Stephen Hawking
Philosophy is Dead, Long Live Philosophy
23/05/11 19:03 Filed in: Human Nature
The Telegraph reported that Stephen Hawking, the author of a Brief History of Time, told an audience that philosophy is dead. Hawking is quoted as saying
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
“Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead."
Why does Hawking make this claim? Because philosophers have not kept up with the findings of science, particularly of physics.
If we parse his comments, he seems to be confusing a few questions. He is confusing answers to "why are we here?" and "where do we come from?" with questions about "how are we here?" and "how did we come to here?" As Mary Midgley has said, most recently in The Solitary Self, he is confusing knowledge with wisdom and wonder.
Of course, Hawking's comments have stirred the bee's nest of philosophers. Most notably, Christopher Norris addresses Hawkings's views on the Philosophy Now website. Norris argues that scientists still need philosophers, particularly philosophers of science, because they provide clarity on terms like falsifiability and truth, and philosophers of science have rejected the Quinean-type relativism that marred 20th century philosophy of science.
Insofar as it goes, Norris' argument is fine. But notice that, despite warning against those philosophers who have given away too much by agreeing with some of Quine's theses, Norris also gives away too much. Where Hawking says that philosophy is dead, Norris focuses only on the philosophy of science and logic. Unfortunately, philosophers of the 20th century in the Anglo-speaking world have tended to focus on questions in epistemology and philosophy of science, thereby killing off almost any relevance philosophy as a whole has for the everyday person. But focusing on technical terminology and questions that pertain only to those doing science, philosophers have abandoned the root of the philosophical enterprise in the Ancient Greeks: trying to understand ourselves and learning how to live a good life.
If we take this broader picture of philosophy, then neither Hawking's comments nor Norris' rebuttal to Hawking have anything to say about philosophy. Or, insofar as they say anything about philosophy, they give a firm warning to those of us in the field to stop being so narrow in our discussions and to make philosophy more relevant. The more that people see philosophy as meaningless in their lives, the easier it will be for administrators to gut philosophy programs, as they have already done at London Metropolitan University.
Or perhaps I should say, if philosophy is dead, it's because philosophers have killed it themselves. It is up to us to resurrect it by giving it a much more meaningful role in human life. Hopefully this blog does that just a little.
Comments