The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Is philosophy still important in our technologically-driven world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 46250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing that the study of philosophy is still crucially important despite our culture's focus on technology and science.


As philosophy is reliant upon a rational argument its level of importance is irrelevant of technology.
Debate Round No. 1


Your statement, though intuitively compelling, is increasingly being denied by scientists who believe that science, rather than philosophical inquiry, can resolve moral dilemmas and provide answers to our most penetrating questions. The astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, for instance, has claimed that technological and scientific advancements will ultimately cause philosophy to become useless.


While i appreciate your hearsay of Mr. Krauss, I see no reason to blur the boundary between science and philosophy as many scientists attempt to do with other like-disciplines. In other words, the position on technology or science in "our world" does not enhance, diminish, or influence the value of philosophy. For philosophy may be concerned with a moral paradigm and the mere facts of science and/or technology would have no influence on such. Just as there are issues in our world that are not currently technologically influenced/controlled so are there also issues in our world that are not philosophically managed.
Debate Round No. 2


LiamKNOW forfeited this round.


subgenius forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ian1131113 2 years ago
Before this debate began, based on my understanding of "Philosophy" and "Science", I am inclined to agree with "Pro".

However, I fail to see how what Pro has written for Round 2 is relevant to his aim in this debate. In my opinion he has not presented a logical argument for why (Statement 1): philosophy is still important in our technology-driven world.

All Pro has argued in Round 2 is that (Statement 2): science, rather than philosophical inquiry, is likely to provide answers and get to the bottom of philosophical issues.

This statement might not even be clear and unambiguous. For example, when it comes to moral issues, it is not clear what the difference is between "philosophical inquiry" of the moral issue and the application of science/scientific method to the moral issue. In fact, one could argue that you might need a bit of both, depending on exactly what you definitions of philosophy and science encompass.

More importantly, I don't see any obvious reason as to why his argument (Statement 2) contributes to his case of proving (Statement 1).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued in the 2nd round that Philosophy and technology are essentially different, that the boundaries shouldn't be blurred between them. Con further argued that Philosophy can deal with questions of morality, where science really cannot. Pro failed to respond to these substantial arguments, thus arguments to Con. Conduct to Con for Pro forfeiting first.