reactionary. It wasn't because they hadn't discovered the proper philosophy. I'm sure about that.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well I mean a factory is primarily a social relation, not a technology per se, so I don't see how it belongs with the other two.

 

[Aldebaran]

What is 'general culture'? What was it about 'general culture' that enabled European civilization to invent engines, factories and railways but prevented the highly organised civilizations of China, India and Islam from doing so?

I hoped that you were joking with your "a few hundred years" and "English speaking" but clearly you were not.
If I were you, I would open a few history books.

salaam.

 

[Fruitloop]

I mean look at the Great Wall - it's not as if you're talking about folks that couldn't do large-scale civil engineering if they wanted to!

 

[Fruitloop]

Printing, gunpowder and the compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries."

.

 

[Santino]

I've tried to focus on foundational questions, then we can agree that this is to do with philosophy. I think the foundations of a theory are arbitrary and that careful philosophical work on them comes after the theory has been formulated and even then it is never really settled.

Any chance of an example for this?

 

[Santino]

.

With regard to printing, it was the invention of movable type rather than printing per se that really changed things.

 

[Santino]

I mean look at the Great Wall - it's not as if you're talking about folks that couldn't do large-scale civil engineering if they wanted to!

I don't deny that they did some awesome shit, but rather I ask why they didn't progress as Europe did, despite being highly organised.

 

[Santino]

This is a complex question, but I can't be the only one who finds this line of reasoning pretty reactionary. It wasn't because they hadn't discovered the proper philosophy. I'm sure about that.

Of all the complex and developed societies that humanity has cobbled together, it was the one in which there was a deep and fundamental philosophical revolution - the very basis of which was philosophers questioning their deepest assumptions - that went on to develop a mode of thinking that enabled the industrial revolution and the digital age*.

Whether or not you find this 'reactionary' is not something that should affect your assessment of its historical accuracy.


*Decent epochal nomenclature pending.

 

[Aldebaran]

With regard to printing, it was the invention of movable type rather than printing per se that really changed things.

No it was not. Take your blinders off, it is getting painful to watch.

salaam.

 

[Fruitloop]

The Chinese had movable type by 1041 A.D.

In terms of why they didn't have an industrial revolution, there are a few reasons; the lack of a renaissance or reformation is a possibility, but there were more material historical features within Western society that propelled the industrial revolution here; availability of coal deposits near the surface, that the latter were easily transportable to where the factories were, and of course the biggy which was imperialism and the economic relationship of the imperial powers to their colonies.

There is also a theory that China was in what's called a high-level equilibrium trap, where their non-industrial methods were sufficiently productive to make the capital expenditure involved in mechanisation look less attractive.

 

[gorski]

1)Truthful but not heartfelt. I don't have a heart.

2) While we're doing truthful. Do you agree with Alex on post 91? I remember having to explain to you how broad philosophy used to be. It was a very slow and painful process. Like hitting a wall.

1) OKI, serve yourself...

2) I can lecture you on how broad Philosophy used to be, ye arrogant and pompous dick!!!

 

[butchersapron]

Of all the complex and developed societies that humanity has cobbled together, it was the one in which there was a deep and fundamental philosophical revolution - the very basis of which was philosophers questioning their deepest assumptions - that went on to develop a mode of thinking that enabled the industrial revolution and the digital age*.

Whether or not you find this 'reactionary' is not something that should affect your assessment of its historical accuracy.


*Decent epochal nomenclature pending.

Or, it was the already changing material and social circumstances that prompted philospophers to re-examine their previous assumptions.

 

[butchersapron]

There is also a theory that China was in what's called a high-level equilibrium trap, where their non-industrial methods were sufficiently productive to make the capital expenditure involved in mechanisation look less attractive.

Yep, the bountiful 'nature' of domestic human labour played a huge part.

 

[Aldebaran]

Of all the complex and developed societies that humanity has cobbled together, it was the one in which there was a deep and fundamental philosophical revolution - the very basis of which was philosophers questioning their deepest assumptions - that went on to develop a mode of thinking that enabled the industrial revolution and the digital age*.

If it were not for Muslim thinkers who studied, commented, translated (involving some Jewish and Christians equally) the ancient Greeks, your "English writing" would not even know they existed.
"Philosophical revolution"? You mean... this was due to the coincidence that the English language began to emerge out of imported mixture?

Like I said in my former post, this is getting painful to watch.

salaam.

 

[Santino]

Or, it was the already changing material and social circumstances that prompted philospophers to re-examine their previous assumptions.

No doubt. But it was the result of their ponderings that was important, not the social relations that allowed them to do so.

 

[butchersapron]

No doubt. But it was the result of their ponderings that was important, not the social relations that allowed them to do so.

Aboslutely not. Capitalism didn't develop out of a worked out plan that was then introduced. Economics developed after capitalism had started altering the essential social relations of society. Things just don't work like that. This is really old school phil idealism you're using here.

 

[Santino]

The English-speaking bit was a joke. And I know that Muslim scholars preserved and transmitted works of classical thought to Europe.

 

[Santino]

Aboslutely not. Capitalism didn't develop out of a worked out plan that was then introduced. Economics developed after capitalism had started altering the essential social relations of society. Things just don't work like that. This is really old school phil idealism you're using here.

You're probably right about capitalism, I've never been very impressed with economics as a 'science' anyway. And I am not as committed to the whiggish view that I am being assumed to hold.

But I am denying that:
a) philosophers have never said anything useful (the initial claim that dragged me into this thread)
b) modern science and its companions somehow emerged spontaneously because of socio-economic forces.