No societal development, new institution or change in politics can fruitfully exist without intellectual critiquing and then philosophy (if you like) to present why and how something developed. Narratives are not enough. Research is elemental.

No societal development, new institution or change in politics can fruitfully exist without intellectual critiquing and then philosophy (if you like) to present why and how something developed. Narratives are not enough. Research is elemental.

I currently characterize philosophy as the development of knowledge with the aspiration to achieve wisdom. In this context, the development of knowledge with short term intentions is not, strictly speaking, philosophy. However, philosophy is the ultimate goal of all knowledge development.

No. Knowledge development pivots on the love and discovery of truth which is philosophy!

Engaging in systematic philosophy is just one kind and usually or often develops general ideas in a way that develops new ideas: there is nevertheless nothing wrong with less well considered ideas, certainly if they provoke or encourage new directions of thinking. Bertrand Russell in The Philosophy of the Western World included a number of aberrant characters who would not normally be called philosophers but who develop individual ideas on life and thinking. So, philosophy can be in a manner-How far that little candle throws its beams! So shines a good deed in a weary world. (reflects on nature of people, goodness and the world in two sentences). So anything can be philosophy as long as its cogent.

Knowledge or Philosophy, which comes first.

Knowledge or Philosophy, which comes first.

Dear Ayodele Otaiku,

The search for True knowledge arises out of the mystical process of understanding the nature of the Universe. In India, the people who undertook this way of obtaining knowledge became known as Philosophers, rishis, seers and yogis.

Warm regards Tina

No. Philosophy has always played a significant role in culture. It has not only reflected its own epoch but also pointed ahead to future ways of human development. Its influence at the end of the Twentieth and the beginning of the Twenty-First Centuries has greatly increased.

regards

Philosophy is a culture of thinking and problem solving.

Knowledge dispense the thinking of the subject matter.

If it is a "knowledge", definitely it has a base of "philosophy".

For pseudo knowledge, there may be pseudo philosiphy.

Dear Dr Ayodele Otaiku,

I think NO , if knowledge is free from all obstructions than it cant out of philosophy rather knowledge with good philosophy is enlighten in the society and vice-versa.

I think knowledge cannot be blindfolded with the progress or development.

Thanks

Shibabrata Then, what is the impact of philosophy in knowledge economy?

Philosophy is more intangible and abstract, and every knowledge has its roots in philosophy, as philosophy role sometimes can be covert or overt; it is always there. Yes, to have insight about philosophy, for being intangible, is sometimes difficult, but as one starts walking into the ocean of philosophy, one wanted to immerse one self, it is captivating, and very much relevant to life and knowledge.

No, it cannot be

No

The beginning of knowledge itself cannot be philosophical. For instance, definitions are the bedrock of philosophy. They are conceptual, forming the basis upon which logic is defined. They may be propositions,simple declarative statements

Knowledge cannot be philosophical.

Hazim, which comes first?

No

Abdelnaser Omran

Borden Mushonga

Noor Sabah

@Mohanad Hazim

What's with all these simple "no" answers? How about explaining your position and advancing the discussion ? The point of RG's Q & A is not simply to cast a vote! I'm sick and tired of receiving a notification of new answers to questions I follow only to find zero content.

Karl, 'Prospectiveness is 50% of the answer, said,'Gary Hamel, ' Future of Management'.

Peter F. Drucker said,' Never settle for half an answer'.

I support your'No' theory, Karl.

No, never

Regards

Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana

In general terms I agree with your introduction

I believe that practical knowledge, immediate and elementary if it can exist in a fleeting and transitory without philosophy; but the Complex and elevated Knowledge, amen of its development, if it is intimately related to the Philosophy and the Epistemological Reflection.

In the East Philosophy is about direct experience and pondering deeply about the nature of reality and one’s Self - whereas philosophy in the West is about studying what other people have thought. This can be boring . Especially when dissociated from one’s inner experiences.

