Philosophy declares its goal as the search for truth.
The problem is that there are two truths in the most relevant behavior of people:�
Prokhindeyskaya truth: how to take advantage of the imperfection of laws and social norms (and they are certainly imperfect in any society), and even how to organize the adoption of personally beneficial laws or change of norms.Prohindeyskaya truth is objective, reproducible (it can be taught to others), i.e. it has all the attributes of real truth. Powerful clans had taught her the nuances of their heirs for centuries, either personally or with the help of advisers like Machiavelli.
Scoundrelism harms society and reduces its chances of survival. But the bearers of pro-indian knowledge usually find out about problems before anyone else and move to a new city or country.
The statesman's truth is about how everyone should behave in order for society to develop and be successful in the historical perspective. What laws should or should not be adopted for this purpose, and what norms of behavior should be encouraged.
This truth is also completely objective and reproducible, for example, a trained treasurer can bring order to the mint of any country. Or a good lawyer – in city court proceedings.
But historical success takes a long time to manifest, and the laws of development of societies are relatively complex, we learn them only in fact, and each student's own shirt is usually closer to the body.
But a well-organized society has a much better chance of becoming a great empire and being a role model for other peoples for hundreds of years.
So it turns out that philosophers are forced to build their theories about what is and what is based on two different objective truths, one of which is in great demand, and the second (by definition) wins in the historical perspective.
But in fact, we have a constant struggle, as in the well-known wisdom:
Difficult times produce strong people.
Strong people create good times .
Good times produce weak people.
Weak people create difficult times.
Accordingly, the first part of the answer about who needs philosophy is quite simple: scoundrels need a scoundrel's philosophy.�
But with the second – the problem: the statist philosophy is needed only for future generations and rare lovers of public (supra-personal, i.e. higher) truth. But it benefits from a historical perspective and is copied as a best practice by peoples who have become part of great empires.�
Until then, of course, until the scoundrels destroy everything there, too.
First of all, you should define the concept of “science”. Etymologically, science is something that can be taught. There is a process of transferring knowledge and skills from teacher to student, which in the future creates an increment of this knowledge and skills and, in turn, becomes a teacher for his students, etc. From this perspective, the difference between philosophy and science in your understanding disappears.
If we look at the question in retrospect, then the ” sciences “are essentially specializations of” natural philosophical ” rationalizations about various aspects of the surrounding world.
The trick also lies in the fact that the very process of scientific knowledge involves the need to reproduce the philosophical procedure for identifying positive knowledge from false representations, which goes back not only to Francis Bacon's philosophical treatise “The New Organon”. but also to the aphorism of Socrates: “I know I don't know anything.” If we add to this the understanding of relativity and infinity of scientific knowledge, which is also a philosophical and epistemological thesis, then the problem can be considered exhausted. A modern scientist simply needs to be philosophically literate for his professional viability, otherwise he will not be a scientist, but a highly qualified technician-craftsman.
I dare say that in the modern era it is necessary to include in the general education programs of schools propaedeutic courses of the basics of philosophical knowledge, with reference to the courses of literature and mathematics. In any case, classical logic and rhetoric are necessary from the first grade. Electives in ethics and aesthetics would not be superfluous, and subject electives would include the history of these subjects and students would be aware of the conflicts and role of philosophy in the formation and development of sciences. Only then will the fragmentary “clip-like” nature of thought-knowledge be replaced by the integrity and consistency of thinking and perception of the world.
More and more scientists are turning to philosophy. Perhaps the most striking example is physicists trying to find the causes of the crisis in their science (there are many such books now). They turn to the theory of knowledge. But even earlier, prominent scientists did not neglect philosophy: Heisenberg, Russell, Schrodinger, Vernadsky, etc. Philosophy is not necessary only for mediocre artisan scientists who do not seek to delve deeply into science.
The statement is not correct! And here's the reason: In the true version, and it is not replaceable by any of the entities,including a person…Religion+Philosophy+Science! The true state of things turns out to be the following: For what,or for what purposes,a person tries to change the approach to Philosophy ,naturally either understanding or not understanding the very fact of a certain Triumvirate of Quantities.But even here, each of the paths of the approach requires detailed reasoning! With respect.
Philosophy tries to replace not science, but religion, it usually talks about those things in which science is not boom-boom. Sometimes it relies on scientific statements, sometimes it rejects science. But he doesn't compete with her.
First of all, scientists need philosophy; it allows them to publicly voice unproven or unverifiable problems.
