I think that the purpose of science is realized with the 'top-level' context which is the natural purpose of existence. As such, 'scientific objectivity' (including causal explanation) is subordinate to its integration into purposive human existence.

This excerpt from the Preface to Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia sums up it perfectly:

the object emerges for the subject when,
in the course of experience, the interest of the subject is focused
upon that particular aspect of the world. Objeciivity thus
appears in a two-fold aspect: one^ in which object and subject
are discrete and separate entities, the other in which the interplay
between them is emphasized. Whereas objectivity in the
first sense refers to the reliability of our data and the validity
of our conclusions, objectivity in the second sense is concerned
with relevance to our interests. In the realm of the social,
particularly, truth is not merely a matter of a simple correspondence
between thought and existence, but is tinged with
the investigator's interest in his subject matter, his standpoint,
his evaluations, in short the definition of his object of attention.

Meaningful information theoretic way of describing causes exists, I suspect. — simeonz

I'd agree with this.

PS__What was the source of your Spencer's quote above? — Gnomon

It's the concluding paragraph of the second edition of his book First Principles.

It's good to attempt an overarching theory - that's Spencer's position too.

Ideology and Utopia by Karl Mannheim

Yes, Spencer definitely anticipated and, in some cases, confused some modern scientific concepts. His assessment of the significance of various manifestations of "spiral structures" in nature is eerily prescient of fractals and chaos theory. His goal was to outline a comprehensive philosophical knowledge. His conclusion:

Manifestly, the establishment of correlation and equivalence between the forces of the
outer and the inner worlds, may be used to assimilate either to the other; according as
we set out with one or other term. But he who rightly interprets the doctrine contained
in this work, will see that neither of these terms can be taken as ultimate. He will see
that though the relation of subject and object renders necessary to us these antithetical
conceptions of Spirit and Matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as
but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both.

I like the energy in the Lounge.

Yeah, not that part. ;) Let's not forget the state of medical science, science in general, at that time.

But utilizing radical metaphysical doubt to eliminate everything that is not cogito. I just read some Max Scheler and he also had a kind of eliminative project, very much like Husserl's phenomenological reduction but of a more transcendental bent.

Yes, except that it isn't really "missing," is it? It's right here. That's why I stand by many of Descartes' fundamental insights.

Hmmm. I'm thinking it is evident from the general principles I outlined. I mean, it's either matter, or energy, or...something else. It's that "something else" that has been causing grief for centuries now. I'm not sure why it should. As complex systems evolve, the nature of the energy that they manifest changes, but, fundamentally, it is still energy. I don't see any reason in principle to doubt that, whatever may be the actual nature of psycho-social mechanisms, whatever dynamisms they involve must ultimately be energy of some kind.

You mean "over-mind" isn't accepted clinical usage?

In any case, I wanted to ask people here what they thought of such a general question. What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

I believe that consciousness itself is subject to a special type of reciprocity relationship, such that its own nature is ultimately determined by the nature of the rights it ascribes to others. So for me, it is only by ascribing an ultimate value to the sacrosanct quality of the life of the other that I realize the value of my own life. i.e. view others as ends in themselves, never as means.

Nice! I'm very much interested in reintegrating empiricism into a more holistic perspective. Spencer's First Principles, as dated as it is, still presents a remarkably cohesive integration of evolution as a universal process across all theoretical domains, from physical to organic to social.

Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens

If religious faith is reasonable, then how can it be "potentially a vice" unless it is potentially unreasonable? A little observation serves to show us that religious faith is indeed potentially unreasonable; it is unreasonable when it turns into fundamentalism, that is when it takes itself to be knowledge. — Janus

Is scientific belief when it promotes itself to the status of scientism subject to the same criticism?

Conflating these interrogatives does – has always done – much mischief in/with philosophy (e.g. theology, idealism, antirealism, psychologism, etc). — 180 Proof

Mischief keeps philosophy interesting.

Yes, I'm definitely exploring the theory-ladeness of the observational viewpoint, and suggesting this contains an embedded teleology. Kind of a 'natural experimentalism' perspective.