Warn regards - Tina

Cultural diversity between 'East' & 'West' strengthen 'Global Peace' at large

Tina Lindhard

RE: "In the East Philosophy is about direct experience and pondering deeply about the nature of reality and one’s Self - whereas philosophy in the West is about studying what other people have thought"

And yet there is a lot known about the many hundreds of different schools of Eastern Philosophy. How do we manage to do that without studying the texts, which represent the thoughts of what those many philosophers in those schools have thought? As for mainstream Western philosophy (i.e. not primarily history of philosophy or history of ideas), reading what others have thought or are currently thinking is a springboard to continuing the conversation and advancing it along new lines. And yes, a goodly amount of that conversation is also about direct experience, the nature of reality, and the Self, whereas a fair amount of Eastern philosophy is not (e.g. language and logic).

Knowledge without philosophy, like the gold without editing, it keeps its value but have no beauty...

Hello Karl Pfeifer

I should have said Indian philosophy. indian philosophy can be boiled down to Dvaita, Advaite and a mixture of the two .

Philosophy describes how people live and grow in better ways by acquiring knowledge. The involvement of philosophy helps in building of good character of people that leads to have a better and fruitful life. So, in my view knowledge development sustains with philosophy.

Tina Lindhard

Narrowing your claim to Indian philosophy doesn't vitiate my point. You aren't making things up from whole cloth, you still have to engage with the Dvaita or Advaite literature to proceed, even if the goal is restricted to achieving personal understanding rather than also convincing others. (But I am skeptical of the claim that there was no aim to persuade others; then why bother setting up schools, teaching, attracting disciples, or even writing stuff down?) Also, classical Indian philosophers were much concerned with logic and the nature of reasoning, which don't seem likely candidates for settling by direct experience. Arguing in philosophy is not a game like debating in a debate club; the aim of argument and counterargument is not to "win" but to arrive at truth or at least the best approximation thereof.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/

No Sir

Dear Karl Pfeifer

In science knowledge is validated through an experiment - in India knowledge is validated through inner experience. Those that undertook the journey became known as Philosophers, riishis seers and yogis. Often the Rajahs would invite the philosophers to present their point of view in a public forum, those that presented their case best attracted new followers. The presenting of a position is a "mental" undertaking, but this is different from the experience. In much the same way in science writing up an experiment is different from the undertaking of the experiment. They are both needed, but the validity raise out of the experiment, not the telling of it.

Warm regards - Tina

Tina Lindhard

Okay, let me try again:

RE: "...those that presented their case best attracted new followers. The presenting of a position is a "mental" undertaking, but this is different from the experience."

How is that different from the role of argumentation in Western philosophy? Someone presents an argument for a position. If I understand the argument to make a good case (e.g. it is "valid" and "sound" in the technical senses of formal logic, or, informally, it is "well-reasoned") then I will recognize that the conclusion follows from the premises, i.e. the reasons given for it. Isn't such recognition a personal experience (an aha feeling?) of the sort of which you speak?

Sir

Here is one thought experiment combining Physics and Creator

Sir

God is as big as this COSMOS and as small as sub-atomic particle QUARK. It means we are most helpless / impossible in understanding the Creator. Philosophy comes to our rescue. In other words Science ( knowledge) and Philosophy are two different tools to understand ONE IMPOSSIBLE ENTITY.

One day in my thought experiment I went to the foot of Himalayan mountains and transformed myself into an ANT

And I asked myself how big is this mountain. If any body asks questions like What is God, Who is god, How is God, Where is God , in my view such questions are like that of an ant about the understanding of the size of the Himalayan mountain. OK

Dear all,

Consider a three year old who has touched the flame of a candle, (only slightly of course) she then knows that flames are hot. By no stretch of imagination does the child do any philosophy. So, knowledge development can happen without philosophy.

Now, I assume that the question is really about how we expand knowledge, for example when new scientific discovery expands “our knowledge” in some sense. If so, then we need some idea about what philosophy is (I take knowledge to be true, justified belief, as illustrated in the example). One way is to look at this historically, (western) philosophy simply was science for the longest time (as it is evident from the title of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to name one example). The divide between academic philosophy and natural science came about during the nineteenths century when the natural sciences became so complicated that “one gentleman couldn't now it all”. So, in that sense, science can quiet happily progress without bothering with philosophy.