But for science, these are new problems that need to be solved, and the solution process creates a lot of side benefits, both for scientists and ordinary people
There is an opinion that philosophy is a search for truth about truth. Obviously, in the case of real objects, the structure of such a statement turns out to be degenerate. Search for stone by stone, search for hand by hand. But when it comes to non-material objects, such linguistic constructions have a downright sacred meaning and frightening depth. There are also sections of philosophy that study thinking as something immaterial. I.e., in fact, philosophers study and create (fence) the above-mentioned ideas about their ideas.�
Unlike the ancient philosophers, who had an advanced (albeit erroneous) understanding of the physical world at that time, today's philosophers are usually completely ignorant of this. Their training is limited to studying ideas about the ideas of their predecessors, and they try not to touch reality from the word at all.�
Then why do we need them at all? Why train and support them at state expense?�
But because they think within paid paradigms, they are criticized and blamed for their deviations. Soviet philosophers have worked to justify (argue for) the superiority of the materialism of socialism/communism/the planned system, while Western philosophers have labored to justify the way of life of their society.
Science without philosophy is difficult to adapt to scientifically illiterate people�
Science without philosophy loses its soul. We are already seeing the commercialization of such human sciences as medicine and pedagogy.�
Science leads to tools and solutions, but only philosophy can give these tools and solutions human meanings�
Science covers a limited range of questions, which give rise to even more questions, while metaphysics tries to free itself from limitations�
Scientists, for the most part, are themselves lovers of the works of ancient philosophers and still refer to them in their preface. Most scientists adhere to secular humanism.�
Philosophers are less dependent on the support of the state or entrepreneurs
In a world where one scientist can provide resources to 2 million people, his authority will be crushed, which is fraught with political destabilization.�
Scientists will not be able to hold power without philosophy and historical context�
The scientific world is overgrown with myths, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the scientific in the midst of a sea of pseudoscientific and mutated scientoids�
Science can extend the average life expectancy to 120 years, but does it really matter if people don't know how to live even 30?
Science in the wrong hands leads to more villainy than philosophy�
Being an independent scientist can be perceived as a challenge to the system. This is a very dangerous profession and there is a high risk that you will be killed or your work will be stolen
Science lives in a multiple world of highly specialized professionals, which is different from the whole world … �
Science, like philosophy, belongs to profane worldviews and has only a relative advantage. It is foolish to hope that scientific thinking will not be replaced by something that will be considered more developed for the next era. Science is waiting for the same thing as shamanism…the world does not stand still!
Perhaps in order not to be content with mathematical, physical, biological, chemical and other fragmentary models of the World and Man. And to see the full “picture” of the World and the Person in your mind. This is for Philosophers. And for true philosophers, it is also important to try not to be content with the “complete picture of the World and Man” in their minds, but to know the World and Man as they are, and not in the “picture”. That's something like this, if very briefly. All the best.
So many smart answers and so many stupid ones at the same time. Philosophy is needed primarily in order to create new disciplines, including scientific ones. The problem is that now many people perceive philosophy as a way to show how spiritual and intelligent he is, while keeping in mind a couple of statements from Nietzsche. But all real scientists have a wonderful command of philosophy.
Because philosophy requires thinking about issues that science does not deal with or deals with indirectly. For example, all kinds of paradoxes of knowledge, understanding the place of a person in this world, delving into the nature of their consciousness and inner world, questions of morality. These are purely humanitarian issues, but they require serious skill and intelligence, but if they are ignored, then a lot of problems will arise, both in your own life and in the whole society.
Philosophy declares its goal as the search for truth.
The problem is that there are two truths in the most relevant behavior of people:�
Scoundrelism harms society and reduces its chances of survival. But the bearers of pro-indian knowledge usually find out about problems before anyone else and move to a new city or country.
This truth is also completely objective and reproducible, for example, a trained treasurer can bring order to the mint of any country. Or a good lawyer – in city court proceedings.
But historical success takes a long time to manifest, and the laws of development of societies are relatively complex, we learn them only in fact, and each student's own shirt is usually closer to the body.
But a well-organized society has a much better chance of becoming a great empire and being a role model for other peoples for hundreds of years.
So it turns out that philosophers are forced to build their theories about what is and what is based on two different objective truths, one of which is in great demand, and the second (by definition) wins in the historical perspective.
But in fact, we have a constant struggle, as in the well-known wisdom:
Accordingly, the first part of the answer about who needs philosophy is quite simple: scoundrels need a scoundrel's philosophy.�
But with the second – the problem: the statist philosophy is needed only for future generations and rare lovers of public (supra-personal, i.e. higher) truth. But it benefits from a historical perspective and is copied as a best practice by peoples who have become part of great empires.�
Until then, of course, until the scoundrels destroy everything there, too.
Why do we need philosophy if science has found answers to all the questions that philosophy asks?
Why do we need philosophy in the modern world? What significant philosophical concepts were created in the 21st century?
What do philosophers do? Why do we need a philosophy?
Why do we need a philosophy? How does a real philosopher differ from a drunken Vasyan?
