Is Philosophy Dead?
Stephen Hawking |
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking says that
"philosophy has not kept up with modern discoveries in
science, particularly physics."
The amusing bit here is that all scientific inquiry is philosophical. Science makes certain assumptions in its approach to understanding the world.
These assumptions flow from a philosophical viewpoint. Hawking’s focus on scientific reasoning is an ideology, a worldview that flows from positivism. No scientist is an objective machine.
The amusing bit here is that all scientific inquiry is philosophical. Science makes certain assumptions in its approach to understanding the world.
These assumptions flow from a philosophical viewpoint. Hawking’s focus on scientific reasoning is an ideology, a worldview that flows from positivism. No scientist is an objective machine.
Positivism is an epistemological assumption, an idea about
how we know. Before we can investigate reality we need a framework for
organizing our knowledge. What sort of questions do we ask? What can be known?
It would be a waste of time to ask questions about what cannot be known. So,
philosophy helps us to narrow our search by helping us to frame our questions.
Kant attempted to limit metaphysical questions, adopting the
attitude that philosophy was really a theory of knowledge. Instead of taking
interest in the great cosmic problems, he tried to stop centuries of
philosophical thought by reframing the problem to fit his critique. His
question was “How are synthetic judgments possible a priori?” He
concluded that philosophy is unable to answer metaphysical questions and as
such concludes that philosophy should serve the hard sciences, especially
physics. That philosophy which follows Kant’s tends to avoid the difficult
questions. Having abdicated this area of thinking, philosophy appears to have
died, at least academically.
José Ortega y Gasset´s Perspectivism was a reaction to
Kant. Perspectivism is the position that one's access to the world through
perception, experience, and reason is possible only through one's own
perspective and interpretation. It rejects both the idea of a perspective-free
or an interpretation-free objective reality. Ortega y Gasset´s Perspectivism is
useful in developing a reaction to Kant.
In What is Philosophy Ortega y Gasset observes
that the post-Darwinian 19th century witnessed a sea-change in how science
pretends to know. The idea was that the “soft sciences” such as biology would
no longer content itself with generalizations, but would introduce mathematical
rigor in its way of knowing. A way of knowing based on a wholistic
understanding, generalizations based on clinical practice and a lifetime of
experience would no longer be permitted. The new way of knowing would be
“objective” and “pragmatic,” based on mathematical models. The sort of science
that involved precise deductions, sensory observation, and experimental
knowledge was new. The idea was that there was a scientific method that would
combine pure reasoning by which we arrive at logical conclusions and pure
experimental perception, confirming the conclusions of pure theory. This method
of knowing, the 19th century method of science ushered in advances in physics
that would be the intellectual marvel of the 20th Century.
Ortega y Gasset, being a philosopher, recognized that the
method itself would not suffice for carrying the science of physics to its
incredible triumphs. Pure logic and simple objective perception alone did not
alone create the scientific paradigm that would carry human society forward to
such advances. The first two sides of the triangle, logic and perception were
powerful. But there is a third which gives its power to the paradigm: Practical
utility.
Apart from pure logic and objective perception, practical
utility drives the paradigm. Since the 19th century, practical utility for the
human society has driven scientific achievement and discovery. Ortega y Gasset
points out that “practical utility” is an inadequate framework for scientific
inquiry:
“The third characteristic, its practical utility for man’s
dominion over matter, is not exactly a virtue or a test of the perfection of
physics as a theory and a form of knowledge.” (What is Philosophy, José Ortega
y Gasset, p.41) In Greece, this utilitarian fruitfulness would not have won a
decisive influence over every mind, but in Europe it coincided with the
predominance of a type of man--the so-called bourgeois wanted to settle himself
comfortably in the world, and for his comfort to intervene in it, to modify it
for his own pleasure. Therefore, the bourgeois age is honored most of all for
the triumph of industrialization, and in general, for those techniques which
are useful to life--medicine, economics, administration. Physics acquired a
peerless prestige because out of it came both medicine and the machine. The
masses of the middle class became interested in it not out of intellectual
curiosity, but through their material interests. It was in such an atmosphere
that what we might call the “imperialism of physics” was produced.”