The question seems to be “Was this beneficial for philosophy?” Here, one might find that the traditional view might be more appropriate. However, these matters quickly become complicated. In general, if one adopts the traditional approach, taking philosophy to be science, then the answer to the initial question is trivially: no. On the other hand, philosophy is about truth and quiet often, philosophers ponder questions that cannot be answered by observation, but also cannot be dismissed easily. This is, as far as I understand it, one reason why great scientists are often engaged with philosophical questions. So, there might be potential for a fruitful relation between (contemporary) philosophy and science. We could loosely characterize the relation by saying that science answers the what-, how- and why- questions, while philosophy ponders the proposals and implications (analyses what scientists are up to, so to speak).

Best,

Sven Beecken

If, we want to understands the dichotomy of the two subject matter, can this question change the narratives.

Who ‘Should design’ the PhD Programme’ curriculum’ , ‘Institution or Students scholar ‘in the Knowledge economy?

Dear Wulf Rehder,

I apologize, I did not mean to assert that only philosophy is about truth, I simply stated what philosophers take philosophy to be about (at least that's what the philosophers I'm familiar with claim), while no one that I know of thinks philosophy is the only way to gain knowledge (my candle example would be a counterexample). I used 'ponder' simply to refer to whatever it is that philosophers are doing, nothing deep intended here. Let me be a bit more explicit about the questions that cannot be answered by observation and the relation between science and philosophy:

One interesting case is Albert Einstein. The entry on Einstein's Philosophy of Science in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy opens with the following statement: “Albert Einstein [...] is well known as the most prominent physicist of the twentieth century. Less well known, though of comparable importance, are his contributions to twentieth-century philosophy of science.”

Consider one example, Einstein's definition of a theory understood as a complete system of physics: “A complete system of theoretical physics consists of concepts and basic laws to interrelate those concepts and of consequences to be derived by logical deduction.” This definition contains notions that philosophers are rather interested in, such as 'concepts', 'laws' and 'logical deduction'. At lease some answers to questions regarding these notions cannot be found by observation, but they can be found: Questions about logical deduction go straight at the hard of contemporary analytic philosophy and the question “How is logic related to the external world? leads directly into contemporary metaphysics. If one engages into these questions, then no harm can come from consulting someone who has constructed the best tested theory in the history of science about what he thinks with regard to these matters.

In this sense, contributions from scientists to philosophy shouldn't be dismissed lightly. One problem with regard to the relation between scientists and philosophers is that both tend to use a rather different terminology while talking about the same problems, which makes it difficult for both sides to understand each other. This can be overcome by engaging in the actual arguments.

That there are fruitful interactions for both sides between science and philosophy seems clear from the work of, say, Jerry Fodor or John Searl. Both are outstanding philosopher who have made significant contributions to the cognitive sciences and related fields.

Best,

Sven Beecken

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
• On the Method of Theoretical Physics; Albert Einstein; Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Apr., 1934), pp. 163-169

Dear Ayodele Otaiku

Again you show the fundamental mistaken-ness of philosophy. You speak of "fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind". These are not fundamental problems, but rather a few are big issues (knowledge areas) -- not a place to start, but sometimes a place to end once great knowledge is acquired. [ NOTE: a couple of those constructs mentioned will likely be good for little to nothing. ]

When you realize that empiricists really just discover and never define, you (then as an empiricist and possible scientist) will know ALWAYS the importance of the Subject (and how little our guesses about anything(s) are, comparably). All except discoveries and knowledge (

'Brad', which philosophy will lead to problem solving faster?

'Wulf', noted of Einstein’s pragmatic philosophy of physics and it too years for the experimental physics to see the imagination in his philosophy, that affected his grand theory of relativity development.

Brad, who do you separate, imagination from philosophy?

Dear Ayodele Otaiku

I would simply submit that Einstein had more [(Subject matter)] to go on than those who are much, much, much closer to the "armchair" philosophers. Part of this is that he (Einstein) was looking for patterns -- patterns that had been defined in reality elsewhere; he also knew where to look (for more possible applications) -- in empirical reality. Was much of this conceived of in his mind?; I'd say no (though he may well have done more than most WITH PATTERNS AND KNOWN OBSERVATIONS (aka facts)).