I don't think it's circular. The cultural "milieux" precedes and is not dependent on the minds which it subsequently affects.....

Right, so we can't really differentiate between our personal use of concepts and the cultural-collective heritage within which those concepts evolved and were transmitted.

But isn't that a puzzle about reading, rather than thinking? — Banno

Is thinking mental reading, or is reading verbalized thinking?

I have long known that if I read aloud, or at least mouth the words, I comprehend almost effortlessly, and far faster and better than if I have to read and re-read a paragraph mentally.

Interestingly, I was on Unemployment insurance in 1990, just after I graduated from university, and they paid for me to take a test to enter a Systems Analysis program, which was a pretty new field at the time. It was a three-hour test that I finished after an hour. Early the next day, Saturday, they called me, and told me I had gotten the second highest score in verbal reasoning they had ever seen.

Spoken words definitely possess a magic all their own.

The reason why 'other' is sometimes used on forms is to give room to anyone, who, for whatever reason, does not feel that they fit into a binary distinction of the two gender categories. — Jack Cummins

I'm actually right now updating our provincial AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunization) form for special tracking of Covid - it now includes a gender category: Unknown.

Yes, I agree that equal opportunities are important for enabling equality. Unfortunately, I have seen situations where people pay lip service to this while the whole spirit of it is ignored. For example, if people try to make the statistics show that gay or disabled people are being employed in certain professions and the reality is that those people go on to get bullied so much that they leave the job.It is not good if the translation of policy into practice becomes one of empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, from what I have seen, this can be what happens in some organisations. — Jack Cummins

Yes, unfortunately operating in bad-faith has become almost a sub-culture in our society.

What the statistics show is not a "demonstration of lack of representativeness" of both sexes, but rather, that both sexes prefer, when given freedom of choice, completely different academic sides. — Gus Lamarch

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you know for certain whether a given statistical trend is representative of an individual choice or a cultural influence?

Equal rights mean nothing without equal opportunities to exercise them.

I guess you could view Kant's antinomies as evidence of the paradoxical nature of the relationship between the subjective and the objective....

Ironically, the chapter I read this morning, immediately after posting here, was called "Ultimate Religious Ideas" in Spencer's book First Principles.... :lol:

Devil's advocate, maybe it's not as important whether there are bad posts as whether there are any good ones? Digital real estate is cheap, and it provides a place for people to work things out. I never stick my face in there, but I'm someone who firmly believes that religion has historically played an important socio-cultural role in collective normative validation and legitimation. And that its complete expulsion from modern life is more of a harm than a good. If it is making some people happy why take it away?

And I reserve the privilege of meddling in any conversation here — Banno

:lol:

The point is that no historical period was ever embraced in its totality by anyone, contemporaries included. — Olivier5

I think that living in a world constitutes "embracing it in its totality," to the extent that is possible. Whether there are a multiplicity of partially overlapping Weltanschauung or if there is some definitive Weltanschauung is another question. Perhaps some people do happen to embody the Zeitgeist of a particular time by being the right person in the right place though?

We can't read texts with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century eyes. I know ancient texts mean much to many people in various spiritual traditions. I'm saying though that it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time — Gregory

To a certain extent this is obviously true. As Ernst Cassirer describes it

In a certain sense the historian is much more of a linguist than a scientist....he tries to penetrate into the sense of all the various symbolic idioms. He finds his texts not merely in books, in annals or memoirs. He has to read hieroglyphs or cuneiform inscriptions, look at colors on a canvas, at statues in marble or bronze, at cathedrals or temples, at coins or gems, But he does not consider all these things simply with the mind of an antiquary who wishes to collect and preserve the treasures of olden times. What the historian is in search of is rather the materialization of the spirit of a former age.
(Essay on Man, Ch 10, History)

And yet this decay of meaning into history takes place by degrees. The "living cultural history" (what Cassirer calls the "materialization of the spirit of a former age") of the 1960's is much more accessible right now than it will be one hundred years from now.

