Does the world have a dominant philosophy?

[jay gw]

Is there any philosophy that you see holding a more/less popular position in the world today?

I think that marxism is on the wane from a once high position.

Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.

Freudian psychoanalysis has waned tremendously and is laughed at by many in the field.

[Zep]

In general answer, it's always been: I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, STUFF YOU!

[lifegazer]

Actually, Zep is right. Hardly anybody gives a stuff, from what I've seen.

And another point: what knowledge has science provided which has negated the existence of God?

It's a myth that science is a philosophy or the basis for one. A very naive myth, at that.

[Anathema]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, Zep is right. Hardly anybody gives a stuff, from what I've seen.

And another point: what knowledge has science provided which has negated the existence of God?

It's a myth that science is a philosophy or the basis for one. A very naive myht, at that. Axe-grinding, anyone?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Actually, Zep is right. Hardly anybody gives a stuff, from what I've seen.

And another point: what knowledge has science provided which has negated the existence of God?

It's a myth that science is a philosophy or the basis for one. A very naive myht, at that.

I have no idea what imagined post by Zep you are responding to, because you are making no sense. And then you are asking what one thing in the whole of human knowledge has negated the existence of an imagined figure? There is no need to negate an imagined figure, no matter how old.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
I have no idea what imagined post by Zep you are responding to
Perhaps you need glasses:
"Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.

[Donks]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Perhaps you need glasses:
"Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.
Zep didn't post that.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Perhaps you need glasses:
"Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.

People always ask why, why does the sun rise, why do volcanoes explode, why do people die. An easy answer people came up with was "god did it". More and more over the past 2000 or so years, we've been able to replace those answers with scientifically based ones.

There isn't as much need for superstition.

Perhaps you need reading and comprehensive skills btw, zep said no such thing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
People always ask why, why does the sun rise, why do volcanoes explode, why do people die. An easy answer people came up with was "god did it". More and more over the past 2000 or so years, we've been able to replace those answers with scientifically based ones.

Science has the absolute answer for nothing Russ. So spare us the sales pitch.

Perhaps you need reading and comprehensive skills btw, zep said no such thing.
Sorry about that. Thought you were complaining about my science comment.
... So when I said "Actually, Zep is right. Hardly anybody gives a stuff, from what I've seen.", you saw no relation with my response to what Zep did say?

[c4ts]

If you have a problem with modern philosophy, just say what it is. A valid critique of modern thought is much better than just wasting time saying you hate something because you think it's popular or dominant, or that certain things appear to be trends. The latter is just your view, and you pretending that your opinion is the same as fact. If you think that certain philosophies influence society, say what it is, where it comes from, where you can see the influence, and what you find is wrong with it. Also why.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
If you have a problem with modern philosophy, just say what it is. A valid critique of modern thought is much better than just wasting time saying you hate something because you think it's popular or dominant, or that certain things appear to be trends. The latter is just your view, and you pretending that your opinion is the same as fact. If you think that certain philosophies influence society, say what it is, where it comes from, where you can see the influence, and what you find is wrong with it. Also why.
Is this directed at me?
I could talk about this subject for hours. I was just cheesed-off by that statement in the OP about science providing the philosophical answers which have brought about the demise of religion & metaphysics.
Science has done no such thing. As I said to Russ, science has the absolute answer for nothing.
It's neither a philosophy nor the basis of one.

[Dancing David]

I would say hat in the USA there is a dominant paradigm of "realism", which shows in very strange ways. In movies of the forties there is a definite trend to knock down the Santa myth and despite the Miracle on 34 Street, there are many other movies which demonstrate people saying that you shouldn't teach the Santa myth.

There may be debates about what is 'real' but I feel that pragmatism or realism rules in the USA. Outside of the bible belt.

[espritch]

As I said to Russ, science has the absolute answer for nothing. It's neither a philosophy nor the basis of one.

That is true. Science does not provide absolute answers. However, every absolute answer I've seen profered has always turned out to be somebody's personal opinion based on unprovable assumptions. I'll take the evidence based conditional answers of science over absolute assumptions any day.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jay gw

Is there any philosophy that you see holding a more/less popular position in the world today?

I think that marxism is on the wane from a once high position.

Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.

Freudian psychoanalysis has waned tremendously and is laughed at by many in the field. Politcal Correctness? ... :cool:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Zep

In general answer, it's always been: I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, STUFF YOU! Or ... "Here it is, take it leave it."

[TragicMonkey]

I think there's a surge in the philosophy of life that can be summed up as "Whatever!" A sort of disdain and apathy mixed together. My generation is so good at apathy. Not that I care.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think there's a surge in the philosophy of life that can be summed up as "Whatever!" A sort of disdain and apathy mixed together. My generation is so good at apathy. Not that I care.

