It is generally agreed that society benefits from the work of its members.
In comparing the contibution of artists to society with the contribution of scientists, which type do you think is more valued by society
(Let me preface this by saying that it is an interesting question, but the question is flawed in my opinion)
This assumes that a society has a single value judgement. A society is made up of it’s members, and in the case of the U.S. society, for instance, there are a multiplicity of value judgements.
When you use the term scientists, do you mean those who value science above art, those who practice theoretical science, those who practice applied science, engineers, etc.
Same goes for “Artists” do you mean conceptual, performance, craftspeople, designers (and that crosses over into engineering), etc.
Where would Wright fit into this, or Fuller? (Both architects, which is another crossover point)
Nicholas Carter, what I meant with scientists and artists is what you said in your post above,
[/quote]
This assumes that a society has a single value judgement. A society is made up of it’s members, and in the case of the U.S. society, for instance, there are a multiplicity of value judgements.
Whats in your opinion the more valued judjment by your society and why?
If by “my society” you mean me, personally, I would say “scientists”, because they advance learning and enlightenment as to the nature of reality, where “artists” only mirror, interpret and report on that learning.
In a world of only scientists, we would still learn of the nature of reality, in a world of only artists we would still just be making cave paintings and idols. remember that “Science” is a major subset of Philosophy, but Art is only a minor offshoot. Bear in mind that it is not either/or and that the two fields do blend at different points.
If by “My society” you mean the U.S., or the state of Oregon, or my circle or friends, or my family, there is no one answer.
Whats in your opinion the more valued judjment by your society and why?
[/quote]
I believe you need both. Look at Leonardo Di Vinci an Artist, Scientist; very few people have shaped the imagination of people as much as this man. Science to some can be sterile, while art is fun, full of energy and vitality. When you can combine the two, works of wonder occur. I would not like to live in a world without art, or without science, as there interactions create synergy of immense beauty.
Pax Vitae
What if two identical civilizations decided at one point to focus on only one aspect of cultural development; one choosing art, the other choosing science.
The one that chose science would obviously be more advanced, and would be flying around in space ships in no time, but what of the people themselves? With no outlit to express their creative side, they would eventually evolve into purly logical beings, would they not? (ie. vulcans for you trekkies out there), likely choosing to supress many of their creative side to focus on scientific development.
The other civilization would be using sticks and stones no doubt. Imagine, though, the things they would create. After a hundred years of people being completely focused on art, thousands of artists… well it’s hard to imagine what people could come up with in that situation. Poetry, Writing, painting, these of no scientific dependablity. People in general, I think, would be more expressive. They would need to be, after all, if they were to be artists.
So the cultures would more or less be opposite to each other. Just as people themselves -a human is either artisticly inclined (like my sister), or logical (like myself), depending on the areas of the brain they use more often- are. So I think you would find that people are 50-50 on the subject.
Personally I would prefere the scientific culture. Expressive people annoy me. But then again, I’m an angry and bitter person so whatever.
i am replying in general to all of the posts that have been offerred so far on this topic, so some of my comments may apply to one but not to the others:
-science is not a subset of philosophy. the only way that this could be legitimated would be by defining philosophy in such a broad manner that it eliminates anything that is distinctive of philosophy. For instance, by saying that philosophy is “the pursuit of knowledge” or “the pursuit of truth” or “the love of wisdom.” Of course philosophy can be defined in this way, but so can almost any other activity. the housewife pursues wisdom about household things, and probably understands them better than almost anyone who isnt a housewife, but this doesnt mean that she is a philosopher, a scientist, or an artist (though she may also, in addition to being a housewife, be one of these things). Such definitions of “philosophy” really apply to all branches of academic disciplines. You might say, “that is because they are all subsets of philosophy.” my response to this would be that such definitions fail to show what is unique about philosophy; i.e. why we have philosophy, and what we do when we are philosophizing that we are not doing when we are, saying, engaging in scientific research of DNA.
the point is that when we define things, and try to understanding them, what is typically essential are the differences between the things. it are these differences that make the definitions useful, helpful, and informative.
for starters, whereas science proceeds by way of a relatively clear method, no such method has ever been developed within the discipline of philosophy and adhered to by all philosophers.
