En mi opinión, pudiera ser que sí, aunque las ideas más luminosas suelen ser solitarias... De cualquier forma el equipo rinde más en el campo de la ciencia. Saludos: Alejandro Álvarez

P.D. Echad un vistazo a mi Blog Simbiotica

http://simbiotica.wordpress.com/

Thanks to you,Alajandro.However,I am sorry that I could not understand you.Would you please translate your statements in English.

I think that on any field philosophers should not act alone, but taking into account the discussión. Nevertheless the philosphers must be aware of not losing the limits of their realm.

De acuerdo German, el filósofo actual debe tener una base científica altamente significativa, sin la cual hoy en día ni siquiera se le podría considerar filósofo. Saludos:

Alejandro Álvarez

http://simbiotica.wordpress.com/

Shafiq! by the way what do you mean by "scientific knowledge' --knowledge of sciences or knowledge by scientific method ?

In fact one of the basic difference between science and philosophy is that where the former is through and through public, the later allows rather encourages introvert speculation.Now if philosophical knowledge has really to contribute substantially, it has to come out from its "walled city of mind".

Thanks,Sidney and Safiq,for your valuable comments.It is true that there were schools of philosophy throughout its history.In fact the whole history of Indian philosophy is often conceived as history of six orthodox and three non-orthodox schools .

Still i think that philosophers never came together to solve their problems.

They never strived for reaching towards a consensus.In fact it is one of the demarkating line between philosophical and scientific inquiry.

Now time has come if philosophy has to contribute substantially it must be public.Team work is badly needed.

Eisa! you seem to have raised a number of good issues by your valuable comment.Is there really any real philosopher today?Who is really to be called a philosopher? Was philosophizing specially a Greek mode of looking at things?Had Great Islamic scholars inherited and later mastered that particular way of thinking ?Was this one of the foremost reasons behind rise of Islamic golden period ?What lessons can modern Islam draw from that ?

Surely any discipline wants to "solve their problems", but in a sense that is what Philosophy is...solving problems. Let's look at Academia in general (Philosophers are Academicians, you know) and consider what we've learned from Sociology about what happens when people gather in groups. First you have tenure and its' undue influence. Many of those at the top of the pile who have the most widely accepted theories will be close-minded, seeing new or revolutionary ideas as a threat to their tenure and influence. Call it self-preservation. There will be sub-groups within the group, all kinds of sub-chains of thought, and at some level, everything breaks down. Put "Mob Theory" into a search engine, as I'm not going to go into it all here.

Las academias filosóficas siempre han tenido su importancia, pero ahora no lo son tanto. Lo que es indudable es que el filósofo hoy prácticamente tiene que ser un verdadero científico. Saludos: Alejandro

@Richard Donovan, Thanks for your valuable comments. I would make my comments in details only after seriously pondering on the issues raised by you. @ John Voris , your view p[resumes a specific nature of philosophy and that is this that philosophy is speculative and 'by narure an internal process'.

However, philosophy today is not only speculative.Metaphysics is not its sole concern today.nowadays , so many branches of philosophy have emerged and philosophers too can claim of solving their problems. For example problems of ethics and morality can not wait for a sound philosopher to think over them and solve. We have to collect the ideas and thoughts available on these and reach towards finding a consensus.

AM: "Philosophy has so far been an individual's enterprize.All great philosophers have worked individually.Now time has come to make it public.Philosophers should work together as a team to sort out philosophical problems."

"to make single individuals absolute judges of truth is most pernicious. The result is that metaphysicians will all agree that metaphysics has reached a pitch of certainty far beyond that of the physical sciences; -- only they can agree upon nothing else. In sciences in which men come to agreement, when a theory has been broached it is considered to be on probation until this agreement is reached. After it is reached, the question of certainty becomes an idle one, because there is no one left who doubts it. We individually cannot reasonably hope to attain the ultimate philosophy which we pursue; we can only seek it, therefore, for the community of philosophers. Hence, if disciplined and candid minds carefully examine a theory and refuse to accept it, this ought to create doubts in the mind of the author of the theory himself."

~ Charles S. Peirce; "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities;" ***Journal of Speculative Philosophy*** (1868) 2, 140-157.

JV: "Yes, I believe there are many here who will agree with you. When I have attempted to have a discussion with Bill, I was always reminded of other sites glutted with first year philosophy students, dripping with testosterone. Bill needs to be right and not much more. His reputation is well known, and the rest of us should just move on and focus on the respect the site designers deserve."

How funny!! I always emphasize freedom of expression, believing that the free, civil discussion of all sorts of ideas is essential to a genuine Socratic dialogue.

Some people can not handle such freedom. Thus they get bogged down in 'ad hominem' comments. It is a real shame.

"The splintering of present-day philosophy, with its perplexed activity, sets us thinking. When we attempt to view western philosophy as a unitary science, its decline since the middle of the nineteenth century is unmistakable. The comparative unity that it had in previous ages, in its aims, its problems and methods, has been lost. When, with the beginning of modern times, religious

belief was becoming more and more externalized as a lifeless convention, men of intellect were lifted by a new belief, their great belief in an autonomous philosophy and science. The whole of human culture was to be guided and illuminated by scientific insights and thus reformed, as new and autonomous.