Dear all,

Wulf Rehder has asked an interesting question: “An interesting thesis is whether scientific (and other?) knowledge really has become too vast and complex, compared to past centuries or even pre-scientific times. One can doubt that. It just takes longer (approximately half a lifetime) to learn the deeper, but ultimately very simple basic tenets underlying modern science.” I can only hope that this is true. Unfortunately, the current development in academic philosophy seems to go into the opposite direction. A professor of mine has told us (and everything I observe about the field confirms his view) that there is a problematic tendency in philosophy. The problem is that contemporary philosophy basically splits into two incompatible approaches:

The first approach can be called practical philosophy. Here, one is required to have knowledge about the full range of work from several philosophers. As he puts it (from memory), it is basically history of philosophy. Since time is a limited resource, the emphasis is on knowing everything that certain philosophers have said, this implies a necessary trade off with regard to the depths of analysis.

The second approach can be called theoretical philosophy. Here, one is required to engage into highly specialized discussions which often take place between only a handful of people. Because of all the technical difficulties, these debates are rather inaccessible for non-experts. Since these debates require extreme precision, they have to be rather narrow.

Now, if one wants to engage into a problem in theoretical philosophy and science, one would have to meet the standards of both disciplines. This would imply that one would have to have a rather deep understanding of both areas and of the relation between them. By the limitation of resources, one would expect that this narrows things down even further.

I'm not saying this can't be achieved. Even if one can only get so far, it might very well be worth the trouble (for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that it is), but I would expect that the result is still rather narrow, compared to what, say, the giants of the seventeenth and eighteenth century could have reasonably expected.

Best,

Sven Beecken

Philosophy is the foundation.

Thinking start with Philosophy.

'Philosophy' strengthen,

1. 'Society'

2. 'Intuition'

3. 'Happiness'

4. 'Religion'

5. 'Leader'

Yes Sir

Your are right

Thank you

Attempting knowledge development without well concocted philosophy is like attempting to built a skyscraper without foundation. Knowledge development must begin with conceptualization. Even the creation of man according to theology was built on philosophy. " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth", (Gen 1:26 KJV). Philosophy is the building block for knowledge development. Period!

Dear Wulf,

I don't agree with your line of thought. Philosophy in this sense means "rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics" according to wordweb. To mimic is not knowledge, to repeat after someone is not knowledge. Knowledge must answer the question how? or why? It is deeper than mere putting things together. In scientific research, we follow laid down rules, a set of logic in reporting that specifically addresses How? and why? And that logic is enough philosophy

Wulf is right , thought progression is the perspective of reasoning.

This is an example of scientific processes being understood, certainly in application, through the use of philosophic reasoning.

Baroness Mary Warnock. From Bio News 947 April 2018 Almost 34 years ago, Baroness Mary Warnock headed up a committee whose report was to form the basis for the legislation and regulation of IVF and embryo research the world over. The 'Warnock Report', commissioned by the UK government in 1982 following the birth of the world's first IVF baby Louise Brown in July 1978, laid down the basis for the 14-day time limit on the laboratory research of human embryos, and the foundations of the UK's regulator the HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority).

Baroness Mary Warnock interview: on the 14-day rule, philosophers as committee chairs, and the next report

From interview>I think it's quite useful to be a philosopher because philosophers don't have the expertise of a subject matter of their own. Their profession is analysing what people say and teasing out what they mean. They are quite useful as chairmen of committees.I think in this case [for the 1984 report] people would not have been very happy if the committee had been chaired by a doctor or scientist, because the people who disapproved of research in human embryos were the sort that felt that scientists and doctors would have no regard for morality. They wouldn't have trusted the findings of the committee if it had been a scientist or doctor chairing it. I think a lawyer would have been a bit suspect too.

Globally today the ‘products to platforms’ paradigm shift accentuate our discussion.

Philosophy=Epistemology+ontology+methodology

So knowledge exist on Philosophy

I think no otherwise why all PhD called also doctor of philosophy.

Philosophy is the conduit of knowledge.

Without Philosophy, existence of Knowledge is not possible. Because philosophy is the mother of all kind of knowledge. It is the first requirement to design any research.

Can we have research value methodology from Philosophy?