–as far as the initial question between art and science goes:
-i think the problem with this question revolves around the ambiguity of the term “society.” on one hand, it is true that society is made up of individuals, and that, in this sense, the question of what society favors in general is vacuous. but there are other ways of looking at. We can consider, for instance, the funding that is given to science versus art by government. it seems as if science has the upper hand in this instance, though this is an empirical matter that requires concrete data (which, i presume is available). more than either of these things, it can be said that society favors technology and economic matters: we hear the president, and other powers that be, continually referring to the need for a strong economy, but never, or rarely, do we hear them talking about the need for great artists or brilliant scientists.
moreover, if a candidate did base her campaign on the value of art and science “for itself” (i.e. apart from any economic or industrial applications), it is very unlikely that she would have any chance of winning. people would say that she was careless and idealistic, and not in touch with “reality.”
so if it is said that science is valued more than art, it is to the extent that science has greater application for economic and industrial reasons. pure art, on the other hand (painting, for instance), cannot make the same claim. philosophy, on the other hand, typically has less practical application than either art or science. philosophy is skeptical and meditative; what business needs are answers, solutions, and it needs them fast; it does not need paradoxes, problems, and meditation.
philosophy might help, for instance, students who go into law school.
as playing with Legos, for instance, might help a future engineer.
but the law school student is just that: a student of law, not philosophy proper.
Excellent post!
I disagree. What you call “philosophy” are just branches of philosophy overall. Philosophy does not mean metaphysics, epistemology, etc. There are practical and theoretical applications of philosophy, consider logic, which is a subset of philosophy, and computer science which is a subset of logic (among other branches). Philosophy is the grand tree of all learning.
You anticipate me correctly.
Perhaps there is nothing unique about philosophy. We have philosophy because we think. There is a reason why we have the PhD, the Doctor of Philosophy. Aristotle was a philosopher because he pursued both natural philosophy and those disciplines you mean when you use the term philosophy. To Aristotle they were all philosophy.
Then I would argue that rather than using the term philosophy, one should use terms like metaphysics, logic, epistemology, postmodernism, etc.
Except that philosophy developed scientific method. Once again, read some Aristotle.
Once again I would maintain that business does need philosophy, and is derived from it. You have Business ethics, research, and a whole host of other disciplines that come from Philosophy. Without a philosophy very few businesses survive. Just as the person asks “Who Am I”, the business asks the same question.
Philosophy helps all people think clearly and understand themselves, society and the world, so why wouldn’t it benefit all students?
The theories behind the use of Legos are philosophical theories - there are actually disagreements about whether Legos help or hinder future engineers, compared to Erector sets. Philosophy is used to make such arguments. Education is a philosophy, which is why you have Dewey, Montessori, etc.
I am not trying to be obtuse, I understand what you say, but I think your use of the term Philosophy is too narrow.
-there is philosophy of business, philosophy of science, etc. it does not mean that these actual disciplines, as they are carried out, need these philosophies in order to operate. the genetic researcher is not concerned if his theory is true because it correctly represents reality or because it is coherent with a set of beliefs or because whatever he says is true because the given society places such a high value on what is called science. he can “do science” without ever considering these things. yes, they are real issues, but they are not carried out by the scientist (though he may pursue them on the side, as is the case with, for instance, Einstein, Mach, to name a few; just as mathematicians can engage in philosophy of language (Frege, for example)).
-in any case, i would still maintain that a narrower definition is needed of philosophy, and that important distinctions can be made between philosophy and other disciplines. Also, to say that other disciplines arose from philosophy does not necessarily imply that they are therefore simply one form or another of philosophy.
-finally, i’ve already read too much Aristotle; and to say “read Aristotle” implies that one would find it obvious that his writings are true, which i certainly don’t find to be the case.
I don’t mean to be obstinate about this. I did run across a book yesterday which I think will explain what I mean:
From “Parker’s Natural and Experimental Philosophy” (1853)
“The term Philosophy literally signifies, the love of wisdom; but, as a general term, it is used to denote an explanation of the reason of things, or an investigation of the causes of all phenomena, both of mind and matter.”
“When applied to any particular department of knowledge, the word Philosophy implies the collection of general laws or principles, under which the subordinate facts or phenomena relating to the subject are comprehended. Thus that branch of Philosophy which treats of God, his attributes and perfections is called Theology; that which treats of the material world is called Physics, or Natural Philosophy; that which treats of man as a rational being is called Ethics, or Moral Philosophy; and that which treats of the mind is called Intellectual Philosophy, or Metaphysics.”
So what I am simply saying is that you are limiting the word Philosophy to certain branches, likely metaphysics, ethics, etc, when Philosophy encompasses more than those. Rather than use the term “Philosophy”, one should use the specific branch (metaphysics, ethics, etc) one is referring to.
Didin’t mean to offend, I’m sure everyone on this board has read Aristotle. I’m not saying he is right or wrong, only that he treated all knowledge as philosophy. Since most, if not all, philosophy comes out of a long chain of reactions to Aristotle, I use him as an example of how Philosophy was not at that time differentiated. And indeed, as the quote I used above shows, even into the 19th century there was no division in the term. Which leaves me with a question, when did Philosophy shed itself of the full meaning I express above? Or has it? You know that I think it has not, nor should it.