I know it will sound weird if I say that philosophy ‘sent folks to the moon’ two centuries before NASA. But what I mean is that most of the important conceptual elements required for this technological achievement were in place with the breakthrough work of certain key philosophers. — Joshs

Sure. This falls in with my "clearing away the clouds" metaphor. Scientists have specific and daunting clouds to clear away - whatever hinders progress or inhibits vision.

Most of us simply aren’t familiar enough with philosophy, or good enough at making the translation from philosophical to scientific language, to recognize this parallel. — Joshs

I get that philosophers cleared away the clouds for the scientists. I'm on board.

I described my complaint above. Fetishistic partisanship and a detachment of philosophy from the pursuit of wisdom.

Is that an accurate account, to your knowledge? I like the sound of it well enough. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The only quibble I have is the claim that there is only one true reality. Kelly at times did seem to talk like a realist, but the important thing is that, unlike realist cognitive therapists like Aaron Beck or Albert Ellis ( rational emotive
therapy) , Kelly never determined the ‘correctness’ or rationality of a belief on the basis of correspondence with an objecivte outer world. My constructs are validated or invalidated on the basis of a world that appears
already pre-interpreted by me relative to my prior history (my personal construct system). So what is validating or invalidating from my perspective is not necessarily so for you. This is a departure from cognitive therapy.

Gotcha. :cool:

Regarding Aristotle and the subject of objectivity - I think the whole concept, or rather orientation, of objectivity, is part and parcel of the modern period. The word itself only came into regular usage in the early modern period. And I think the deep reason for that is that pre-moderns, even very sophisticated pre-moderns such as the Greeks, experienced the world differently - not as an ensemble of objects, but as an intentional creation, and so had different kind of relationship with it -an 'I-Thou' relationship, not subject and object. — Wayfarer

Yes. I doubt that Aristotle thought in terms of total opposition between Subjective (ideal) & Objective (real), in the modern sense. But, he seems to have pioneered the mundane Pragmatic approach, that was later adopted by modern Science, to replace the sublime Theoretical/Theological*1 methods of the Scholastics. Nevetheless, I see the roots of modern thinking in his treatise on Nature. For example, where Plato used the notion of universal Ideal Form (eidos) as the ultimate reality, Aristotle used the term in reference to specific material objects.

Later, when Greek "ousia" (being or divine essence) was translated into Latin, two different words were used : essentia and substantia. Although "essence" can be interpreted as the immaterial logical structure of a thing, "substance" has come to be associated with the material fabric of an object. And latter-day materialistic science pointedly avoids the spiritual associations of "essence" in favor of the secular meaning of "substance". So, the modern subjective/objective dichotomy seems to reflect total rejection of the submissive ancient "I-Thou" relationship, in favor of today's dominating "I-it" attitude.

Since my personal worldview is Information-theoretic, I tend to see "Form" in both categories : essential & material. That's because 21st century Information theory now defines "Information" as both Mental (metaphysical meaning) and Material (physical substance). Hence, En-Form-Action (Energy) is the power to create (enform) both Mind and Matter, both Subjective Ideas and Objective Objects. :nerd:

*1. Theory : mental scheme ; speculation [possibly from "[i]theos/deus[/i]" (god) ]

Aristotle Objectivity :
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. . . .
Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. . . . .
Aristotle, by contrast, identifies the ordinary objects of sense experience as the most objective reality. He calls them “primary substance".
https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/
Note --- Ironically, Plato's ultimate reality (now known as "Ideal") seems to fit the modern notion of "objective reality". So, which is real, and which illusion?

Information Realism :
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Only the mathematical apparatus used to describe the behavior of matter is supposedly real, not matter itself. . . . .
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

All we have here is peer review (Academia to Facebook) and echo chambers (Academia to Facebook) choosing camps and scoffing at the enemy. Fetishizing the untestable. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:smirk:

To the extent that philosophy clears away clouds, eliminates confusion, it has value. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

But philosophy also has its part in creating clouds and confusions. Think egocentric self-distortions. I see it on the forums every time I check in.

:zip:

We only need the new if we're clearing ancient clouds and have never seen the sky. We need the new to eliminate inherited errors of thought - confusions, covert and overt. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:fire:

When a scientific paradigm changes, what counts as evidence changes with it. — Joshs

Cite an example. :chin:

All philosophical accounts are testable ...

"Testable" in what way/s?

They create a specific ‘way’( a metaphysics), and assume future philosophy will follow this path and add more clarity and detail.
In other words, they claim to have reached the bottom (the way) as far as they can tell. — Joshs

The way to the bottom is not the bottom. And until one arrives at the bottom, any specified "way" may prove to be faulty. Any philosopher knows this, and despite the fact that I think my way is the best way, as philosophers do, I also respect the fact that my way may prove to be faulty, as other philosophers do as well.

https://bostonreview.net/articles/metaphysics-and-morals/

@Banno you will find this of interest.

Indeed, I do. I just finished Metaphysical Animals, and have become aware of a renewed interest in Austin, who of course I make some use of. So the critique of OLP in the Crary article is especially interesting. I agree that an opportunity has been lost here in opposing the four's work and Austin's, since the influence of Austin, and Hare, on Foot and Midgley is undeniable.

I'm surprised Hare never comes up in discussions hereabouts. His linking of Kantian deontology to OLP is quite interesting.

Four extremely interesting and complex paths through philosophy, well worth further consideration.

I discovered Mary Midgely through her book Evolution as a Religion, an ideal counterpoint to much new atheist blather. Thought it very good, albeit written with a rather school-marmly tone. I've read snippets of Iris Murdoch's Platonist musings, but I find Anscombe's writing too pedantic to be enjoyable.