"But meanwhile this belief too has begun to languish. Not without reason. Instead of a unitary living philosophy, we have a philosophical literature growing beyond all bounds and almost without coherence. Instead of a serious discussion among conflicting theories that, in their very conflict, demonstrate the intimacy with which they belong together, the commonness of their underlying convictions, and an unswerving belief in a true philosophy, we have a pseudo-reporting and a pseudo-criticizing, a mere semblance of philosophizing seriously with and for one another. This hardly attests a mutual study carried on with a consciousness of responsibility, in the spirit that caracterizes serious collaboration and an intention to produce Objectively valid results. 'Objectively [objektiv] valid results --- the phrase, after all, signifies nothing but results that have been refined by mutual criticism and that now withstand every criticism. But how could actual study and actual collaboration be possible, where there are so many philosophers and almost equally many philosophies? To be sure, we still have philosophical congresses. The philosophers meet but, unfortunately, not the philosophies. The philosophies lack the unity of a mental space in which they might exist for and act on one another. It may be that, within each of the many different 'schools' or 'lines of thought,' the situation is somewhat better. Still, with the existence of these in isolation, the total philosophical present is essentially as we have described it.

~ Edmund Husserl; ***Cartesian Meditations;*** §2

SC: "LOL, How funny, perhaps we need a Philosopher King to establish order?"

I am glad we can agree on the humor of the situation. Philosopher kings are hard to come by. In my humble opinion, a little more tolerance for diverse opinion is what is called for...

""And about all these matters the endeavor must be made to seek to convince by means of rational arguments, using observed facts as evidences and examples. For the best thing would be if all mankind were seen to be in agreement with the views that will be stated, but failing that, at any rate that all should agree in some way. And this they will do if led to change their ground, (3) for everyone has something relative to contribute to the truth, and we must start from this to give a sort of proof about our views; for from statements that are true but not clearly expressed, as we advance, clearness will also be attained, if at every stage we adopt more scientific positions in exchange for the customary confused statements. And in every investigation arguments stated in philosophical form are different from those that are non-philosophical; hence we must not think that theoretical study of such a sort as to make manifest not only the nature of a thing but also its cause is superfluous even for the political student, since that is the philosophic procedure in every field of inquiry. Nevertheless this requires much caution."

3 Or perhaps 'led on step by step.'

~ Aristotle; ***Eudemian Ethics;*** Book I; 1216b.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0050%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D1216b

It seems that Aristotle believed that knowledge of the causes of being is the essence of wisdom...

"It would seem that for practical purposes experience is in no way inferior to art; indeed we see men of experience succeeding more than those who have theory without experience.The reason of this is a that experience is knowledge of particulars, but art of universals; and actions and the effects produced are all concerned with the particular. For it is not man that the physician cures, except incidentally, but Callias or Socrates or some other person similarly named, who is incidentally a man as well. [20] So if a man has theory without experience, and knows the universal, but does not know the particular contained in it, he will often fail in his treatment; for it is the particular that must be treated.Nevertheless we consider that knowledge and proficiency belong to art rather than to experience, and we assume that artists are wiser than men of mere experience (which implies that in all cases wisdom depends rather upon knowledge);and this is because the former know the cause, whereas the latter do not. For the experienced know the fact, but not the wherefore; but the artists know the wherefore and the cause. For the same reason we consider that the master craftsmen in every profession are more estimable and know more and are wiser than the artisans,"

~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book I, 981a.

"[981b] [1] because they know the reasons of the things which are done; but we think that the artisans, like certain inanimate objects, do things, but without knowing what they are doing (as, for instance, fire burns);only whereas inanimate objects perform all their actions in virtue of a certain natural quality, artisans perform theirs through habit. Thus the master craftsmen are superior in wisdom, not because they can do things, but because they possess a theory and know the causes."

~ Aristotle; ***Metaphysics;*** Book I, 981b.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D981b

So men of wisdom are they who "possess a theory and know the causes."

Aristotle, it seems, would opt for the free discussion of ideas, "for everyone has something relative to contribute to the truth, and we must start from this to give a sort of proof about our views."

Funny... just noticed the translation error in the above. Clearly the translator should have said 'relevant,' instead of 'relative.' Oh well, many men confuse the two words.

In any event, I agree with Aristotle's position in supporting free expression.

Philosophers could rebuild the world if they'll be able to rebuild themselves: that's what Giordano Bruno thought, during the end of the Renaissance. To him, the first thing was to believe in men, not in god. His philosophy aimed for transforming the society, clearing minds from every prejudice. He was very close to the Oriental doctrines, in a time when Western philosophy ordered totally around. He deserves attention.

@Anna,Bruno is very popular in India.You are right that the reason may be be that his thoughts suit the Indian mind.However, Bruno is the typical case why philosophers tend to trust on themselves rather than on convincing others.

In a sense, I agree with you, @Ananda. Nevertheless, the idea Bruno had about magicians and about the large power of Love - thought as the power of the stronger emotional involvment and traduced in a modern meaning - has been used by the most up-to-date mind-conditioning techniques. I think that Bruno lived in too hard time to have a really social influence: he was too much contemporary.

Thank you for your answer and sorry for my bad English! Hope to be clear enough!