I am expressing this idea and I am looking for people who are ready to jump of this train of practice or people who have thought about this as well and whom have any insight into how this can be expanded. — obscurelaunting
what if we observed the world through breaking it down further and if gaps between those micorscopic concepts were also looked at? — obscurelaunting
What if this approach to the smaller and smaller is the problem of modernity with the advent of science and technology?
What if our alienation with the creative comes because we have sacrificed the holistic approach? — TheMadMan
By this do you mean we sacrifice innovation in philosophy to innovation in science and technology, or that progress in science and technology also suffer? — Joshs
Obviously the progress of science and technology is going forward. I'm simply adding that its primary focus is not on general human needs but the needs of the market. — TheMadMan
I believe we need to be able to come up with completely new concepts that could have never been fathomed before, — obscurelaunting
Philosophy has more to do with how we interact with the world than it does with the details of the world itself. The human ways of interacting with reality haven't really changed that much in the last 3,000 years. Technology has changed, but not human nature. — T Clark
If our sciences have evolved, it’s because our philosophies have evolved.
— Joshs
I don't see that. I think the argument could be made it's the other way around, i.e. changes in scientific knowledge lead to change in philosophies. I'm not sure where I come down on that. — T Clark
The argument could be made, but I dont see a lot of evidence for it. Newton was the first scientist to express Cartesian ideas, but he came along 100 years after Descartes. One can find strong consonances between the groundbreaking work of Kant and scientific thought, but none of this appeared till many decades after Kant. — Joshs
I'll go out on a limb here, given my lack of detailed knowledge - It strikes me that philosophy was much more entangled with science back in the 17th century. It is less so now. — T Clark
the Cartesian-Newtonian disambiguation of natural philosophy from metaphysics-theology. Disputes nevertheless persists.
Some (A) prioritize the latter over (or at the expense of) the former; some (B) prioritize the former over (or at the expense of) the latter; and some (C) do not prioritize either treating them as "non-overlapping magisteria". I think one's preference – A, B, or C – mostly depends on how one mis/reads (the) history of science & history of philosophy. — 180 Proof
I believe we need to be able to come up with completely new concepts that could have never been fathomed before, of course however, our language is limiting and our thoughts are like glue to the world around us, but what if we observed the world through breaking it down further and if gaps between those micorscopic concepts were also looked at? — obscurelaunting
I would say that physics was much closer to the cutting edge of philosophy in the 17th century than it is now. Today’s philosophy is entangled with the social , and in particular , the psychological sciences, and more distantly related to physics. — Joshs
I more or less agree with you here (and disagree with Joshs' position) if only because Western philosophy, by most accounts, began in the 6th c. BCE with Pre-Socratic proto-scientists who framed – grounded in reasoned-speculative observations of nature – the predominantly Platonic-Aristotlean tradition which followed. I read this empirical, or anti-supernaturalist, framing as happening again two millennia later in the 17th c. CE with the Cartesian-Newtonian disambiguation of natural philosophy from metaphysics-theology. Disputes nevertheless persists. — 180 Proof
Some (A) prioritize the latter over (or at the expense of) the former; some (B) prioritize the former over (or at the expense of) the latter; and some (C) do not prioritize either treating them as "non-overlapping magisteria". — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.