Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So might I conclude that -- with regard to functionality to the human race ...and despite your nod to ontology -- your position is that science is the "wheat" and philosophy the "chaff"?
Also, do you make a distinction between mysticism and metaphysics?
No I wouldn't say that at all. I love philosophy and plan to get a PhD in it in the future. I think philosophy is hugely important to humanity and would love to see it back in its proper place as a "way of life" and not merely something you study in college.
But in order for philosophy to be useful to humans TODAY, it needs to be MODERN philosophy. Most people that say they like philosophy and talk about it a lot, merely rephrase plato, kant, or what have you. The are stuck on the language, phrases, and conclusions of ANCIENT philosophy. This would be like trying to teach a doctor with nothing more than Leonardo de vinci drawings.
A living philosophy must be relevant to its time. It must be capable of generating NEW insights and further understanding. To do so, modern philosophy must take into account and be build upon the basis of currently understood science. Philosophy is more flexible and far reaching than science, but it is meaningless if it contradicts it. To be a source of meaning, it must be true - and it has little hope of being true if it ignores or, worse, conflicts with the physical facts established by science. Therefore, a philosopher without a good working knowledge of physics, biology, and cosmology (at the least) is useless to the world.
Socrates would agree with this I believe. When you read the dialogues of Plato, you will find that Socrates relies heavily on the understanding of the physical properties of the world, as they were understood at the time. The philosophic arguments he made were in large part directed and based upon those understandings. In the time since him, many of the physical facts he relied on have been shown to be incorrect. When you follow his line of reasoning at reaching various PHILOSOPHIC conclusions, and you imagine what direction he would have gone, had he known this or that physical fact was different than he stated, you can easily see that he would have arrived at a different philosophic conclusion, had he more accurate scientific data. And that's as it should be. Socrates pulled into our world in a time machine would undoubtedly change many of his conclusions in the light of new scientific data, which he so faithfully followed in his time.
Modern philosophers should do the same. Their philosophy should fit within modern understanding, but also add to it by bringing forth new insights on how to cope in the modern world and how we are to live, as opposed to competing with science by awkwardly claiming to have facts they can't prove. Instead, what I see mostly on boards such as these is a "dogmatization" of ancient philosophers, an insistance on using outdated modes of speech and perspective just to show off how much they've read, a refusal to learn about or speak in scientific terms where relevant, and a rivalry attitude concerning philosophy and science. People have turned philosophy into a fuzzy, poetry-like endeavor so they can sit around talking like someone who lived thousands of years ago, feeling good about their "deep thoughts". And when you bring up relevant scientific concepts they all look at you like you've farted at their tea party.
Now, with respect to mystics...
I use "mystic" an a generic term, for lack of a better word. By this I mean people who believe in the supernatural, paranormal, and/or proclaim other means of obtaining FACTS about reality other than the scientific method. So, this includes a lot of mainstream religious people, new agers, wiccans, scientologists, self-proclaimed psychics and mediums and SOME who claim that things like meditation and accupuncture have mystical, paranormal, or supernatural elements beyond the physical going on. Basically - anyone who's not a "logical positivist" skeptic with a naturalistic worldview.
Having defined them, I should say that some mystics MAY turn out to be right. But they'll need to prove their claims to me before I accept them, and the burden of proof is on those making the claims.
Metaphysics includes mystical stuff, but may also include questions of finding ultimate meaning in life, value systems, ethics, and all sorts of other immaterial yet NOT supernatural/paranormal concepts. So, I don't poopoo all metaphysics - just mystical claims to knowledge.
.
