For example, "science" cannot tell us whether or not we should be scientific realists, or what a property is, or what constitutes knowledge. — darthbarracuda
If it is indeed the case that science has an epistemology, then this just further shows how philosophy is a separate and prior domain. — darthbarracuda
Note the mention of worth/value, which is a sort of ineffable ground. — who
In my view, we are ALWAYS telling each other a story, and there's no 'just' about that. Story-telling is the pinnacle!When do we know when we are actually studying nature, or the nature of nature, or if we're just telling ourselves a story? — darthbarracuda
Does the world contain empirical aspects and non-empirical aspects? — darthbarracuda
However the alternatives (such as philosophy as being First Inquiry) must be justified in itself. There needs to be an explanation as to why science cannot tell us these things, a meta-philosophical question. Why is science limited in its scope, and how do we know science will never answer questions we typically assign to philosophy or even theology/mysticism? — darthbarracuda
It's like asking why the person that won the lottery won the lottery (what are the odds!!?!). If the world were not at least fairly intelligible, we would be unable to survive — andrewk
'The world' is intelligible enough for me. — mcdoodle
Now I'm skeptical of science alone being able to answer these questions, as if it can operate without a rudimentary metaphysical structure, but what remains to be shown is why this is the case - that is to say, why some questions are empirical and other apparently not. — darthbarracuda
But one can have an a-utility understanding. For example: you understand that Gandalf loves his Hobbits. This is true understanding, but it is also useless understanding — IVoyager
A biological explanation - but at the cost of the devaluing of reason. — Wayfarer
Reason no longer determines the guiding principles of our own lives, but is subordinated to the ends it can achieve. In other words, reason is instumentalized. — Wayfarer
In traditional theology and metaphysics, the natural was largely conceived as the evil, and the spiritual or supernatural as the good. — Wayfarer
I would say that a necessary condition for something being a story is that it have a conscious narrator (story-teller) and at least one consciousness listener. They may be the same entity - as we sometimes tell ourselves stories - but usually they are different.Where do we draw the line in what we call a story? Because if the sequence of if-then statements a computer uses to understand a given problem is a story, "story" becomes a rather swollen and meaningless term, no? — IVoyager
Do you think so?The qualifier ruins it. In the traditional understanding, something is either intelligible or it isn't. — Wayfarer
I think 'intelligible' traditionally relates to ordinary speech, not to philosophical discourse, and means that we can make out what the person is trying to communicate. — andrewk
In philosophy, intelligibility is what can be comprehended by the human mind in contrast to sense perception. The intelligible method is thought thinking itself, or the human mind reflecting on itself.
Plato referred to the intelligible realm of mathematics, forms, first principles, logical deduction, and the dialectical method. The intelligible realm of thought thinking about thought does not necessarily require any visual images, sensual impressions, and material causes for the contents of mind.
Descartes referred to this method of thought thinking about itself, without the possible illusions of the senses. Kant made similar claims about a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is claimed to be independent of the content of experience.
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.