What is philosophy? Why read the great philosophers? If I read their works, think about their words, will I learn to think in my own way? How do you learn to think and look at the world with your own eyes?
First of all, you should define the concept of “science”. Etymologically, science is something that can be taught. There is a process of transferring knowledge and skills from teacher to student, which in the future creates an increment of this knowledge and skills and, in turn, becomes a teacher for his students, etc. From this perspective, the difference between philosophy and science in your understanding disappears.
If we look at the question in retrospect, then the ” sciences “are essentially specializations of” natural philosophical ” rationalizations about various aspects of the surrounding world.
The trick also lies in the fact that the very process of scientific knowledge involves the need to reproduce the philosophical procedure for identifying positive knowledge from false representations, which goes back not only to Francis Bacon's philosophical treatise “The New Organon”. but also to the aphorism of Socrates: “I know I don't know anything.” If we add to this the understanding of relativity and infinity of scientific knowledge, which is also a philosophical and epistemological thesis, then the problem can be considered exhausted. A modern scientist simply needs to be philosophically literate for his professional viability, otherwise he will not be a scientist, but a highly qualified technician-craftsman.
I dare say that in the modern era it is necessary to include in the general education programs of schools propaedeutic courses of the basics of philosophical knowledge, with reference to the courses of literature and mathematics. In any case, classical logic and rhetoric are necessary from the first grade. Electives in ethics and aesthetics would not be superfluous, and subject electives would include the history of these subjects and students would be aware of the conflicts and role of philosophy in the formation and development of sciences. Only then will the fragmentary “clip-like” nature of thought-knowledge be replaced by the integrity and consistency of thinking and perception of the world.
More and more scientists are turning to philosophy. Perhaps the most striking example is physicists trying to find the causes of the crisis in their science (there are many such books now). They turn to the theory of knowledge. But even earlier, prominent scientists did not neglect philosophy: Heisenberg, Russell, Schrodinger, Vernadsky, etc. Philosophy is not necessary only for mediocre artisan scientists who do not seek to delve deeply into science.
The statement is not correct! And here's the reason: In the true version, and it is not replaceable by any of the entities,including a person…Religion+Philosophy+Science! The true state of things turns out to be the following: For what,or for what purposes,a person tries to change the approach to Philosophy ,naturally either understanding or not understanding the very fact of a certain Triumvirate of Quantities.But even here, each of the paths of the approach requires detailed reasoning! With respect.
Philosophy tries to replace not science, but religion, it usually talks about those things in which science is not boom-boom. Sometimes it relies on scientific statements, sometimes it rejects science. But he doesn't compete with her.
Science is not free enough .
First of all, scientists need philosophy; it allows them to publicly voice unproven or unverifiable problems.
But for science, these are new problems that need to be solved, and the solution process creates a lot of side benefits, both for scientists and ordinary people
There is an opinion that philosophy is a search for truth about truth. Obviously, in the case of real objects, the structure of such a statement turns out to be degenerate. Search for stone by stone, search for hand by hand. But when it comes to non-material objects, such linguistic constructions have a downright sacred meaning and frightening depth. There are also sections of philosophy that study thinking as something immaterial. I.e., in fact, philosophers study and create (fence) the above-mentioned ideas about their ideas.�
Unlike the ancient philosophers, who had an advanced (albeit erroneous) understanding of the physical world at that time, today's philosophers are usually completely ignorant of this. Their training is limited to studying ideas about the ideas of their predecessors, and they try not to touch reality from the word at all.�
Then why do we need them at all? Why train and support them at state expense?�
But because they think within paid paradigms, they are criticized and blamed for their deviations. Soviet philosophers have worked to justify (argue for) the superiority of the materialism of socialism/communism/the planned system, while Western philosophers have labored to justify the way of life of their society.
Perhaps in order not to be content with mathematical, physical, biological, chemical and other fragmentary models of the World and Man. And to see the full “picture” of the World and the Person in your mind. This is for Philosophers. And for true philosophers, it is also important to try not to be content with the “complete picture of the World and Man” in their minds, but to know the World and Man as they are, and not in the “picture”. That's something like this, if very briefly. All the best.
So many smart answers and so many stupid ones at the same time. Philosophy is needed primarily in order to create new disciplines, including scientific ones. The problem is that now many people perceive philosophy as a way to show how spiritual and intelligent he is, while keeping in mind a couple of statements from Nietzsche. But all real scientists have a wonderful command of philosophy.
Because philosophy requires thinking about issues that science does not deal with or deals with indirectly. For example, all kinds of paradoxes of knowledge, understanding the place of a person in this world, delving into the nature of their consciousness and inner world, questions of morality. These are purely humanitarian issues, but they require serious skill and intelligence, but if they are ignored, then a lot of problems will arise, both in your own life and in the whole society.