You're making a claim about what knowledge actually is (or rather what it isn't) — Pseudonym
I like to think that I'm making or rather promoting claims about useful ways of thinking about knowledge, ways that can be pressed into the service of different needs, depending on different motivations — StreetlightX
what does and does not count as evidence is of course, precisely a philosophical and even perhaps historical issue of which you remain entirely unreflective about. — StreetlightX
Again, all these words you think you're using as self-evident - knowledge, evidence, meaningfulness - these are things you seem to think you understand, — StreetlightX
you wield that carelessness unthinkingly to make invalid claims, over and over again. — StreetlightX
Again, you're simply imposing your worldview here, because I have a view about what constitutes evidence that differs from yours I must be 'unreflective', I must, through my own inadequacies, have missed something. Is the idea that I might well have reflected long and hard on these matters but simply reached a different conclusion to you so hard to accept? — Pseudonym
so far there is no 'evidence' that you have for a moment thought about, or understood the specificities of philosophy. — StreetlightX
mean, there is simply no way to take seriously, for example, the idea that 'science=objective' and 'philosophy=subjective'. — StreetlightX
What is your theory of the object? What is your theory of the subject? Do you even have one? Or again, are you employing these empty terms that have nothing but a (implied and untheorized) value valence to them, and drawing conclusions based on that fake veneer of meaningfulness? — StreetlightX
Because, as with most of your terms, you simply haven't discussed or explained their use. — StreetlightX
It's sheer disingenuity to speak for 'fostering useful investigation' while literally denying legitimacy to entire swathes of human understanding. — StreetlightX
What kind of meta-ethics is implied in a question like this? — StreetlightX
What kind of thing would ethics have to be in order for science to bear - or not to bear - upon it? — StreetlightX
total insensitivity to them. — StreetlightX
I think I decided last time I looked at it unscientifically that this was a troll thread — unenlightened
So what does 'understand' mean in this context? How does one judge when one has 'understood' the human condition? — Pseudonym
In what way has, for example, Camus, understood the human condition significantly more than Aristotle — Pseudonym
So what might be an equivalent example demonstrating the 'direction' of philosophy? — Pseudonym
And that is because the short answer to the question 'What is scientism?' is that it is a term of abuse. — unenlightened
And if no one espouses a philosophy, no one is in a position to seriously explicate it. So what is left to talk about except the personal failings of the contributors? — unenlightened
and set up future discussions rather more carefully with a substantial topic. — unenlightened
Presuming it means something like the excessive use of science, how are we determining excessive? How does Scientism differ from either Physicalism or Positivism such that it deserves it's own name? — Pseudonym
You have understood the human situation when you have an understanding of it. — Janus
is true that Camus' understanding is more comprehensive than Aristotle's for the very obvious reason — Janus
demanding that philosophy must justify its value to you by showing that it satisfies the same criteria that you believe gives science its value. — Janus
That is not a point. It is an assertion. And it is unsupported by any argument. Hence it is not worthy of anybody spending any time considering it.The point someone like Hawking is making is that the whole of philosophy is unnecessary in answering the questions humanity has of its existence. — Pseudonym
Right, so what does having an understanding of it look/feel like? — Pseudonym
I didn't ask how, I asked 'in what way', what constitutes the progress? — Pseudonym
Who's demanding anything? I'm just asking. Yes, I'd like to know if you think philosophy can show progress in something I can understand as being useful. If it can't, fine, you don't need to get so touchy about it. — Pseudonym
The only answer to half-done science is to come back and finish the job. — apokrisis
the vitriol in virtually all of the responses I've received to any suggestion that science can answer questions of philosophy, but at the moment it's hard to move away from the glaringly obvious explanation, that people are scared it just might be right. — Pseudonym
The point someone like Hawking is making is that the whole of philosophy is unnecessary in answering the questions humanity has of its existence. — Pseudonym
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.”
So once science cracks holism, then it is game over. :) — apokrisis
philosophy being a social activity, people can define it as they like. They can talk about other ways of "knowing" - like feeling, or poetry, or revelation.
And that is fine. In an open competition of ideas, all the different ways of thought will play themselves out in good old evolutionary fashion. — apokrisis
Science relies on there being an 'epistemic gap' between knower and known. And ultimately we're not apart from reality. So all knowledge is forever conditional, it can't be any other way. So 'cracking holism' requires breaking out of the dualistic mindset that underlies science. — Wayfarer
Which is, in turn, one of the main factors underlying scientism as a kind of quasi-religious belief system - amply illustrated in this thread ;-) . — Wayfarer
Which is of course true in the context of science; but more or less irrelevant when it comes to philosophy, except in those restricted areas where there are problems caused by philosophers hanging on to the Newtonian worldview, or other reductionist paradigms. — Janus
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.