Philosophy Who Needs It


Recommended Posts

I think I would have done better in math in high school with better teachers, but my mind isn't structured for math since I went a different way with my interests as far back as I can remember. If I had my education to do over knowing what I do now, assuming I could set it all up, I'd have done a little better with math, but much better with another language or two. My Mother started a pre-school here in Tucson for my supposed benefit 60 years ago. The primary purpose of this school was "socialization." What you can say about it best is it was better than anything else in Tucson at the time--the metro area has 20 times more people now--and it's still in business as a kind of coop doing exactly what it has always done. I still cringe remembering the learning vacuum I experienced, the sheer waste of time. I made good use of some of that time, but I couldn't expose myself to the sounds of Spanish or French, etc. The stupidest thing was nap time. I was never tired and never slept. I thought the teacher needed surcease from the kids. I needed a Montessori-type school.

Grade school was little better. I never went to a really good school or had an excellent teacher.

--Brant

You are not alone, mathematics is very poorly understood by the majority of people. Most people do not recognize the difference between pure and applied mathematics. Most teachers are under pressure to show results from administrators and parents and they want the children taught important life skills like how to figure out if they can buy enough gas to get to the cottage etc. Hardly anyone thinks it is valuable to learn abstract mathematics that they will never apply in the course of their life and so it remains a big mystery. Advanced pure mathematics has to be studied for it's own beauty, if you will, and it is definitely an acquired appreciation. I never really "got it" until my 3rd year of my mathematics degree and when I did it was like an epiphany of some sort. It seems very unnatural to manipulate symbols for hours following rules in order to reach some desired form (prove some weird theorem) when you are used to using math to do calculations and other useful things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Philosophy is science only in the sense that metaphysics and epistemology are its axiomatic foundations.

Do you mean that philosophy and science are similar in that they rest on fundamental assumptions? I would agree with that, but then they diverge very rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Science grows out of the metaphysical and epistemological axioms. What is more fundamental to you, existence exists or trial and error?

If you don't establish that something exists, how can you even perform a trial with it?

Ditto for consciousness. What is more fundamental, that consciousness is awareness of reality or logic/math? If logic/math are not real because consciousness is not real, how can they be used and what uses them?

This means that in the tree of human knowledge, philosophy is more fundamental than science. As a good, but imperfect, metaphor, philosophy is the root and science is the trunk.

To me, this is really obvious stuff. I don't understand how or why people ignore it, deny it, and/or belittle it, but I acknowledge that they do.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Science grows out of the metaphysical and epistemological axioms. What is more fundamental to you, existence exists or trial and error?

If you don't establish that something exists, how can you even perform a trial with it?

Ditto for consciousness. What is more fundamental, that consciousness is awareness of reality or logic/math? If logic/math are not real because consciousness is not real, how can they be used and what uses them?

This means that in the tree of human knowledge, philosophy is more fundamental than science. As a good, but imperfect, metaphor, philosophy is the root and science is the trunk.

To me, this is really obvious stuff. I don't understand how or why people ignore it, deny it, and/or belittle it, but I acknowledge that they do.

Michael

I said all this.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't establish that something exists, how can you even perform a trial with it?

What do you mean "establish that something exists"? If two scientists sit down and begin to study the characteristics of water, for example, and they have a pail of water on the table do you think they first have to establish that it exists?? I would say that is fairly obvious. This is what philosophers do, argue about whether it exists or not, scientists actually study it instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't establish that something exists, how can you even perform a trial with it?

What do you mean "establish that something exists"? If two scientists sit down and begin to study the characteristics of water, for example, and they have a pail of water on the table do you think they first have to establish that it exists?? I would say that is fairly obvious. This is what philosophers do, argue about whether it exists or not, scientists actually study it instead.

GS,

Which means that they already accept the axiom. If they didn't, there would be nothing to study nor a mind to study it with.

Just because some boneheads have tried to invalidate existence and knowledge, this doesn't mean that the issue can be ignored as a fundamental. Conceptually, you can't have science as a field of knowledge without philosophy as a field of knowledge underneath. In other words, you can't have the concepts science deals with if you eliminate the fundamental concepts philosophy deals with. As you said, "I would say that is fairly obvious."

It's like medicine resting on biology. I could go on with other examples, but maybe you see my point by now.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK, science accepts the axiom that there is existence. But the rest of philosophy today is verbiage that is useless for science. It's like saying that chemistry is based on alchemy - historically chemistry may be an offshoot of alchemy, but today alchemy is useless for the chemist (and for anyone else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK, science accepts the axiom that there is existence. But the rest of philosophy today is verbiage that is useless for science. It's like saying that chemistry is based on alchemy - historically chemistry may be an offshoot of alchemy, but today alchemy is useless for the chemist (and for anyone else).

