I have learned that philosophy remains a big unsolved problem where no one seems to have really gotten anywhere for a long time, yet concerted effort by determined smart people might lead to us answering some of the most important questions that have always plagued human philosophers. I have learned that solving philosophy (where philosophy includes questions like “what is human value?”, “what is the nature of intelligence?”, “what are the simple equations that unify the physical laws of our universe/multiverse?”) is of importance on a mind bogglingly cosmological level.
I have learned that philosophy remains a big unsolved problem where no one seems to have really gotten anywhere for a long time
I disagree. I think most of what has historically been considered “philosophy” has been solved at this point, it just doesn’t seem that way because once we understand a philosophical problem well enough to solve it, it doesn’t seem like a philosophical problem anymore. Usually it turns into a scientific problem, or an easy question of inference from scientific knowledge, thus losing its aura of respectable mysteriousness.
The difference between our beliefs is that I see philosophy as a superset of science. Just because “what is human value?” starts mapping to science doesn’t mean it stops being philosophy.
I wasn’t referring to historical philosophy. I was referring to the specific hard problems I listed, namely “what is human value?” which even though it decomposes to being a problem of science, still has much more of the philosophy problem nature than the science problem nature.
Anyways this is a disagreement about the meaning of words only.
Whether you call a problem like “what is human value?” a science problem or a philosophy problem, it is still an important unsolved problem that via concerted effort we have a very real chance at solving.
I have learned that philosophy remains a big unsolved problem where no one seems to have really gotten anywhere for a long time, yet concerted effort by determined smart people might lead to us answering some of the most important questions that have always plagued human philosophers. I have learned that solving philosophy (where philosophy includes questions like “what is human value?”, “what is the nature of intelligence?”, “what are the simple equations that unify the physical laws of our universe/multiverse?”) is of importance on a mind bogglingly cosmological level.
Keep on thinking, friends.
I disagree. I think most of what has historically been considered “philosophy” has been solved at this point, it just doesn’t seem that way because once we understand a philosophical problem well enough to solve it, it doesn’t seem like a philosophical problem anymore. Usually it turns into a scientific problem, or an easy question of inference from scientific knowledge, thus losing its aura of respectable mysteriousness.
The difference between our beliefs is that I see philosophy as a superset of science. Just because “what is human value?” starts mapping to science doesn’t mean it stops being philosophy.
I wasn’t referring to historical philosophy. I was referring to the specific hard problems I listed, namely “what is human value?” which even though it decomposes to being a problem of science, still has much more of the philosophy problem nature than the science problem nature.
Anyways this is a disagreement about the meaning of words only.
Whether you call a problem like “what is human value?” a science problem or a philosophy problem, it is still an important unsolved problem that via concerted effort we have a very real chance at solving.