Quote:
Originally Posted by yossarian  IMO most of the "great philosophers" ((define "great", define "philosopher")) worked from a place of no-mind anyway which is why they were actually able to make useful advances in the world. At this point in time however we have exhausted "pure thought" and all logical systems are exposed for what they are. The great philosophers of today are not called "philosophers" unless you want to get into an endless argument about "what makes philosophy" which is so incredibly useless. |
These are actually questions that most philosophers in their respective traditions have agreed on. It's why we study Russell, Frege, Quine, etc. in the analytic tradition, and not just some idiot. We also don't argue about "what makes philosophy". Take a class at a well-regarded university in philosophy and you might find yourself less ready to hold these whinging stereotypical views. Plenty of advances are made
a priori or with "pure thought", as you say. Philosophers are commonly regarded as second-order interdisciplinary watchdogs methodologically and ethically for other fields, including science, medical, engineering, and environmental fields, among countless other practical fields out there. In science it's especially helpful -- the discipline of cognitive science has been borne out of the need of computer scientists, neuroscientists, philosophers and psychologists to synthesize their work into innovative new avenues of understanding the mind.
Think some more before senselessly bashing a plethora of historically-validated well-crafted thought again.