Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 4:58:45 GMT -5
Hi Prashna. 1. Surely philosophy - thinking about thinking is, I think, one definition - is an all-embracing term like 'writing' or, indeed, 'thinking'. 2. Science is organised knowledge. Philosophy is speculation about the knowledge that science produces. Hi peterf, 1. I concur. This is why the Doctoral degree in most sciences is called 'Ph.D' or Doctor of Pholosophy. 2. And philosophy is organised speculation. Regards. Prashna
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 17:05:42 GMT -5
Perhaps, Fret you could adopt the phrase 'introspective circumambu'lation' instead. Not quite as catchy as 'navel gazing' though! Prashna Hi Prashna. Surely philosophy - thinking about thinking is, I think, one definition - is an all-embracing term like 'writing' or, indeed, 'thinking'. Depends on who is doing the philosophising. It can result in clouds of meaningless verbiage if practised by 19th century Germans like Kant and Hegel - not that they did any harm except for paving the way for Naziism. Science is organised knowledge. Philosophy is speculation about the knowledge that science produces. You have a rather romantic notion of science, Peter. To begin with philosophy addresses (or seeks to address) many questions that are entirely beyond the remit of science. (Not that the fact that they are obliged to go beyond the limits of their actual KNOWLEDGE has ever prevented scientists from attempting to philosophise, almost invariably badly. Monod is probably the philosophically most acute of the various scientists who have attempted our more rugged terrain and I am a great admirer of him both for making the effort and because he is far less prone to commit the elementary logical fallacies to which so many of the other philosophising scientists have fallen prey). Science, even at its most expansive, can only explain how. Philosophy attempts to answer the question, why?
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Feb 15, 2011 2:28:45 GMT -5
Hi Prashna. Surely philosophy - thinking about thinking is, I think, one definition - is an all-embracing term like 'writing' or, indeed, 'thinking'. Depends on who is doing the philosophising. It can result in clouds of meaningless verbiage if practised by 19th century Germans like Kant and Hegel - not that they did any harm except for paving the way for Naziism. Science is organised knowledge. Philosophy is speculation about the knowledge that science produces. You have a rather romantic notion of science, Peter. To begin with philosophy addresses (or seeks to address) many questions that are entirely beyond the remit of science. (Not that the fact that they are obliged to go beyond the limits of their actual KNOWLEDGE has ever prevented scientists from attempting to philosophise, almost invariably badly. Monod is probably the philosophically most acute of the various scientists who have attempted our more rugged terrain and I am a great admirer of him both for making the effort and because he is far less prone to commit the elementary logical fallacies to which so many of the other philosophising scientists have fallen prey). Science, even at its most expansive, can only explain how. Philosophy attempts to answer the question, why? I would say that my notion of science is idealistic rather than romantic Mike. And I have no difficulty in accepting that scientists should not attempt to philosophise. But why then, should anyone else? Philosophy does, I agree, attempt to answer the question Why. And fails. Then a new generation - or 'school' - of philosophers comes along and fails again, though in a different way. Call me a cynic but, taken in the round, I see little to suggest that the academic discipline of philosophy has done much to advance human understanding.
|
|