Who is on the forefront of philosophical thinking right now? Is everybody just concerned with memorizing old ideas from this Greek or that German, or do we have some new thinkers on the forefront right now that have some interesting ideas nobody has thought about before?
“there is nothing new under the sun” -achient chinese secret
-Imp
A lot of philosophers fear philosophy becoming stagnant. When we constantly reiterate quotes to each other, that would seem stagnant.
Making a standard for how philosophy is taught to everyone seems counterproductive to philosophy. It’s fine in specific disciplines of sciences, but not in this case.
There are basic tenets of philosophy which should be enforced. But telling everyone that their philosophical discipline is dependant on their memorization of archaeological records for Plato and so on is a real show that the teacher can’t grasp the nature of the lesson. In that sense, critics of philosophy have some ground.
Why should my conception of the universe rely on portraits of old dead white men? No matter how influential they were to the movement toward philosophy.
Moral and social philosophy are dead. But there’s some interesting stuff that I’ve been reading from a guy who has only been dead for 10-15 years named David Kellogg Lewis on philosophy of science.
Oh great- a new dead guy to reflect upon for a while- thank your Smears for pointing out his info- I’ll check it out.
I can see how there may be a worry of stagnation when conventional wisdom leads to stagnation. I mean, I can understand teaching philosophy in this manner, as it does help create a general basis for everybody to consider. But discouraging anything outside the cookie cutter would seem counterproductive in this subject. Perhaps encouraging less fear of ego tromping by new ideas where a new manner of forum could help students express the desire to go forth and think original thoughts, as well as acquiring the general basics? I mean how many people really think original thoughts and come up with original conclusions are there that we encourage? …Does Philosophy even have conclusions?
Well anyway, I guess that yes, for this to happen, we would need a new marriage between science and philosophy, as well as the marriage between science and metaphysics, so maybe the idea of a polygamist marriage of three components of science, philosophy and metaphysics could generate some new and very interesting pondering? With new technology, we can’t speculate unless we know what to speculate upon, and in the matter of mind/body/spirit, we can also not come up with anything new unless you have a good understanding of the mechanical/quantum physics side of science. Wow- anybody looking for a 24 year education degree?? 
Triple doctorates need apply for required information. 
I also agree with Imp on his quote-There is nothing new under the sun- that’s for certain- nothing new, we just have to discover it! YEAH!! Neanderthal couldn’t speak english, but his brain had the capacity just waiting for him to make use out of it.
Again, Smears- thanks for the info on David Kellog Lewis- I just googled him and this link provided an enticing blip about him that practically states the premise of what I was looking for in my post above: consciousness.anu.edu.au/jackson/lewis.pdf
“…he was a metaphysician of the first rank.”
“…it is often an area of philosophical enquiry driven by one or antoher(reasonably)recent development in science or mathematics…”
So when I get a chance to get to the library I will check out his work he probably has published.
I just took a metaphysics class of only 6 people with a professor who has PhDs in chemistry and philosophy and she completely loves this guy. There’s also a compilation of articles in a book called “metaphysics contemporary readings” that are quite accessible. edited by michael j. loux isbn #0-415-26109-0. Great stuff man. If you’re completely over the whole existentialism, social philosophy, moral debate stuff, this is where you should go.
My thoughts exactly on philosophy - there is a whole ‘world’ of thought: not just East or West, and as individuals: we have our own personal philosophies too: that adds to the composite of where philosophy is ‘now’.
People with new ideas/ways of thinking: are shunned by society and called weird or schizophrenic: when all they are attempting to do is get their views across like every-one else…
I cannot stomach another staid quote or perspective of the past philosophers: as it serves no purpose now, and has no bearing on most lives.
Bill Hicks
Cool!
This is a group I can appreciate. Here’s something I haven’t read that I’ll throw out there. I think mankind evolved as a retarded ape- a mutant that didn’t grow enough body hair to keep warm. I think it was a result of inbreeding that also resulted in a more aggressive behavior, as you find in many different animal species that become much more aggressive as a result of inbreeding. I saw a special about a guy that had a chimp with one less chromosome that we have, but one more than other chimps- a sort of “meeting half way” between humans and chimps. This mutant had white around his eyes-more like a human. He also stood upright and had far less body hair. Did any of you catch that program a couple years ago? That chimp/mutant/miracle, however you look at it, also enjoyed smoking cigars. No kidding…
There’s a new idea for the human ego pile of postulating. We’re a developed race of inbred, retarded, aggressive, chimps or apes. There’s a claim to some bragging rights for the presidential candidates- “my inbred family came from more aggressive mutants than yours did…” Hence the endless wars…?