So Vulcanlogic, your view is philosophy is a form of blue sky research that might well eventually be applied and be useful even if we don't yet see a need for it yet. I'm not disagreeing, and it's great if true. I will have to take your word for that though as I don't genuinely know enough about what pure philosophers get up to. I fully appreciate the potential usefulness of blue sky research though. I do it myself. But I also know that I am doing it so that eventually I will come up with something useful (still waiting for that to happen). I also appreciate that often you can't go straight for creating a new technology without increasing your understanding first. It's like Queen Victoria telling her best scientists to invent television. They wouldn't know that they needed to research electro-magnetism first. I suppose I'm just slightly cynical that what pure Philosophers get up to (especially after a few 
) really could ever be applied in the same way that John Locke's work could be.
I remember many years ago listening to a PhD student argue that vegetarians should not play video games. Everybody in the audience was sort of dumbfounded and you could see that they weren't convinced in the slightest. I eventually stuck my hand up and said that video game sprites did not have the capacity to suffer and the philosophy student couldn't really answer that. But despite that I think it was actually a worthwhile thing to investigate. There are so many different areas that would need to be drawn together in order to answer the question that no single scientist is likely to ever concern themselves with the question. For example, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, anthropology, AI, computer science, politics etc. If the field of philosophy worked in this way then I would be a great fan. I certainly appreciate reading a paper written by someone with a philosophical bent that does properly understand the fields that the issue touches upon.
When I refer to science, I actually mean any body of knowledge about the nature of reality and the world that we live in gleaned through empirical study and the scientific method, rather than just the traditional natural sciences. So when I suggest that philosophy should be relevant in this way, I'm actually suggesting that it should be grounded in reality.
Searching for current hot topics in philosophy I come across Top Ten philosophical issues of the 21st Century. These look worthwhile investigating. I can see how it can be useful, although admittedly I'm struggling to see how the mind-body problem is interesting. But is it really ever going to be useful discussing Abstract objects for example? So much of the time I see philosophical issues stem from the underlying choice of definition and people arguing about what does and does not fit the definition. Definitions are generally context dependent.
My perception has often been of philosophers arguing amongst themselves and never coming to a conclusion because whatever anyone decides can't be verified. If the issue doesn't originally stem from what we learn from reality then how are we ever going to apply our reasoning back to it?
) really could ever be applied in the same way that John Locke's work could be.I remember many years ago listening to a PhD student argue that vegetarians should not play video games. Everybody in the audience was sort of dumbfounded and you could see that they weren't convinced in the slightest. I eventually stuck my hand up and said that video game sprites did not have the capacity to suffer and the philosophy student couldn't really answer that. But despite that I think it was actually a worthwhile thing to investigate. There are so many different areas that would need to be drawn together in order to answer the question that no single scientist is likely to ever concern themselves with the question. For example, neuroscience, psychology, sociology, anthropology, AI, computer science, politics etc. If the field of philosophy worked in this way then I would be a great fan. I certainly appreciate reading a paper written by someone with a philosophical bent that does properly understand the fields that the issue touches upon.
When I refer to science, I actually mean any body of knowledge about the nature of reality and the world that we live in gleaned through empirical study and the scientific method, rather than just the traditional natural sciences. So when I suggest that philosophy should be relevant in this way, I'm actually suggesting that it should be grounded in reality.
Searching for current hot topics in philosophy I come across Top Ten philosophical issues of the 21st Century. These look worthwhile investigating. I can see how it can be useful, although admittedly I'm struggling to see how the mind-body problem is interesting. But is it really ever going to be useful discussing Abstract objects for example? So much of the time I see philosophical issues stem from the underlying choice of definition and people arguing about what does and does not fit the definition. Definitions are generally context dependent.
My perception has often been of philosophers arguing amongst themselves and never coming to a conclusion because whatever anyone decides can't be verified. If the issue doesn't originally stem from what we learn from reality then how are we ever going to apply our reasoning back to it?
