Does all philosophy boil down to the mind/body problem?

Question

That's the opinion I came to when I was studying philosophy. I actually gave up the course (though I still read philosophy) once I'd read that conclusion. It seems to me that if we conclude that dualism is mistaken and that consciousness is a purely material phenomenon-- and it seems to me all too likely that we will-- philosophy is over and science reigns supreme.

Anna, thanks for your link. I've read the objectivists' website, and found it not only wicked but crude.

Answer 1

To being with, I don't think that the whole thing boils down to the mind/body problem. I would also say that, even if it did, why give up on it? That's a rich mine you're talking about and we've been working it since 40BC or so.

The mind/body problem has lots of implications especially if taken in the broadest possible way (which I imagine you've done) but it has no bearing on a lot of the work being done in contemporary Philosophy.

Can biology be reduced to physics? Can 'social sciences' be reduced to physics? What is our ethical obligation towards the unborn, the dying, the impoverished, animals, the world as a habitat, etc. These are all still live questions in philosophy. We haven't even touched on the philosophy of language or epistemology yet. How much of the meaning of the terms we used is derived and how much is inherent? Do we group like things because of some similarity or are there no real grouping of things at all?

Logic: how do we know math is possible? Sure it works but on what basis? Faith? We've been trying to figure out if we can have a logically based mathematical system for over a hundred years now. Seems like we should be able to but no one has had luck with it. At least not yet.

Look back up. Look at all the questions. None of them hinge on the mind/body problem but they're all interesting philosophical questions. So no, I don't think we leave it to the scientists and walk off the field. To start with, we're playing on the same side. The loss of philosophy only hurts the hard sciences.

Answer 2

Not at all. There's philosophy of language, logical theory, epistemology, ethics, Philosophy in the sense of how to live one's life and countless other areas. The mind-body problem does influence these: for instance, if mind is entirely physically based rather than a separate substance, killing has a different ethical significance because it brings a permanent end to consciousness, but so far as i can see, i don't think there is any connection between the mind-body problem and either logical theory or the philosophy of language. How does the issue of whether a name refers to the same object in all possible words have any connection to the relationship between mind and body? What is the connection between the validity or otherwise of the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions and the nature of mind?

Are you saying, though, that these other considerations are not philosophical? If so, what are they? Is it that they're meaningless or pointless and that the mind-body problem is the only important philosophical question?

Answer 3

i'd like to say dont be daft(= silly)!
But you have a point.

Ever since Sir karl said recently(and for those who have
never heard of this brilliant scholar Popper)- that a lot of certainly
academic philosophy is nothing but an"inbreeding",of
those who like quick-and-determine-ed answers;the
classic case is that so-called philosophy of language,and
its stupifying and disgraceful claim to fame(!)(a la wittgen
stein).
And if you think in-breeding is O.K.;then go back to your
closed-world Clan,and think that "philosophy" is "finished"
and "Science" rules.
For any idiot should now be able to see that in our (darwinian
= take advantage of every niche) technological world,the
use and almost free burning of fossil fuels means that a
certain episode in scientific life-Our life-is finished.
As to the supposed fact that some academics or students have supposedly "concluded that dualism is mistaken"and
that "consciousness is a purely material phenomenon"
i think shows not only that you have been duped,but also
that you have in-bred.
We ought to laugh out loud,but i hope and fear that lots of
interested and inquisitve young students may not hear this.
But in that case,i hope that better others will help them see
that "philosophy is Not over,and that science does not and
will never reign supreme" compared to all the other equal
knowledge that is our privilige(~) to love and learn.

Answer 4

My guru Srila Prabhupada said that the philosophy or religion that don't help us to get free from the circle of birth and death is useless.
If the so called philosophy is dwelling with the body and mind, it is not philosophy, but just waste of time.
Philosophy has to be scientific: be able to provide the knowledge about the spiritual soul, about God, about Nature, etc and a method of which we can practise the rules and regulation and teaching from it , so to elevate our consciousness and the result, that is the experience in our own self about what we studied and practise.

Answer 5

Nope, respectfully disagree 180 degrees. I think that the true evolution of man is from the material realm to the spiritual realm. The true consciousness of man is spiritual, not material. Science uses the carnal mind to reach its conclusions, but still falls short of the true understanding of reality the further it gets into the nature of things.

Some famous philosopher said , and I concur, "Man is not a material creature striving to attain a spiritual nature, but a spiritual being living a material existence"

Answer 6

Are both philosophy and science heartless disciplines? Do thoughts elevate human spirit? And what is the alternative of God in philosophy? Philosophy thrives upon sheer wonder and inquisitiveness about all things in the mind that is passionate about reaching closest to the ultimate truth, whereas science is based upon certainties that it keeps inherent to its structure, and to methodical approach it applies in its quests; where philosophy in general reaches out of the realms of the certainties of science to explore the boundaries of knowledge by systematic questioning, science remove all uncertainties first.

What brings philosophy to life for a person, however, is his deep involvement with philosophical thoughts, where a mere grasp of ideas being conveyed into a mind from outside sources would not impart its true sense, the true sense of wonder that is a virtue of an inquisitive mind - a mind has to be virtuous in this sense and in its own right to be right in philosophy. As one could become an accomplished philosopher by suitable intellectual inclinations, by undertaking adequate courses in study, and by handwork, but there is no guarantee for success, happiness, or spiritual elevation.

In my view, a mind in its true sense should be like a candle that would see with its own light, however there may be things better illuminated by their brighter colours and lighter shades around relatively easily detectable and worthy of notice, but a mind alive and alight with sense of being and therefore with divine sense of wonder would always retain its innate ability to cause radiation for the world that could be. You may call this philosophy, but I know that this is only as philosophical as I am myself, in my personal view of things of my world.

Philosophy is indeed hard world and an uphill task for the objective minds when it comes to pondering about issues of morality, ethics and social values based upon proper understanding of concepts of justice, right and wrong. In this domain philosophy is no less objective than medical science, and responsibility not any lesser than the implementation of justice itself.

A happy philosophy day, today!

Answer 7

no....philosophy evolve from the experiences, from the learnings and observations...the ultimate end of these philosophical thoughts is to guide us to find our happiness, peace,love,contentment..the real values in life!

Answer 8

Go here:
http://www.objectivismonline.net/archives/2005_07.html

And read this:

An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

i accept. but it does kinda boil down to supersticion as well.