What do philosophers feel their role is?

Question

As cognitive neuroscience and psychology answer more and more of the questions as to how our minds work, and it becomes increasingly clear that there is no "Why?" where do philosophers see their role?

This is NOT intended to be a provocative question - I'm not suggesting that philosophers have no role - I'm wondering what they themselves see their most important role/roles as being?

Yes, I meant there is no large scale "Why" (as in "Why are we here?" is clearly a meaningless question) but did not mean there are no small scale "why"s.

And No. I am not suggesting that cognitive neuroscience and psychology are treading the same territory as philosophers. They are clearly not.


As you can probably guess I am from a neuroscience background, so this question is coming from someone with only a very basic philosophy background (I've read a little Nietzsche, Marx, Popper, Russell but really too random and too small a selection to get any real idea of philosophy as a whole).

Hence, when I ask what your role is, I don't mean in terms of utility to society, but in terms of what your remit is and what you personally hope to achieve. And if you truly feel you don't have a role, I'd quite like to know why.

To -.-

I am not suggesting and have not suggested there is no role for Philosophy of Mind.

Also science, if you knew anything about it, is nothing to do with what is practical, and we do not hide from paradoxes, the whole point is to search for them and try and resolve them through experimental investigation.

I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by my question that you need to denigrate my profession in order to validate yours.

Answer 1

Philosophy of Mind isn't moot.

Dennet HASN'T "explained consciousness"

If you want to take it seriously there's very relevant philosophical debates on perception, intentionality, computation, meaning, and understanding.

Philosophers live on the argument. They aren't scientists with experiments and control groups. Philosophy is critique, generating and attempting to solve through MANY distinctions, certified paradoxes that crop up in any field of interest. The scientist chooses to ignore them, use them, or make his own. So be it. Philosophy isn't about what's practical (though some FEEL the need to reduce it to such-- which is ultimately self-defeating). The truth isn't in an algorithm, isn't in a desired outcome.

-------------------

You misinterpreted what I said.

Regarding arguments and paradoxes: "The scientist chooses to ignore them, use them, or make his own"

you only read the "ignore" part.

And I disagree that science is disiniterested in the outcome. Nor is all of philosophy. I'm not in the least bit upset, I don't know what the big deal is. I'd write more but I have other stuff to do atm~

Answer 2

neuroscience and psychology have nothing to do with philosophy. usually philosophy doesn't exactly answer the "why" question. philosophy created the world we live in today.... for example: Communism comes from a philosopher; Nazism comes from a philosopher; democracy comes from a philosopher; today's economic system and capitalism were figured out by a philosopher; anarchy is a philosophy; and there are many more...... and I'm sure that the future will also be revolutionized by a philosopher. if you think about it (i mean no offense if you are a christian) in my opinion, Jesus Christ was a more a revolutionary and a philosopher than the son of God and prophet that we all are told

Answer 3

Science seeks what is correct. Philosophy seeks what is wise.

Science's study is formally limited to nature. If there is any such thing as the supernatural, then science would have nothing whatever to say about it while philosophy is free to roam.

Lastly, only some of us are scientists, but we're ALL philosophers!

Xan Shui,
Philosophical Philanthropist, Honest Man

Answer 4

I think many people may discover new treatments for recognition, help others, or just work for the money. This is discovery in a sense. However, I think philosophers attempt to not just discover something within the bounds of life, but try to discover the nature of life, amongst other topics.

I think they are necessary as people may go about their lives thinking it is normality, but when philosophy questions the normality, people begin to question their own reasoing for doing things. I believe this is healthy.

Answer 5

ive taken a few philosophy classes. one on moral philosophy which is a very useful class. it helps the student learn to make better decisions when facing a complex moral question.

i also took a logic class. that also is a very ueful class in helping the student form and pick apart arguments.

but i took a world philosophy class, and it was the teacher of this class who i would considor to be the biggest "philosopher". and his goal was simple. convert everyone on the planet earth to atheism. people like him, who feel they are superior to everyone else, will always feel like they have a role because they can help the rest of us stupid people advance as a society.

Answer 6

I learned in philosophy that the philosopher's goal is to push the boundaries of thought to think and make others think so deeply that they have the ability to "step out of their box" and stay out of it. It is no small feat it takes a lot of practice. Without this kind of thinking the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. There has been and is a need.

Answer 7

Your right, slowly but surely the other fields are encroaching on those subjects we classed as our own. However, there will always be need of those who will question, criticize and develop original and revolutionary thought and ideas. One example of how we are needed is the socio-biology debate. It stated some years ago that all ethics can be simplified to biological, material and evolutionary terms. This was debunked in the 60's/70's and Philosophers reclaimed their status as ethics masters.
The role of philosophers in my eyes is to regulate and critically respond to coomon notions of common "sense" that may lead to bad ends. However, it is a sign of every unwise rulership that they negate the philosophers in their society so that the rule is not questioned. this can be seen in the numbing of youthful minds to real debate and criticism, turning them into commercially hungry mush for brains who care more about that playstation game than global warming, or any other bad turn in world events we as a whole contribute to.
I am a liberal and an advocate of world freedom and peace but even i would be willing to subjugate myself to the wiser rule of a philosophical council than the directionless, profit greedy rule of the puppets of wealthy corporations.
So-in short, our role lies in ethics.
And we're increasingly needed to develop metaphysical models to fit the new string and quantum universes which are yearly unfolding before us.

Answer 8

There will always be a "why". Philosophers feel their role is not actually to answer the eternal "why"questions, just to think about them and make observations regarding the position of that particular "why" in a person's life.

Answer 9

i am currently reading a book about the history of philosphy(Sophie's World) and i'm not very impressed.
The writer seems to think philosophers are like babies.
they are fascinated about the world and don't get used to it and so they appreciate things more than normal people.
i think that is to some extent correct but it just sounded 'cocky' to me.
i didn't enjoy the fact that he spoke as if he was superior.
of course people should observe the world around them and appreciate the wonders of the world and not constantly be caught up in everyday life.
but,men have to work in order to bring in money for the family for example,the women have to cook for the children and make sure the house is in order.
the children have to go to school and watch tv to relx their mind.
the most provocative sentences i read in the book so far was one of sophie's thoughts:
"[Teachers] seemed to only talk about unimportant things"
"..thinking about[important questions]was more important than memorizing irregular verbs."
"she tried to forget what she learned at school,especially in science class"
i thought philosophy was about balance,turns out it isnt.
you can't spend the entire day explaining the whys and why nots of the world and you should devote some times in your life to observe.
there should be a balance which philosophers aren't creating.
they see themselves as the world's wakeup call.
they'd just destroy the balance.
we need them,but not if they think they are superior and more in touch with their surroundings than anyone else.
and not by calling other people's everyday life a waste of time.
and of course destroying the image of education for kids isn't acceptable either.
they need this education to be able to go on with their lives.
we can't have generations standing on rocks and looking at the sun 24/7.

Answer 10

The role of a philosopher is to help people help themselves,this may sound crazy due to the fact that majority of the philosophers today have taken up "preaching".It would be better if they asked their students to cultivate doubt,reason,logic,perception and not depend on escape mechanisms like faith,prayers,religious books etc.Don't get me wrong! To depend on others for your liberation and expect someone else to lead you to salvation is the most silly and illogical thing to expect.Maybe you take faith too seriously,cultivate doubt.That is how you realise God, not through blind faith expecting some miracle to lead to whatever it is that you want!!!! For a different approach to philosophy, may i suggest people to look up to J.KRISHNAMURTHI teachings. It is a welcome change!!!!