Perhaps part of what culture is is creating a blueprint for its own future interpretation?

I am not a good business person because I give away my service. I love to be needed but don't love taking money for what I do. — Athena

Story of my life.

This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown — Jack Cummins

After I graduated in 1990 I spent 3 years reading and writing every day for 6-8 hours. I was working on something called "The Art of Self-creation" which was an epistemological-cybernetic study of Self, Self and Other, and Self and Society. The culmination of that work was going to be a theoretical-historical analysis of the concept of "the unknown," its place and role in the structure of thought.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. On the social level, we argue our points of view in argument, often trying to defend a position. Lack of ability to defend a position can involve loss of credibility to formulate an argument, or could point to a weakness in the underlying viewpoint itself. — Jack Cummins

Think about two propositions:

It is wrong to take advantage of someone during negotiations.
It is good business to press the advantage in negotiations.

Being right ultimately boils down to having a fundamental commitment to a position. And in any non-trivial sense, this usually entails the juxtaposition of a whole value-schema on top of a set of facts. However a value-schema, by its very nature, is not susceptible to an absolute determination of right versus wrong.

In my view, being right is critical, in the sense that you commit to all the presuppositions and consequences of an idea.

First Principles by Herbert Spencer
Wingfield's Hope by Dan Needles

I honestly don't know why you are meddling in a matter between me and Raul — Gus Lamarch

I got the impression I was commenting on topic posted on a philosophy forum. I wasn't aware that this matter had privileged, private status (since normally that is what private messages are for). I'll try to keep that in mind when evaluating your posts from now on Gus.

My observation only states that only when touched on such an issue, it can become a problem - when one becomes aware of such an issue -. — Gus Lamarch

If I may, you said, "when you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem.:" Raul wasn't taking it as a problem and neither was I. That leaves only you.

When you take it as a problem, it becomes a problem. — Gus Lamarch

I don't see where Raul says it is a problem. Statistical populations are a basic fact of reality. Sounds perhaps like you are somehow offended by the question? Surveys don't bother me.

Yes. Sadly, at least during his more Romantic moments, J.S. Mill believed in rule by an elite as well. But it wasn't all that uncommon a belief in the 19th century. — Ciceronianus the White

I like the systems structured around the rule by an intellectual class specifically cultured for that role, Plato, Comte. They seem quite reasonable to me.

I am rather wary of you concern to protect the plight of the ruling class — Jack Cummins

I don't get that was specifically said that Jack, although perhaps that is the intent. I do read the wish for a "ruling-class hero" (instead of "working-class hero," get it? :smile: ) to rise to lead us to salvation, as it were.

My guess would be it alludes to the wealthy who tend to benefit from the system of inequality and therefore are in a position to exert a strong influence on the way the world works. Specifically, I think the hope is for a new Donald Trump to arise, who is actually inclined to a generous social policy.

Thomas Carlyle believed that it was the role and duty of the aristocracy to rule for the benefit of the working class. A kind of hero-mythology.

Because I think music speaks to the soul, and I love Funk and Soul music, and it kind of speaks to the topic at hand...

You Make Your Own Heaven And Hell Right Here on Earth
by The Undisputed Truth

Born into this world a baby
You're mind is clear as the air
Time passes
You learn to walk and talk
Time passes
You learn right from wrong
Time passes
You leave home seeking a life
Of your own

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heavens and hell
Right here on earth

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make you own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
On earth, on earth, on earth

Time passess
And your values change
Life becomes a strange, confusing game
Suddenly you want the finer things in life
But you find it takes a lots of hard work and sacrifice
(There ain't no such thing as something for nothing, can you dig it?)
Now you're standing
At the crossroads of life
To satisfy your personal wants
Will you do wrong
Or will you do right?
Well one thing you must admit
And you know it's true
The final decision
Is still up to you

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
Let me tell you one more time
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth

Listen people
Life is a giant, invisible scale with two sides;
Good and bad
You and your beliefs
Are the weights
The things you do each day
Determine the balance
Your conscience is a flawless
Judge and jury;
The only question is what you want