Physics and Philosophy (mostly) parted company in the 19th century. Physics is a quantitative and mathematical discipline with strong empirical guardians to keep it sound (experimentation). Philosophy is nothing like that. Philosophy is largely vaporware. The only way a philosophical system can be refuted is if a logical inconsistency is found in it. There are no empirical tests for a philosophical system. Philosophical systems, doctrines and theories make no predictions which can be empirically checked. There are no measurements which can refute a philosophy. Philosophy is not physical science and physical science is not philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK, science accepts the axiom that there is existence. But the rest of philosophy today is verbiage that is useless for science. It's like saying that chemistry is based on alchemy - historically chemistry may be an offshoot of alchemy, but today alchemy is useless for the chemist (and for anyone else).

Dragonfly,

The only difference is that alchemy has shown to be wrong in its axioms (the uga uga stuff). So it is not a fundamental principle of the concept of chemistry. Existence, consciousness and identity continue to be right. Causality also exists. Etc. These are all philosophical axioms.

Without these things at the root of knowledge, science does not have a leg to stand on.

Incidentally, I agree that many boneheaded airheads have made formal philosophy nothing more important or valid than a discussion of how many Angels fit on the head of a pin. But they do not invalidate the fundamentals, no matter how hard they try.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means that they already accept the axiom. If they didn't, there would be nothing to study nor a mind to study it with.

No they don't accept the axiom. There is no need for an axiom of existence, it is a complete non-issue except to philosophers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way a philosophical system can be refuted is if a logical inconsistency is found in it. There are no empirical tests for a philosophical system. Philosophical systems, doctrines and theories make no predictions which can be empirically checked. There are no measurements which can refute a philosophy. Philosophy is not physical science and physical science is not philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Exactly, and so when Ayn Rand stands in front of a bunch of cadets and makes fun of the philosophy of other philosophers and claims hers is the right one she has no leg to stand on. It goes on forever - I'm right you're wrong. No, I'm right and you're wrong. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means that they already accept the axiom. If they didn't, there would be nothing to study nor a mind to study it with.

No they don't accept the axiom. There is no need for an axiom of existence, it is a complete non-issue except to philosophers.

Of course they accept it. They don't pretend to go outside existence in search for scientific knowledge. If they do so pretend then they don't accept it. It's simply implicit in scientific inquiry. Now epistemology has to latch onto something both coming and going. By that I mean it has to be tied into metaphysics and in turn used through scientific methodology (method) to explore particulars--what is out there in reality.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they accept it. They don't pretend to go outside existence in search for scientific knowledge. If they do so pretend then they don't accept it. It's simply implicit in scientific inquiry. Now epistemology has to latch onto something both coming and going. By that I mean it has to be tied into metaphysics and in turn used through scientific methodology (method) to explore particulars--what is out there in reality.

--Brant

If I am a scientist and I publish my work and claim results that cannot be duplicated by other scientists then, as far as they are concerned, the results don't exist. This is the only "metaphysics" that we need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Try being a scientist and publishing a work where you claim existence does not apply.

(I knew I didn't want to discuss this.)

Michael

Newsflash: Scientists have discovered an asteroid heading for earth based on detailed observations and calculations but don't worry, they don't accept the axiom of existence and so we are not in any danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Try being a scientist and publishing a work where you claim existence does not apply.

(I knew I didn't want to discuss this.)

Michael

Michael--you're trying to prove too much.

By your logic, the act of breathing is based on philosophy, since by inhaling, the person breathing is relying on the existence of air outside his body.

What the real situation boils down, is this: philosophy studies the concept of existence and how we know it, while science studies existence itself.

Jeff S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, and so when Ayn Rand stands in front of a bunch of cadets and makes fun of the philosophy of other philosophers and claims hers is the right one she has no leg to stand on. It goes on forever - I'm right you're wrong. No, I'm right and you're wrong. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, and so when Ayn Rand stands in front of a bunch of cadets and makes fun of the philosophy of other philosophers and claims hers is the right one she has no leg to stand on. It goes on forever - I'm right you're wrong. No, I'm right and you're wrong. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

Yeah, right. Like you guys don't have a philosophy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. Like you guys don't have a philosophy.

