1

Have any philosophers given classifications for philosophy that could be "detached from reality" at least in current times?

For example, some platonist ideas are "pretty far out there".

closed as primarily opinion-based by Conifold, virmaior, Swami Vishwananda, ClearMountainWay, philosodad Nov 11 '17 at 4:28

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Daily Nous has a taxonomic map of philosophy, and Bourget and Chalmers made a taxonomy of philosophy they used in their surveys. But to make this question answerable you'll have to elaborate on what "detached from reality" means. Otherwise, answers will just express personal opinions about what is "out there". – Conifold Oct 23 '17 at 18:07
  • @Conifold Detached from reality would mean that it has so little in common with existing models (e.g. in science) that one may speculate, whether it exists in other ways than in words. – mavavilj Oct 29 '17 at 13:45
  • "Little in common with existing models" just rephrases "detached from reality", so it is not very helpful. You'll have to be more specific on whose view they are supposed to have "little in common" or be "detached", and/or more specific on what that actually means. For example, modern platonism is alive and well, including among philosophers of science and mathematics. – Conifold Oct 29 '17 at 20:50
  • @Conifold I think "whether it exists in other ways than in words" is a good qualifier. That is, because I think good philosophy must have an empirical "extension", because the world is not abstract. So in order for a theory to have some "holism" it should have some attachment to something empirical or physical in addition to mere wording. – mavavilj Oct 30 '17 at 6:08
1

Many people use the term pseduophilosophy by analogy with pseudoscience. This, however, is controversial, since there are no universally, or even widely agreed upon standards for what is a legitimate philosophy, as opposed to a pseudo one. The very use of the term, therefore, is considered by some to be a rhetorical device, a way of ridiculing a philosophy rather than disproving it or responding to it. (In contrast, "pseudoscience" is relatively easy and non-controversial to define, based on widely accepted standards for scientific legitimacy.) Part of the problem is that philosophy is cyclical, and long-abandoned theories can unexpectedly gain new currency in a way that is much less likely (but not unheard of) in science.

Some thinkers cited by Wikipedia as using the term are Christopher Heumann, Michael Oakeshott and Nicholas Rescher. In general, it is associated with the movement within analytic philosophy to make philosophy more rigorous and science-like.

It is also related to the "linguistic turn", and the assessment of certain longstanding philosophical conundrums as "pseudo problems," which are just the result of confusion in language, and not actual paradoxes. This is associated with the logical positivists, but it was inspired by the work of Wittgenstein.

  • Yea, sounds like it's difficult to distinguish philosophy and pseudoscience, even if one can draw such terminology. – mavavilj Oct 23 '17 at 15:55
  • @mavavilj Well, a pseudoscience masquerades as a science, but doesn't meet accepted scientific standards, so that isn't so hard to judge. There are some philosophies that are misrepresented as sciences, but most are neither intended nor presented as scientific. – Chris Sunami Oct 23 '17 at 16:02
  • It's difficult, because one cannot display what's philosophy. There's no generally agreed upon definition? There are no criteria? There's no standards for philosophy, or are there? Therefore one cannot display anti-philosophy either. Or one can, but perhaps only using some limited sense of "agreeability". Just as science. I mean, scientists might agree on that the phenomena occur e.g. repeatedly so that they're "real". However, I would believe that even the scientific communities go through consensus-based or authoritative valuation regarding what's regarded as science or not. – mavavilj Oct 23 '17 at 16:40
  • The fact that there is a standard is a defining characteristic of science. The fact that there is no standard, per se, is arguably a defining characteristic of philosophy --perhaps the thing that most distinguishes it from science. – Chris Sunami Oct 23 '17 at 16:46
  • Yes, but how do you distinguish pseudophilosophy from philosophy if you have no definition for philosophy. – mavavilj Oct 23 '17 at 17:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.