Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: higg meka
From: Nic on 6 Jun 2010 14:44
On Jun 6, 3:38 am, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the
> beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches
> for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children.
> Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought,
> metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of
> reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all
> belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers,

Psychology doesnt use philosophers on the reference texts by more
common or well known archaic philosophers writers and vague symbolic
referents recounted by historians. The can only way psychology can
explain the sperm and egg is by go telling their patients dream on
zeno's paradox and if theres any change in that they'll send pd dr's &
ambulances to guard the covern!
> but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed,
> in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made
> between philosophy and these other disciplines...
>
> ...In the beginning, then, all systematic search for knowledge was
> philosophy. This fact is still reflected in the modern university,
> where the highest degree granted in all of the sciences and humanities
> is the Ph.D.-the doctor of philosophy.
>
> But the children gradually began to leave home. First to leave were
> physics and astronomy, as they began to develop experimental
> techniques of their own. This exodus, led by Galileo (1564-1642),
> Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), created the
> first of many great family crises, all centering on the same question:
> What is left for philosophy to do? Rene Descartes (1596-1650), after
> whom we call a graph's x and y axes "Cartesian coordinates," was the
> first great philosopher to grapple seriously with the question, and
> because of this, he is now considered the father of modern philosophy.
>
> Descartes took philosophy's major task to be the establishment of a
> secure foundation for scientific knowledge. What can be known for
> certain, he asked himself, and how can we build up our knowledge of
> the world from these certain foundations? These questions led him to
> examine the human mind and its relation to the human body. Since then,
> psychology, philosophy of science, and epistemology have been central
> to the" philosophical enterprise. How is knowledge possible? What
> features of the human mind enable it to have knowledge? How can and do
> we come to have scientific knowledge, ethical knowledge, everyday
> practical knowledge?
>
> Although such questions came to be central, many of the other
> questions that had perplexed the family since ancient Greece have
> continued to puzzle succeeding generations. How should we live our
> lives? How should we treat others? What is the best form of society?
> Moreover, many philosophers continued to speculate about a deeper
> reality than the one the physicist explored. Is reality at bottom
> physical, nonphysical, or both? Is the universe united by factors
> other than physical laws-by divine providence, perhaps, or a universal
> moral order? Does life on earth have any meaning?
>
> Eventually, psychology left home. As late as the end of the nineteenth
> century, the same man-William James (1842-1910)-could be known as both
> the president of the American Psychology Association and the most
> eminent philosopher in America. Still, when James built the nation's
> first experimental psychology laboratory, he helped pave the way for
> psychology's maturity, and another child was soon gone.
>
> This produced another great crisis, which was dealt with in two
> different ways. In the English-speaking world, under the influence of
> Bertrand Russell (1872-1969) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951),
> philosophy turned to the study of logic and language, spawning the
> movement known as analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophers were
> somewhat embarrassed by the history of philosophy. It seemed to them
> that as soon as reliable methods for answering certain types of
> questions were devised, the questions were no longer deemed
> philosophical. Philosophy, it seemed to them, was becoming the last
> bastion of unanswerable questions.
>
> To make philosophy as scientifically respectable as such long-gone
> offspring as mathematics and physics, they declared that the job of
> philosophy was to analyze language and thereby show that many
> traditional philosophical questions and theories were based on a
> confusion about the workings of language. After completing this task,
> philosophy would continue as a clarifying enterprise, which
> philosophers, because of their training in logic, were singularly
> qualified to carry out.
>
> On the European continent, under the influence of Edmund Husserl
> (1859-1938) and Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), phenomenology and
> exstentialism became dominant. Although there are important
> differences between the two movements, both emphasized the examination
> of human reality from the inside. The phenomenologist attempted to
> understand the workings of human consciousness. The existentialist
> concentrated on describing and analyzing what if is like to be a human
> being, not from the objective viewpoint of the psychologist, but from
> the personal viewpoint of the human being.
>
> Although these three movements-analytic philosophy, phenomenology and
> existentialism-still exert some influence, they appear to have run
> their respective courses. The reasons for the decline of analytic
> philosophy are particularly instructive. For one thing, many
> philosophers began to feel that the analytic program was excessively
> limiting. They wanted to do more than merely dismiss confusions and
> analyze language. For another, linguistics as a separate science had
> begun to reach a high degree of sophistication, developing various
> techniques for understanding human language. Thus, another child left
> home leading to a familiar family crisis. What was left for philosophy
> to do?...
>
> Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olenhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/

From: bigfletch8 on 7 Jun 2010 00:05
On Jun 7, 12:50 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the
> > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches
> > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children.
> > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought,
> > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of
> > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all
> > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers,
> > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed,
> > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made
> > between philosophy and these other disciplines...
> (...)
> > To make philosophy as scientifically respectable as such long-gone
>
> leading to a familiar family crisis. What was left for philosophy
>
> > to do?...
>
> > Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olenhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117/
>
> The physicist Richard Feynman opined that the distinguishing character
> of a "science" is that the criterion for truth lies in successful
> experimental confirmation.