--Brant

Oh I have a philosophy all right, I don't deny that. My beef is that Ayn Rand makes fun of other philosophers. If you believe that philosophy is useful and even undertake to create your own formal system then how do you justify ridiculing others who have done the same thing? They got it wrong because you say so? I have come to a conclusion about Ayn Rand. I think that she had a strong dislike, even hatred, of communism, socialism, collectivism, etc. and believed very strongly in individual free enterprise, trading, etc. and then she created Objectivism in an attempt to push her political/economic agenda forward. This whole metaphysical/epistemological crap is a diversion used to convincing unsuspecting people that her political/economic agenda is the correct one for mankind. I don't even disagree with much of the political/economic principles but the rest is unadulterated BS as far as I am concerned. If she had stood up and given a speech about the merits of free enterprise etc. I would have said more power to you but there is absolutely no connection between her socio-economic beliefs and the metaphysical/epistemological word salad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael--you're trying to prove too much.

By your logic, the act of breathing is based on philosophy, since by inhaling, the person breathing is relying on the existence of air outside his body.

What the real situation boils down, is this: philosophy studies the concept of existence and how we know it, while science studies existence itself.

Jeff S.

That is very well put! I might add that studying the concept of existence can lead to mental illness if one is not careful.

Edited by general semanticist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

We are discussing bodies of knowledge, the concepts that belong to them and the hierarchy of the mental building blocks in their construction. This is clear (at least for my posts) even in a casual skim of the interaction between GS and myself on this thread.

The last I looked, the act of breathing is not a body of knowledge, nor is it a concept derived from one.

To be clear:

philosophy = body of knowledge

science = body of knowledge

existence = concept belonging to philosophy (which is a body of knowledge)

act of breathing = body of knowledge???????? concept belonging to a body of knowledge????????

Graaaaack...

(in robotic voice) That does not compute...

But, for the record, you do need to exist before you can breathe. Do you deny that? Or is recognizing that fact "trying to prove too much"? I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion other than this metaphysical fact exists in a hierarchy of conditions. Try to breathe without existing first.

Objectivist concept formation (as I understand it) is modeled on these kinds of hierarchies in reality. In fact, I don't see the acknowledgment of them as trying to prove anything. They are merely acts of identification.

The kind of error you just made (using an example that had no relation to the topic in order to refute a point) is usually not made by a person who has developed the skill of conceptual thinking. (And it is a skill that can be learned.) On the contrary, if you do not structure your knowledge hierarchically, you run the risk of making this error, then proclaiming, "That is very well put!"

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phi⋅los⋅o⋅phy  /fɪˈlɒsəfi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA

Use philosophy in a Sentence

See web results for philosophy

See images of philosophy

–noun, plural -phies. 1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

6. a philosophical attitude, as one of composure and calm in the presence of troubles or annoyances.

(from dictionary.com - first entry)

Well, if Rand made fun of other philosophers, it was probably not because they practiced philosophy per se, it was that their philosophies were not rational or adherent to anything concrete. She had good reason to poke fun at people trying to logically construct knowledge from totally irrational premises. They were philosophers who themselves were inconsistent according to the definitions of philosophy (or at least, that's how she might have seen it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. Like you guys don't have a philosophy.

--Brant

Oh I have a philosophy all right, I don't deny that. My beef is that Ayn Rand makes fun of other philosophers. If you believe that philosophy is useful and even undertake to create your own formal system then how do you justify ridiculing others who have done the same thing? They got it wrong because you say so? I have come to a conclusion about Ayn Rand. I think that she had a strong dislike, even hatred, of communism, socialism, collectivism, etc. and believed very strongly in individual free enterprise, trading, etc. and then she created Objectivism in an attempt to push her political/economic agenda forward. This whole metaphysical/epistemological crap is a diversion used to convincing unsuspecting people that her political/economic agenda is the correct one for mankind. I don't even disagree with much of the political/economic principles but the rest is unadulterated BS as far as I am concerned. If she had stood up and given a speech about the merits of free enterprise etc. I would have said more power to you but there is absolutely no connection between her socio-economic beliefs and the metaphysical/epistemological word salad.

They got it right? What's that?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear a great deal about identifying the "facts of reality" here well here is one you should identify - philosophy is not science. Look around and you will see it. Look at the faculties at universities, for example, philosophy is in the Arts faculty, not the Science faculty.

GS:

If I missed it in this thread, did you define philosophy, as to what it is, versus what it is not yet?

I would also not use current academia and their departmental categorizations as representative of anything.

Aristotle spoke about arte and techne. I think there is a lot of science, psychology and a hole bunch of disciplines in "art". Cabinetry would be a techne to Aristotle. it is also art.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now