Ren said:
You speak about the world being "still" in the phase of the biological, but if that were to be the main correlative to how important philosophy is to society, how do you explain that philosophy used to be more influential? Would you perhaps question the notion that it used to have more influence on society in the past? (Perhaps this might raise the question of the nature of world history.) On the one hand I'm tempted to agree with you, but on the other I'm actually under the impression that – perhaps not rationality as such, but a form of "rational scientism" is predominant today, and sees philosophy as some kind of spiritual nonsense. The spiritual dimension of philosophy, I think, accounts for part of its influence in past eras. Whereas now, it's as if you have science on one side claiming "reason", religion on the other claiming "spirit", but not much space for philosophy in between. At least that's how it feels, sometimes.
Just to be careful with my meaning, I think "important" can either mean how much I think it
makes sense for it be studied in society vs it could mean how much people seem to care. I don't endorse the biological urges stuff -- I think philosophy is fun/see no reason not to pursue it right now itself. Seeking deep meaning is interesting/fun, and I think the biological urges stuff is often boring in comparison.
So what I was talking of is why I think philosophy remains kind of a minority interest as a matter of fact, rather than how important it ought to be.
So in this sense, I'd not find it weird or inconsistent with my picture of things if historically, the olden days had more interest in the mass public directed to philosophical issues. I think they could be interested right now, as well, just it's pretty understandable given how much influence primitive biology plays that it's relatively not widespread. Where I'm not sure is if there's any good explanation as to why a majority of people would naturally be less philosophical today than in the olden days.
After all, there's a vast difference between the God that most worship and the 'philosopher's God' -- even today in the religious crowd. Am I to be led to believe that even the 'traditional' religious crowd was much more philosophical then than now? It would be strange, as I'd not think scientism should affect the traditional crowd.
So it would seem that the intellectuals, which constitute a minority of society/are not the people even today ruled mainly by biology, are the ones who've shifted to 'scientism'. That is, where people like Newton could be found thinking philosophically, scientists of today are pretty dismissive of the discipline by comparison. I think this is natural enough, not endorsed by me (I think the scientism stuff is often highly irrational). After all, a lot of academics are driven by publications and tangible progress, and frankly that's just easier to achieve in a discipline that asks things you can find out just by testing/not the most fundamental/weirdest questions out there.
Probably what I can say is that at best, maybe the tone of the majority of intellectuals has an influence on that of the mass public, and that the move to scientism has colored the public to be sort of more brutally secular and practical.
But I think I still consider the religious attitude of the days of old to be more kind of grossly biological than truly philosophical (how many people of deep religious interest, especially in the old days, would say that hey, you shouldn't trust your reason too much, it'll trick you, trust God instead!). E.g. the obsession with marriage/sexuality seems more like a stigma on polyamorous stuff (similar to the coarsely generalizing reasoning people use when they condemn those who consume alcohol just because some are drunkards) than anything really motivated by spirituality.
I'd think the faith in logic and reason has if anything increased (e.g. people probably trust science more than they used to)/the non-secular focus on 'deep meaning' may have decreased, and it sort of balances out because philosophical attitudes often incorporate both. I'm not sure I consider pure spiritual musing without much reasoning to be philosophy at least as I traditionally understand it. At least, if we don't draw that distinction, why not call
everything philosophy?
Still, I think the simplest, most direct version of my point is I don't think my impression is there ever really was a tremendous interest in philosophy (like to the level you or me seems to be interested), and without that level, I'd say even if there was
some more interest in the past (whether or not this is true is history/I don't know history), I'd still count it as people being ruled more by concrete biological drives.
I think there's a part of me that thinks how it is today is more natural than the days of old. I honestly think most traditionally religious thought is so incredibly superstitious and unnaturally so that I find it more understandable how people today are driven by very concrete things / would find it weird for the common man of the days of old to be concerned with philosophy on the basis of a shaky foundation.
I mean, my picture even if you were right that the olden times were more philosophical (kinda on the basis of less strident atheism going around) is that it's still ultimately closer in spirit to the biological drives than the truly philosopohical drives. I always felt traditional religion has a lot to do with a crude way to keep the social order.
That it's more about society than about truth. And that even the unintellectual stridently atheist scientists are still more driven by an itch for truth than those whose only interest in philosophy got triggered more or less solely by association with traditional religion (contrast this with people like Leibniz, whose theorizings about God I regard as genuinely philosophical in spirit).
I think what I was addressing in my old post is when you can expect people to get
truly philosophical in spirit, not a sort of pseudo-philosophical attitude.
