Advances in Philosophy

[Artoo]

One of my problems when reading philosophy books (the popular type - I'm not a professional in this) is in picking up what advances have been made since the time of the ancient Greeks. In natural philosophy (AKA physics), the changes are obvious. They're less so, in say, moral philosophy or ethics or any other branch - we seem to be asking the same questions with much opinion and few hard answers. Is anyone sufficiently knowledgeable to give me an overview on what the changes are over the last 3000 years?

And I'd rather keep religion out of this - in fact, since I'm starting the thread, C.J has my express instruction to delete anything to do with religion.

[DevineHerring]

Natural Philosophy...Well sir, you are the academician...
I don't think a quick overview of advances in the subject is a reasonable goal, the subject is a bit too broad, and its definition too ambiguous for a quick accommodation.
obligatory links...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/
http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphil4.htm

Are the 17th and 18th century modern in this context? I think so. As you are no doubt aware in the current context of the late 19th century to present, physics referenced as natural philosophy has become less and less in vogue. Much to the determent (IMHO) of both physics and philosophy there has been a schism of sorts. Physics has taken on the mantle of (only) hard science bound by mathematical proof and demonstrative experimentation, and philosophy has been relegated to a collection of "discussions of the intangible" wherein the semantics and proof process (my premise is better than your premise) seem more the purpose of the exercise rather than a medium for the exchange of thought and unveiling of truth. But then how relevant can a natural philosophy be in the current context where so much has been found to clarify our perceptions of the physical universe and so decreasing the number of things we find mysterious? What are physics and philosophy but the investigation of the mysterious? Is natural philosophy now to be defined as speculative investigation of the intersection of our own physical manifestations and our perceptions of the physical universe relative to the social / moral / ethical that is biological selves? hmmm.... I don't know.…..

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

I'd say philosophy reached its peak in the classical realism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Everything that has come since (nominalism, modernism, existentialism, postmodernism) has been a definite step down.

[Artoo]

...which well illustrates the problem. Let's take physics or maths: there are and always will be contentious issues but no-one argues any more that Newtonian mechanics is good enough for most everyday purposes. That space is locally flat and so the sum of the angles in a triangle is 2*pi. We also recognise that these are approximations to the more complicated behaviour of the Universe on the very large or very small scales.

However, in the history of philosophy (e.g as outlined by TS), each generation of philosophers seems to merely expand the scope of the argument - asking new questions without without resolving any of the preceding questions. We are still arguing matters that were discussed by the ancients.

So, is that in the nature of philosophy? Is it simply going round in ever-widening circles?

[DevineHerring]

R2 asketh : So, is that in the nature of philosophy? Is it simply going round in ever-widening circles?
DH opines : Uh Yep... Unless you support yourself scribing the circles and then it's a job.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Artoo
However, in the history of philosophy (e.g as outlined by TS), each generation of philosophers seems to merely expand the scope of the argument - asking new questions without without resolving any of the preceding questions. We are still arguing matters that were discussed by the ancients.

I'd say a lot of the questions discussed by the ancients were given satisfactory answers by the ancients, and that it's foolish to keep on rejecting those answers and searching for different ones. For example, the correspondence definition of truth has been around for centuries and it makes perfect sense, yet postmodernists are still looking for another difinition. IMO they are wasting their time.

[alanmckechnie]

Would it not be true to say that ’advances in philosophy’ are that, there is a greater understanding of what philosophy is and the greater use of philosophy in everyday life, even by the common people, the masses. Broken down into its ’lesser parts’, physics, psychology, theology, sociology, to name but a few, one can see a far greater use in modern times than in years gone by. One good example of this, which is a consequence of modern day society, is ‘consequence analysis’, or cause and effect, which is a base part of the base meaning of ’philosophy’.
Quote ”Literally, the love of, including the search after, wisdom; in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and laws.”
One could also put into the everyday use category such items as, marriage guidance, sex therapy and possibly even Citizens advice.
I am certainly no philosopher so I shall not delve into some of the deeper discussions mentioned above. However I do recognise the use of philosophy in everyday life.

Hopefully, I am not burbling here or gone off on the wrong track, but the thread certainly got my two brain cells rattling