Wittgenstein: victim of the imperialism of physics |
“Born and educated as we are in an age which shares this
mode of feeling, it seems to us a very naturally thing that first place among
the various kinds of knowledge should be granted to that which, whatever its
standing in theory, gives us domination over matter. But a new cycle is
beginning within us; for no sooner do we see that this form of supremacy makes
practical utility appear to be a norm of truth than we cease to be content. We
begin to realize that this skill in dominating matter and making it conform to
our wishes, this enthusiasm for comfort is, if one makes of it a principle, as
open to argument as any other. Alerted by this suspicions, we begin to see that
comfort is merely a subjective predilection, or to put it bluntly, a capricious
desire which Western peoples have exercised for two hundred years, but which
does not in itself reveal any superiority of character.”
“...the urge for the comfortable and the convenient which is
the ultimate reason for a preference for physics is in now ay an index of
superiority.”
The search for the comfortable and the convenient defines
our way of life. It is entwined with our worldview, baked into our
epistemology. While knowledge and wisdom are not equivalent, the modern view of
wisdom is what makes us comfortable. The search for comfort and convenience
informs the epistemology that drives science. What is “practical” is what is
“useful,” that is, what makes us comfortable. By eliminating “impractical”
questions, we can arrive at the practical and useful. In this way, by
restricting the questions that may be asked our way of knowledge is defined by
the comfortable, informed by materialism and pragmatism.
The philosopher of bourgeois comfort was Auguste Comte. HIs
famous formula of meaning was “science d’où prévoyance; prévoyance, d’où
action.” “The reason for knowing is to be able to predict, and the reason for
prediction is to make action possible.” As Ortega y Gasset puts it, “The
result is that action--advantageous action, of course--becomes the thing that
defines the truth of knowledge.”
The epistemology of exploitation is clearly explained here,
critiqued by a prominent 20th Century philosopher. As the great physicist
Boltzmann blandly stated it, “There are no correct reasonings except those
which have practical results.” No wisdom exists which does not enable us to
exploit, or further the cause of exploitation. Truth, then is at the service of
utility. The philosophy that was baked out of these ingredients was called
pragmatism in the 20th century. The idea is that there is no other truth than
success in dealing with things, making things, consuming things, enjoying and
exploiting things. The technical knowledge which advances our exploitation is
science and this is the only knowledge. Anything else which goes by the name of
knowledge is really outside the realm of useful investigation, therefore
useless by definition.
Kant |
This is an audacious epistemology, but one which, like a
virus has spread throughout all the organic systems of wisdom and philosophy, weakening
them. How can anyone contaminated with such a materialistic view seriously
speak of wisdom, of life, or of the “meaning of life?” And yet the imperial
triumph of physics owes itself to this epistemology. While science pretends to
be value-neutral, the focus on “practical usefulness” has led to some terrible
results.
José Ortega y Gasset |
Since Ortega y Gasset wrote his critique at the beginning of
the last century, the “practical usefulness” of science has mushroomed. A
practical solution for the Japanese was found in the atomic-bombing of
Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the fire-bombing of Dresden. For Hitler, Farben’s
Zyklon B gas was a practical and useful solution for the Jews. The pesticide
plant in Bhopal, the nuclear meltdown of Chernobyl, global warming, climate
change, air pollution, the destruction of habitats, extinction of plants,
birds, and animals, all these are by-products of our penchant for practical
usefulness.
Atomic Weapons: Practical and Useful? |
By excluding ethical considerations from science, we have managed
to discover how to weaponize anthrax and smallpox virus, how to reduce the ice
at the polar ice-caps, and how to machine-gun hundreds of thousands of young
men in an afternoon on the bomb-torn fields at Ypres and Verdun. We know how to
melt Vietnamese children with Napalm and how to register, fingerprint, and
database every Muslim on the planet. The Nazi scientists who worked at
Auschwitz learned how many hours it takes before human being freezes to death,
and exactly how many calories are needed to keep a human alive for a month at
hard labor until he starves to death. The man-made disasters of science are
legion; spend a half-hour watching the news and chances are you will witness
one. All these great achievements were made possible by the epistemological
paradigm of positivistic materialism.
