Is philosophy continuous with the natural sciences, or does it deal with fundamentally different questions?

Is philosophy continuous with the natural sciences, or does it deal with fundamentally different questions?
Is the historical development of philosophy itself relevant in answering contemporary questions?

you probably know that philosophy and natural science weren't really considered separate disciplines until the middle of the 19th century. since then, a lot of analytic philosophy is done with modern science very much in mind (kind of analogous to how philosophy in the middle ages was the "handmaiden of theology".)

so I'd say yes it is relevant, but that's not a very meaningful statement. the hard part is working out exactly how it's relevant and what the relationship between the two traditions really is.

My position here is one of historicism - essentially, I don't see any philosophy divorced from the historical tradition as meaningful, and the discipline itself could be described as a constant dialogue with tradition and interpretation. Obviously, a lot of analytic philosophers disagree with this, and this is something I continually struggle with as I read more anglophone texts. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but the whole concept of "solving" a problem with logical analysis is strange to me, as if philosophical content is about puzzles, instead of constructing worldviews that are helpful in dealing with the world.

>Is philosophy continuous with the natural sciences, or does it deal with fundamentally different questions?
They began as one and the same, wise men dealing with philosophy, medicine, astronomy, religion, mathematics, the arts, even engineering, etc. as an unified, holistic body of knowledge, of wisdom.

The idea of overspecializing in, and segregating every single thing is a recent development.

Admittedly, the amout of literature involving each of the many areas of knowledge has grown quite a bit, and it doesn't look like we will be blessed with too many "renaissance" geniuses like Hildegard of Bingen, da Vinci, Leibniz, or even a Peirce.

>Is the historical development of philosophy itself relevant in answering contemporary questions?
Yes, I would cite the above answer as an example, given that the question was asked in the contemporary age.

Another would be the continued persistence of religion and metaphysics being more easily explained when you look at how recent atheism (as contemporarily understood, the definition of atheist changed quite a lot), and eliminative approaches to metaphysics, compared to the way humans have been thinking for entire millennia.

What puzzles fedora tippers is no mystery at all to those who read the history of philosophy. What is more mysterious that we could somehow find a way out of certain durable if not perennial memes.

Since Wittgenstein's Tractatus, they think philosophy's mission is to clarify language and critique language.

>philosophy's mission is to clarify language and critique language.
Let's follow their example and clarify: many historical issues of philosophers allegedly turn out to be nonsense. Avoid nonsense, worry about what actually matters.

Philosophy became natural science. It's an artifact that people study for pleasure. Nobody in their right mind expects ancient thought exercises to provide anything close to the best answers to contemporary questions.

>renaissance" geniuses like Hildegard of Bingen, da Vinci, Leibniz, or even a Peirce.
Hol up. Where my nigger Sir Isaac Newton at?
He did more for science and theology than that little German faggot.

Newton is, of course, huge in the history of science and philosophy, but was he a diplomat, a judge, a historian? Did he invent a calculator? Renaissance men do every damned thing.

I know your Anglo education forbids you the ability to see that the importance these two geniuses had on calculus is equal, perhaps one day you'll notice that we use Leibniz's notation.

>theology
Don't make me laugh. Or, do, that would be more fun.

The intelligent philosophers abandoned the natural sciences when they saw the bad epistemology of the scientific method and realised that science distances further from the Truth, rather than bringing it closer to us.

>muh notation
Leibniz was an ape copying his master's reasoning, a child could draw symbols without understanding.

Sir Isaac has a royal appointment at the Mint, more influence than the status driven German could dream of despite his time spent playing the diplomat.
Go jerk off to the monadology and chant "relativity in disguise".

Imho the natural sciences as we know it is an outgrowth of the modernist project. That is something that likes to wipe the slate clean with radical skepticism and then look forward. Thus, philosophy, being an ancient discipline, tries to answer different questions due to its age. The questions I think it tries to answer are that relating to being as such as well as the moral/political order. I think Plato makes this most evident. With Plato, you can see the political nature of all of his works with Socrates undermining the political order of Athens through constant questioning and the use of metaphysical objects to achor this critique. Only philosophy seems to have a hold on those questions since antiquity.

On the point of historical development, it obviously seems important but to go all radical historicist and claim that a thinker is simply a product of his time and cannot reach towards the perennial questions seem to be misguided. Its very German and imho undermines the whole project.

They are certainly related, and there is an overlap between philosophy and the natural sciences, but it's more of a dialectical process of critique rather than a continuity of subject matter. Each field is capable of staging questions which scrutinise certain facets of the other, and each is strengthened by a relationship which constantly challenges it's claim to truth.

bump

Both. Contrary to what people on this board who have never read analytic philosophy say about it, philosophy (both analytic and continental) engage with the past, but differ on its relevance. Continentals love their linear system building, while analytics are in constant discourse with one another as they try to work out a problem or set of problems. Insofar as philosophy engages with the natural sciences, it depends on which branch of philosophy we're discussing, because it varies. Metaphysics, while containing problems unique to itself, is also informed by and concerned with developments and problems in physics and empirical psychology, to name just a few. Developments in neuroscience may, to some extent, bear on ethics and aesthetics, but it does not really touch upon the core problems that philosophers have wrestled with for millennia. Sam Harris cannot solve the is-ought problem anymore than a physicist can solve the problem of universals, if only because the physical sciences themselves are not concerned with these philosophical problems. It's not their job to be and it never was. The arrogance of the new atheists in their belief that they can subordinate philosophy to science stems from their egregious hubris and overreach and nothing more.

only an English major could write this empty tripe

Please explain why. I know I'm not the best when it comes to adequately expressing my thoughts but I'm looking to improve.

>Only philosophy
Stop pretending theology isn't a thing.

It deals with fundamentally different questions.

Philosophy has been garbage up until the 19th century.

The 'sciences' are absolute trash.

Every morning I wake up shocked at the stupidity of everything.

>Continentals love their linear system building, while analytics are in constant discourse with one another as they try to work out a problem or set of problems.

That's the most stupid thing I've ever read written in this board. Holy shit. I can't understand if you think this is real or you're just meme-ing. The crux of Analytic Philosophy is trying to streamline philosophical knowledge and build upon previously established philosophical thesis. This is precisely Rorty's critique and why he distanced himself from the American philosophical establishment (found in Princeton, Yale, Brown, Stanford etc.).

Newton is irrelevant. Science is irrelevant, his contribution to theology and philosophy is a mistake at most. Then we have Liebniz, who was somehow even worse.
Muh discourse is good because memes

Ah yes, my bad. I always forget about theology due to my ignorance on the topic. I probably should have added that philosophy is more radical as it even questions God's existence. But your point of theology being able to raise these questions made me realize the conflict between the two disciplines.

...

t. reddit

Explain your position thoroughly.

When philosophy tackles abstract topics like the spirit or God's existence is when it excels. Kierkegaard > Nietzsche tbqh f@m

Why?

Fucking hell. If you're not joking just end it all mate.

Hegel pls

Why?

What is the point of "tackling" them when they will never break any ground? Once those things are within the realm of science, more will be done with them in a single day than has been done in ten thousand years.

bump