EDIT: you don't really need to read all that, jsut see that I wrote alot of stuff and assume that my previous statement is based on more than an ignorant bias agaisnt philosophers.
Originally posted by: Viper0329
I had begun to write a response, but I just discovered the problem that arises in my own question.
f95toli, Thanks for the time to reply. Yes, I am well aware of the distinction between philosophy and science, as I've done a fair bit of research in the subject. (I'm a philosophy major)
My question was poorly thought out as this was posted directly after a lecture without me giving much thought to it. In my haste, I mentally conflated some terms between the two disciplines that shouldn't have been.
BrownTown: At first, I thought the same thing about philosophy. But after spending 2 years studying it exclusively, it adds a wealth of information to the search for human understanding. Even though science and philosophy search for knowledge according to different methods, (Science being based upon empirical data, and philosophy using the ability of our intellects to reason) each is very important. The way you view the world right now is based upon hundreds of years of philosophical tradition. It's fascinating to study the evolution of human thought and to see how our interpretation of the world changes from generation to generation.
Philosophy can be a dodgy subject, but I think all realms of inquiry (even metaphysics) can teach us much about the world we live in and deserve to have time and effort put into them. It's easy to see though why many people feel metaphysics is worthless these days. After the Enlightenment, it's popularity dropped pretty quickly...
Actually, the evolution of human though is one of my personal interests, and something I wish I could take mroe classes in (though unfortunately me EE classes already keep me too busy to try to take on an even greater course load). I have perhaps come on a different road than you when it comes to philosohpy. When I was a high school senior I did alot of reading on my own in the study of philosophy, so I read books by Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Sir Thomas Moore, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, etc.., as I read these books I did in fact incorperate many of their points into my own philisophical structure. I guess I would best be classified as being a Utilitarian when it comes to moral thought, so you can classify me as such if you wish. However, after reading these books I came pretty much to the following conclusions:
1. As time progresses the nature of philosophy changes, even those like Nietzche who wriete about this end up fallign into the very trap which they so eloquently outline. IT is a fact that all of us our influenced by both our genetic predispositions, and personal expereinces, nobody can escape that, and therefore the philosophies of these people are not so much point towards a common and unifying philosophy, but instead are prisonors of their own time.
2. Philosophy has little bearing on the way people actually make descisions. Even people who have a well defined philisophical belief system rarely actually follow what they preach. This can best be seen in religious people who despite risking eternal d@mnation for sinning against God still manage to do it on a daily basis. If people are willing to break their beliefs at the risk of eternal suffering in order to satisfy greed or lust, then what could possibly make you think a secular person would act on their philosopy when it ran in contrast to their own interests. People act in their own interests in pretty much all cases, if you want someone to do something that is against their own interests you can't jsut make them beleive that it is ethically right, you have to make it NOT in their interest to disobey you.
3. When people of differnt philosophies meet it creates conflict, even when both sides beleive in mostly the same moral principals they both end up going agaisnt their own beliefs in order to try to convince the other side of their correctness. The fact of hte matter is that having 10 differnt competing philisophical viewpoints is a negative effect to our society, nto a positive one. Even though I am an atheist, and disagree very strongly with many of the beliefs of the Christian church I consider it a fact that the world woudl be better if everyone was a christian. But on the same token it would also be better if everyoen was a utilitarian, or a Jew, or a humanist. Continually searching for a correct philosophy does no good unless you can impliment it. Even if you were to find the perfect philosophy it woudl be better to have everyone agree one one moral code.
Sorry that I don't have time to proofread that and make it all cool sounding and intellectual, I'm sure that my inability to fully expound on my points will mean that they will be misinterpreted and therefore that it is almost certian that whatever you think I am trying to say is not what I am actually trying to say, but at least understand that I have come to my descision that philosphy is a no win situation only after considerable though to the matter, it is not through a lack of philisophical study that I have come to disregard most philosophy, but isntead an excess of real world study. Everything that can be explained by philosophy can be just as easy explained by science. The moral theories I have seen posited are more or less differnet ways of saying the same thing. We are born with a genetic instict of "good" and "evil", and of self interest, these philosophies simply try to put a silver coating on what is really not much more than animal instinct.