But as long as we have cheap wifi, internet porn, sex, drugs
and rock and roll, and new iphones, why should anyone care? Philosophy is dead,
says Hawking, since it doesn’t advance the cause of science any further. What
questions it contemplates do not bear on the physical science and therefore
have no use. As Ortega y Gasset puts it, writing a hundred years ago in
reference to the imperalism of physics:
“...the intellectual life of
Europe has for almost a hundred years suffered from what one might call the
‘terrorism of the laboratories.’ Overwhelmed by this superiority, the
philosopher was ashamed of being overwhelmed, which meant that he became
ashamed of not being a physicist. As the problems which are genuinely
philosophic do not permit of solution according to the method of the physical
sciences, the philosopher gave up any attempt to attack them; he renounced his
philosophy, contracting it to a minimum, putting it humbly at the service of
the physics. He decided that the only philosophic theme worth pursuing was
meditation on the fact of physics, that philosophy was merely a theory of
knowledge, and nothing more.”
“Kant was the first to adopt such
an attitude in a radical form; he did not interest himself directly in the
great cosmic problems, but with the imperative hand of a town policeman he
stopped all philosophic traffic--twenty-six centuries of metaphysical
thought--by saying, “Let all philosophizing remain suspended until this
question is answered: How are synthetic judgments possible a priori?” Well,
now, “synthetic judgments a priori” meant to him physics, the factum of the
physio-mathematical science. But these statements of the problem as he saw it
were not even a theory of knowledge. Their point of departure was the knowledge
of physics as it existed, and they did not ask “What is knowledge?”
Philosophy is, in a very real sense, dead. If Ortega y
Gasset complained about the death of philosophy a hundred years ago, Stephen
Hawking’s snide epitaph drives another nail into the coffin. What role does
philosophy play in a world where the imperialism of physics is absolute?
Speaking to Google's Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire,
the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about
the nature of the universe could not be resolved by philosophy. "Most
of us don't worry about these questions most of the time,” he said. “But almost
all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from?
Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.
Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly
physics."
This is as good an example as exists of Ortega y Gasset’s principle of the “imperialism
of physics.” Hawking's mind-numbing hubris is apparent here, as is his
lame attempt at philosophy. He refutes himself here with his own sophomoric
philosophical musings. “Philosophy is dead” is a
philosophical discussion on the nature of epistemology as we have seen in the
above comments of Ortega y Gasset.
But of course Hawking sees nothing wrong with appropriating
a discipline which he has declared dead. Of course, Hawking is more interested
in “imaginary time” and other mind-boggling speculations to muster the proper
rigor to make a philosophical proposition.
What Hawkins means to say
is that metaphysics has not kept up with physics, but he is beyond his depth.
Metaphysics, before Kant decided to throw the baby out with
the bathwater, was the branch of philosophy that dealt with the “hard” question
of consciousness.
The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is a useful
framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum
mechanics. Even Heisenberg knew this. Ken Wilber has documented the
fascination of modern physicists like Bohr, Einstein, Schrodinger, and
Heisenberg with mysticism. In quantum mechanics, cosmology, and evolutionary
biology, scientists are just catching up to over two thousand years of
philosophical and theological insight from the great philosophers of the Upanishads.
Scientists like Hawking are concerned with the practical and
the useful. They rarely understand the philosophical framework of their
technical labor. They are mere technicians crunch numbers and tinker with
instruments, with little insight into the philosophical basis for their
calculations.
Atheist technicians like Hawking are poor imitations of the
great scientists of the scientific enlightenment and the great pioneers in
modern physics -- vanishingly few of whom were atheists. Real scientists do
more than play with equations and tinker with instruments; they should have a
meaningful understanding of natural philosophy as it relates to their work.