I believe the usual term for this philosophical position is "pragmatism", and I would be comfortable considering pragmatism to be the dominant philosophy in the world today. This also ties well into Zep's statement about the dominant philosophy.

And, contra Zep, there is a strong overlap between the scientific worldview and the pragmatic one; science has a very good (pragmatic) track record at answering questions within its remit, much better than most competitors, and much more easily accessible within the framework of pragmatism. I think the success of science in producing gadgets that simply work, even if you don't understand the mechanisms underlying them, has helped support a philosophy that disdains the hard work of understanding.....

[Eleatic Stranger]

Of course if you want to call it 'pragmatism' you should probably be careful to add "but not what we talk about when we talk about the pragmatist philosophers (Dewey, Pierce, James, Rorty, Brandom, etc. etc.) because that's something different."

Also, I'm curious jay, when you said:

Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world.

You meant that religion qua metaphysics is decreasing in popularity, right? And not that metaphysics is a subset of religion in general (and the part that is decreasing in popularity). If you meant the first of those then there's something to that - though I'm not sure it's entirely accurate in much of the world -, but if you meant the second then it's just plain crazytalk.

[jay gw]

I believe the usual term for this philosophical position is "pragmatism", and I would be comfortable considering pragmatism to be the dominant philosophy in the world today. This also ties well into Zep's statement about the dominant philosophy.

I didn't mention it in my op because I was waiting for someone else to, but this is my view too.

Why is the pragmatism of Dewey not the same?

Science has an easier time in a pragmatic environment than in a religious one, but it would be better if the public really understood what was going on, and the scientific literacy of the average person doesn't seem too high. People can't even explain what's behind the cell phone, Xbox etc.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jay gw
Is there any philosophy that you see holding a more/less popular position in the world today?
Yes. Empiricism. It's the one that everyone uses 99% of the time.

The other 1% of the time, they want to believe something that isn't true, so they use a different philosophy.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by jay gw

Religion is decreasing, specifically metaphysics, in popularity in most of the world. Probably due to the increasingly important role of science.



As they say in the Southland, "you're not from around here, are you?"

Seventy-two percent of registered voters in the U.S. believe it is important for the president to have strong religious beliefs. Religion might be decreasing in the rest of the world, but given that every month, another county or state tries to add Intelligent Design to a science curriculum, it is not declining around these parts.

I agree with Zep although I might go a bit further and say the most popular attitude in the U.S. is: "I've got mine so f' you. In fact I'll enjoy having mine even more if you don't have any at all."

[Correa Neto]

I agree and will go beyond.

World´s top philosophy has been:

MONEY-MAKING!!!

Money is the true god all around the world worship it, since it was invented. Only money has the power to improve your life, provide you power, heal you, save you, get you sport cars, yatchs, dazzling women, etc.

Money is the only and true God and Greenspan is Its prophet.
In Money we trust.

edited to add:

Oh Lord, won´t you buy me a Mercedes-Benz...

[uruk]

It's a myth that science is a philosophy or the basis for one. A very naive myth, at that.
That's right LG. Because in many areas science has surpassed philosophy in answering question.

And before you trot out your worn out response of "science does not study anything real" hogwash. You cannot prove it. And you never will.

[hgc]

The world's dominant philosophy is: IMMORTALITY, driven by fear of death and meaninglessness.

[uruk]

The world's dominant philosophy is: IMMORTALITY, driven by fear of death and meaninglessness.
Which some day we may achieved through science.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Correa Neto

World´s top philosophy has been:

MONEY-MAKING!!!


It is as true today as when it was put to music: Money makes the world go 'round.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
As I said to Russ, science has the absolute answer for nothing.
It's neither a philosophy nor the basis of one.

Evidently you missed out on the Age of Enlightenment. Sir Francis Bacon's philosophy is the foundation of modern scientific thought, and if you'd read his works and naturalistic philosophy leading up to it, you'd realize that science is a philosophy because of its foundations in it. The idea that the sensible universe is intelligeable, that it behaves in ways we can understand and predict, this is part of the philosophy of science. The ideas that nature can be observed, tested, and experimented with in order to learn more, these also come largely from Bacon. In fact, it used to be that scientific papers were considered philosophy, and only relatively recently has there been anything separating the two, and only then because so much progress was made in that one area.

[Eleatic Stranger]

...and only then because so much progress was made in that one area.

Which, I should note, did not mean it substantially changed from a subsection of philosophy to a different discipline entirely, but simply that it became large enough that subsuming it under philosophy became really, really unwieldy.

The fact that they're considered as different is essentially born of convenience.