Which two philosophical fields do you think are in humanity's best interest to make advancements in?

[The Dude]

Obviously, there is merit to every field of philosophy. Ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics but also newer fields like philosophy of language, of mind, of religion and whatnot. Each field deals with something that is of course in some way relevant.

But, as human beings, we end up attaching a greater intuitive signifance to some things than we do to others, and for this reason we will obviously also feel that some fields of philosophy are more useful than other fields.

If you had to limit yourself to two fields of philosophy, which two do you think would be most beneficial for mankind to make advancements in? I've developed a preference for the following two over the last few months:

1) Philosophy of Language. It is absolutely vital that we understand analogue languages as being limited in scope and inefficient at effectively conveying thoughts and concepts. Yet this is what we are limited to doing, which creates the obligation to communicate as cleanly and as effectively as we possibly could. There are many advancements to be made in this field, most of which will, in my opinion, be greatly aided by technological innovation. The best-case scenario for me would be the development of a method that would allow us to digitalize our neural patterns and translate them into data that could then instantly be taken over by receiver which would transfer this data into the user's brain. This sounds like sci-fi, but I feel a sense of urgency in overcoming the limitations of written and spoken language.

2) Ontology. I prefer a sort of existential approach to ontology, whereby the focus shifts to the examination of the existence of individual things and in which way they manifest themselves. There are many interesting philosophies that deal with this and obviously some are more to my liking than others, but I believe it to be absolutely essential that in an age of increasing technological advancement, we understand as truthfully as we possibly can what technology is, how it stands in relation to us, and by which means we may allow ourselves to maintain a position independent of technological applications. That is to say, to not use our technology in such a way that it starts to define how we fill in our human existence.

Both of these points are very narrowly focused on technology and that's because I am convinced that this is the chief end towards which all human knowledge is initially geared. Meaning that I believe that technology is the first step on a path that leads to a yet hidden future for humanity, and that this path is a dangerous one to walk without first understanding how we think and communicate, before creating other things that may potentially think and do certainly communicate. Once we know this, it is important that we exist in an independent relationship with technology and apply it in such a way that it is exclusively and uncontroversially for our benefit, our benefit being the fulfillment of whatever purpose it is that we exist for.

If I may speculate on the ending of this path, then I would go as far as saying that our challenge is in creating a synthesis between our individual existence and our collective nature, to find a way to unite the two as it were, to share as effectively as we can all knowledge that we could possibly acquire, and to, from this knowledge, spawn whatever it is that we can. Primarily, knowing is inherently beneficial for humans and it may well be that the pure act of knowing is in itself a process of creation of the reality in which we reside. But that would require me to elaborate on my incomplete reality thesis which this is not the thread for.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think it is a question that can be fairly answered. You are asking to assign a subjective 'worth' value to concepts that can't really acquire that by virtue of each being important to a relative degree in areas of life.

The simplest way I could answer it if pressed would be to say research only those things that there is a market for and all else should rely on probono funding or academic funding that is private in as much as USA universities manage it. We have a very successful private Uni in the UK as well.

[chriscase]

Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics.

Of course.

[The Dude]

Philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics.

Of course.

Why, though? Science isn't the end all explanation, unfortunately. I wish it were.

[Caliph]

1) Philosophy of Language...The best-case scenario for me would be the development of a method that would allow us to digitalize our neural patterns and translate them into data that could then instantly be taken over by receiver which would transfer this data into the user's brain. This sounds like sci-fi, but I feel a sense of urgency in overcoming the limitations of written and spoken language.

While this would a be a neat advancement in clarifying our communication, isn't giving others indiscriminante access to your brain or thought patterns the ultimate invasion of privacy? The user must retain full control in what he or she wants to share which further complicates the development of such a device.

Another issue that may arise further down the line should such a device be adopted for mass use, is dependability. Who needs to personally develop linguistic techniques to convey his or her thoughts when a machine can do the trick? Just as no one needs to focus on spelling as they used to thanks to Spellcheck; though I'd attach a far greater value to thought presenting skills than mere spelling.

2) Ontology...I believe it to be absolutely essential that in an age of increasing technological advancement, we understand as truthfully as we possibly can what technology is, how it stands in relation to us, and by which means we may allow ourselves to maintain a position independent of technological applications. That is to say, to not use our technology in such a way that it starts to define how we fill in our human existence.

The bit underlined is vital imo. Counteracts the dependability issue I highlighted previously.

[The Dude]

While this would a be a neat advancement in clarifying our communication, isn't giving others indiscriminante access to your brain or thought patterns the ultimate invasion of privacy? The user must retain full control in what he or she wants to share which further complicates the development of such a device.

Another issue that may arise further down the line should such a device be adopted for mass use, is dependability. Who needs to personally develop linguistic techniques to convey his or her thoughts when a machine can do the trick? Just as no one needs to focus on spelling as they used to thanks to Spellcheck; though I'd attach a far greater value to thought presenting skills than mere spelling.

[...]

The bit underlined is vital imo. Counteracts the dependability issue I highlighted previously.

Good points, both of them. In the former case I would imagine that an on/off switch would be the most solution, or a sort of peer to peer system where both parties would have to authorise a shared mental link or somesuch. But you're absolutely right, the challenge is to maintain an independent relationship towards technology and make sure that we do not get incorporated in a system that we built but can no longer get out of.

It's not as binary (in the metaphorical sense) an issue as it may seem at first, though. I think that this is actually for the most part an ontological question, namely we have to be aware of what technology is, and what we are, and how those two interact and what that interaction is. If we can clearly define how to make use of our technological gains and to which degrees we will allow it to dictate us, we can prevent losing ourselves in technological innovation for its own sake.

All sounds a bit abstract, but that's the best way I could put it, really.

[chriscase]

Why, though? Science isn't the end all explanation, unfortunately. I wish it were.

Well, of course I have a bias in favor of my own areas of study. The short answer I have to your question is that science plays such a dominant role in human society that a coherent, well founded philosophy of science is absolutely necessary. By extension, a consistent and effective philosophy of mathematics is equally necessary. Without these things, critical developments in entire fields of math and science may go awry, or not happen at all.

That said, I think an even more significant effect of the advancement of science and technology is the cross-pollination of traditionally non-scientific fields of study such as language with novel scientific and technological tools. For instance, from what I understand (and it's not much) about some new linguistic models, they look very much like a variety of mathematical formalism. And results from the theory of computation line up interestingly with the study of languages as well.

It's very interesting and exciting to bring results from mathematics, symbolic logic, and theory of computation to bear on problem spaces that until recently appeared to be completely beyond their purview. The analytical leverage such an approach can grant is potentially revolutionary. And yet, again, without coherent and well defined philosophical grounding, the application of such methods to a given space must be viewed with some skepticism. At the very least, a consideration of the foundations of scientific and mathematical methods ought to play a role in the evaluation of their applicability to a given problem space.

There, I wrote some more words that time.