It’s hard to believe the present day advocates of atheism
and popular science like Dawkins and Hawking would pass a freshman philosophy
class. They may be charismatic representatives of popular science, but they are
hardly trained in philosophy, or even introspective enough to think through the
basic problems.
The imperialists of physics, our scientific priesthood, lack
the philosophical basis to ask meaningful questions. Their questions are
strictly limited by the paradigm that dominates their fields, that of “practical
and useful truths.” And so a great mind like Hawking believes that the cosmos has
no purpose. In his case, philosophy is dead; lacking a deep philosophy for
himself, he wants it to be dead for everyone else. And sadly, few philosophers
challenge the imperialism of science and physics. Those who dare are silenced.
Formerly philosophers were independent intellectuals. They
did not depend on an income provided by a university or an employer. At the
same time, they enjoyed enough prestige to say controversial things.
Philosophers were patronized by kings. They came from wealthy families and had
the independence of wealth and time to think.
Today, what philosophers exist, are hired brains. They live
on university grants, or Pell grants, or grants from corporations. They are
contracted to work out problems for corporate America or for the Defense
Department; they belong to “think tanks,” and are charged with using the best
and brightest brains to advance the interests of the 1% who can afford to hire
them. But make no mistake; the 1% are interested in results. They want
practical, useful results. The tangible results of philosophy must have a
practical application which can be monetized. Otherwise philosophy is useless
and dead.
Unlike Plato and Aristotle who wanted to train the elite in
high conversations, today’s philosophers are specialists. They work on
discreet, technological problems. They advise the President’s lawyers on what
might be considered “torture,” or the ethics of artificial intelligence. They
work at the behest of corporate America, corporate Europe, or China Inc. They
have abandoned the noble tradition of considering the Big Questions ever since
Kant let all the air out of the balloon that was metaphysics.
Nietzsche |
Nietzsche pronounced God dead and Russell and Wittgenstein
presided at his funeral and watched as the casket was lowered into the ground.
Modern philosophy has been unable to find his pulse. But they aren’t looking
too hard.
Independent thinkers like Ortega y Gasset don’t exist
anymore. Silenced by the party mob in the east and the corporate mob in the
West, philosophers are given neither space nor time nor money to think.
Thinking is a dangerous activity. The best and brightest brains are not
encouraged to think about meaning, unless it means money.
So where to find the best and brightest brains? They have
been co-opted into image-making by Hollywood, Big Media, and the Internet
moguls of Google, and Facebook. Or crunching numbers for Wall Street and
inventing schemes to crash the world financial markets. The best and brightest
brains sell products and services that destroy the planet in faster and better
ways. They use their gifts and genius to further the destruction of the planet
and its ecosystem while driving better cars and using better cell-phones.
Does exploitation have a price? We are told not to ask. It’s
not a “useful” question. Is the climate changing? “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Isn’t
it logical that if we burn all fuel on earth the planet will warm? It’s not a
question for science.
So philosophy is dead. The only philosophy available to us
is the epistemology of exploitation and the hedonism of corporate geniuses like
Donald Trump who would rule the free world. And with no more philosophy than
hedonism armed with positivistic science, corporate geniuses from the brain
trust work overtime to create Ponzi schemes to squeeze profits from the dying
planet. Any attempt at debate is squashed, any conversation to the contrary is
monitored.
In this impoverished atmosphere I write: Where conversation
is suppressed; where trivial texting has all but ruined the meaningful exchange
of ideas; where the endless repetition of clichés and memes are
viral. Where the dogma goes unchallenged, that’s where I come in. I have a
well-read, well-trained brain, a pen and a blog. I am as independent a thinker
as you will read. No one pays me for my thinking time. I am not a clone, a bot,
or an agent of corporate America. I belong
to no organized religion. My days are numbered and I yearn for the truth. In
short, I am a dangerous man: I am a philosopher.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.