There are laws of empiricism, sure. But what is 'ever' being confirmed
which isnt linked to the unconfirmed, or even subject to paradigm
shifts, as technology progresses?
>
> Inspired by this idea, I have asked my philosopher colleagues, what is
> the criterion for correctness of philophical ideas? No one has yet
> given me an answer.

Perhaps they dont know what philophical means (:-)...

How can there be answers in a field that only deals with questions?
>
> Feynman would thus distinguish sharply between philosophy and science.

And ignore a great new term ..'fuzzy'? At his very peril :-)

> Witness the fact that philosophers are still pondering ancient
> questions, while scientists have made huge progress since the time of
> Galileo.

Sure, scientists can now watch from above due the their ingenuity,
what GG identified, but the questions are also growing exponentially.

People such as Pythagorus had a wisdom which can be seen to embrace
both. He talked of the structure of the universe and the individual as
'one'. (Know self, and know the universe.) He also had to be extremely
discreet, also having understood how such wisdon is always a threat to
the status quo, a lesson even the brilliant GG didnt know (so much for
the chronological order of wisdom theory, and just as applicable
today).

BOfL

From: bigfletch8 on 7 Jun 2010 00:14
On Jun 7, 1:01 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:26 pm, Shrikeback <shrikeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 7:38 pm, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The history of philosophy reads like a long family saga. In the
> > > beginning there were the great patriarch and matriarch, the searches
> > > for knowledge and wisdom, who bore a large number of children.
> > > Mathematics, physics, ethics psychology, logic, political thought,
> > > metaphysics (the search for knowledge of the ultimate nature of
> > > reality), and epistemology (the study of knowledge itself)-all
> > > belonged to the same family. Philosophers were not just philosophers,
> > > but mathematicians and physicists and psychologists as well. Indeed,
> > > in the the beginning of the family's history, no distinction was made
> > > between philosophy and these other disciplines...
>
> > You don't think science could raise itself
> > up by its own bootstraps, do you?  Without
> > the philosophy of science, there is no scientific
> > method, there is no science.  You can't construct
> > science using science.
>
> Do you think that Galileo and Newton needed philosophers of science in
> order to create physics?  I don't think so.  Physics came first, and
> philosophy of science came along afterwards to try to neaten up
> things.
>
> I enjoy reading the philosophy of science, but it is a fact that no
> physics department I know of imposes a philosophy requirement on its
> students.
>
> Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Which confirms the view that the wisdom held by our ancestors such as
Py, Soc and a few other 'masters' (to call them philosophers is to
call Horowitz a 'piano player' :-), splits and divides,just as cells
do. (as above , so below comes to mind).

There is always a 'trickle down' effect from such masters, which
enables a student to recognise both, and like a salmon returning to
its source, ascend back to the source of the divergence of both, (or
apex of the triangle symbolically described by Pythagoras.)

BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 7 Jun 2010 00:20
On Jun 7, 1:14 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message
>

>
> Feynman would thus distinguish sharply between philosophy and science.
> Witness the fact that philosophers are still pondering ancient
> questions, while scientists have made huge progress since the time of
> Galileo.
>
> Uncle Ben
> ===========================================
> The physicist, mathematician and philosopher Isaac Newton gave the answer,
> Bonehead, you asked the wrong philosophers.
> "We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake
> of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from
> the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to
> itself. "
> RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----
Update to RULE no 1 (at least in the University of
Woolamaloo)superceding the original Rule 1 being "No Poofters.

Rule 1. Nobody will be accepted in the adavanced course, if he still
has a need to call others "Boneheads" (whether they be a poofter or
not).

BOfL

From: Uncle Ben on 7 Jun 2010 09:36
On Jun 7, 12:05 am, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 7, 12:50 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> > Inspired by this idea, I have asked my philosopher colleagues, what is
> > the criterion for correctness of philophical ideas? No one has yet
> > given me an answer.
>
> Perhaps they dont know what philophical means (:-)...
>
Obviously, it means preoccupied with the greek letter "phi."

Interesting that you posted your response 0:45 before my post. Time
travel IS possible!

Cheers!

UB
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: higg meka