Is Religion / Philosophy stupid ? Philosophy has NOT changed in 2000 years. ? yes or no?
- j153eLv 75 months agoFavorite Answer
Philosophies continue to be put forward, usually dealing with classic questions such as what is the ideal society, and/or based on fundamental questions such as what is Truth/truth, what is the Good/good, etc.
Thus there are classical categories, and perspectival answers given in historical contexts (albeit often claimed to be timeless :-)
There are second-degree footnotings or framings of e.g. Plato by Plotinus, Descartes by Husserl, and the like. In modern academic system-building, there are layers of interwoven thinking, e.g. Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty; Kojeve, Lacan, Badiou, and Zizek; Bergson, Peirce, Deleuze, and Sloterdijk; etc., with subsequent academically-supported systems-building of sometimes-notably byzantine, rococo, or even bizarre proportions, disproportions, and distortions.
There is a feedforward among various measurings or sciences, such as psychology, and philosophers such as Husserl and Wittgenstein.
Beginning around the fin de siecle, a significant increase in human cognition has occurred, whether in physics (quantum, cosmology, relativity), in logics (Frege, Whitehead and Russell, Godel, Cohen), maths (Hilbert, Peano, Brouwer, Poincare, Cantor), in philosophy (Husserl, Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and, imho, more evanescent manifestations such as much of neopragmatism, critical theory, post-structuralism, and some of logical positivism), and in religion (Baha'i, Ahmadiyya Islam, Christian Science, modern (post-Reform) Judaism, some of the new age groups, the work of the "lesser" Savior Sri Ramakrishna, Mother Meera, Meher Baba, and so on).
p.s. In the general interest of truth-in-labeling, here is a reasonably-balanced article on one of the terms sometimes bandied about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philoso... and another on the straw concept seemingly (and ironically, subjectively) used in an achronistic, black and white fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
Would suggest that harsh, condemnatory criticism of an entire swath of philosophy in the mode of championing a type of thinking as the modern/only good mode is less helpful, especially if the term or mode is not given a reasonable presentation/explication by the would-be champion.
- HenryLv 52 months ago
Those are 2 questions. No it is not stupid. Philosophy has changed loads!
- Anonymous4 months ago
Philosophy has changed. It's an exploration. Exploration doesn't end.
- DejairLv 65 months ago
The truth is always the same ; but we can show artisticaly our comprehension. Super-health, shiny youth, comfortable wealth !
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- EnguerarrardLv 75 months ago
Philosophy changes slowly, but there was a lot of development after the Renaissance. The philosophy of science is one such development. Materialism, vitalism, and economic philosophies like capitalism and socialism are all modern. Existentialism developed in the mid 1800s, and there is more.
- A CLv 65 months ago
Philosophy is just a fancy word for wool gathering. Most religion is stupid with the exception of Bible-based Christianity.
- ⁅ʜᴀᴢʏ⁆Lv 55 months ago
you should go online and see how many stupid people is out there, internet is stupid
- peter mLv 65 months ago
Philosophy is not stupid-for-not-changing.
It has I believe mistakenly become like a religion with floored lawlike methods and a
consequent collapse in its general aim to change existing behaviour for the better.
Closely connected with science Philosophy has become a collaborator with
its distinguished partner. And in becoming a collaborator it has to take-on
responsibility for science's mistakes - mistakes now of an impending
Environmental kind like Climate change which has until recently been
thought of as a mistake solely by the scientists & technologists, Science
This odd reliance of philosophy closely becoming aligned with science
has not been so much an unplanned thing. For it is a direct result of
academic philosophy becoming & reverting back to a more personal
& a more insensitive alternative to fact based philosophy - that is
a learning area which has much-to-learn & so has much-behaviour-to
This personal & insensitive philosophy goes by the old name of "subjective
philosophy" as opposed to a more reflective academic sometimes known
as objective philosophy.
We would expect that being of the personal type of philosophy such would it
be more closely integrated with its subject knowledge. But a quick look at
its inner workings show that this is not the case. Two strands to this are 1)
the personal & PRIVATE philosophies that you or I may hold based upon
what we ourselves have learned individually through our different experiences
& what all this has done to change-our-behaviour - where such behaviour is
"deviant" from the normal uninspired day-to-day behaviour that most of us
know & are aware of