Yes. Logical Positivism was an attempt to bring metaphysical Philosophy closer to physical Science. But it missed the point of Metaphysics : to understand "things" that are not material, but mental.Yeah, I think that philosophy spent too much time with the sciences, that started to believe and eventually convinced herself that she is one of them — Pussycat
Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone.This is not what I am thinking. It is difficult to describe.. Not "things" that you can understand, in the normal sense of understanding. Let's say irrational stuff, pro-logic. In this sense, it is logic that killed philosophy. — Pussycat
Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. — Gnomon
The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition." ... Such solemn declarations of the church's teaching involve the infallibility of the Church. ... Such teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are obviously not given in a single specific document. ... men who had to be obeyed by virtue of their position, regardless of their personal holiness, and the distinction between “man” and “office.” — Wikipedia on the 'living' magisterium of the Church
Maybe what you have in mind is Intuition versus Reasoning. Philosophy has always been a logical rational approach to the world. But, it cannot abandon the Intuition that sparks a chain of reasoning. Philosophy without Logic or Reasoning would be Faith and Religion. But to depend on logic alone, is the mistake of Logical Positivism. Man cannot live by logic alone. — Gnomon
Pure reason does not mean "free from otherwise unjustifiable premises". It means "free from sensory input". — alcontali
Furthermore, religious law is a formal system, just like any theory. For example, Islamic law has a largely mechanical epistemology, very much like mathematics, and when written in formal language, Islamic law is machine verifiable, just like all sound knowledge. — alcontali
Furthermore, all attacks on religion would also apply to any subdiscipline in mathematics, including logic itself. The reason why atheists pick religion as a target, is simply because it looks like an easier target than mathematics. This wrong perception is caused by Christianity, because, unlike Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not and has never been a formal system. — alcontali
What do you mean? Free from empirical data? Free from experience? But then, from where does pure reason get its input? Where does it come from? — Pussycat
In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" — Wikipedia on Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', the definition of 'Pure Reason'
Ah, I remember Godel saying that he was fond of Islam, finding it a consistent idea of religion and open-minded. This is what he was talking about, right? — Pussycat
So you are saying that Islam is being caught in the crossfire, because of christianity? — Pussycat
Yes - performative contradiction (e.g. like the assertion (by logical positivists) that 'only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful', which, of course, is not itself an 'empirically verifiable statement' and therefore is, in its own terms, meaningless). Folks have to watch out for those sneaky presuppositions (& damn entailments too).Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," was self-refuting. Why? Because the statement "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical statement. — LD Saunders
Yeah, general abstract nonsense. On the one side, I really like its "nonsensical" touch and feel, but on the other side, I haven't been able to find anything surprising to do with it. So, I will have to leave it open ... — alcontali
Also, even if people don't call what they're doing philosophy but something else instead, it's still philosophy. — Judaka
Only when death (i.e. human Mortality) becomes (technologically) optional will (the need for) religion die. Likewise, when ignorance (of ignorance, especially) is no longer an inescapable, or inexhaustable, aspect of human Existence will philosophy be dead and buried. — 180 Proof
I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case.So do you think that philosophy has something to do with knowledge, and/or ignorance? — Pussycat
Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ...And that when we stop being ignorant, then philosophy will die as a result?
... like 'hygiene' (or public health). :sweat:Maybe because it served its use and is no longer needed?
:clap: :cool:↪Pussycat I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose. — Pfhorrest
I think philosophy is much like martial arts for the mind: as the practice of martial arts both develops the body from the inside and prepares one to protect their body from attacks from the outside, both from crude brutes but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of martial arts toward offense rather than defense, so too philosophy develops the mind and will from the inside, and also prepares one to protect their mind and will from attacks from the outside, both from crude ignorance and inconsideration but also from more sophisticated attackers who would twist the methods of philosophy against its purpose.
In a perfect world, the latter uses of either martial arts or philosophy would be unnecessary, as such attacks would not be made to begin with, but in the actual world it is unfortunately useful to be thus prepared; and even in a perfect world, with no external attackers, martial arts and philosophy are both still useful for their internal development and exercise of the body, mind, and will. — Pfhorrest
I think it's a sustained self-examination (Socrates) which exposes to us that we, in fact, do not know or understand what we think - take for granted - we know or understand, and thereby helps us to align our expectations (i.e. judgments) with whatever is the case. — 180 Proof
Like when we cannot be 'ignorant of our ignorance' or the eye cannot not see itself or there are no more 'unknown unknowns' ... but that's waiting on a train - apotheosis - that'll never come. No, Pussy, philosophy is an 'infinite task', or as Pierre Hadot says "a spiritual exercise" ... — 180 Proof
What is philosophy's purpose? — Pussycat
The pursuit of wisdom. Wisdom, in turn, does not merely mean some set of correct statements, but rather is the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest
The problem asks for a procedure that takes, as input, a statement and answers "Yes" or "No" according to whether the statement is universally valid.
The Entscheidungsproblem can also be viewed as asking for a procedure to decide whether a given statement is provable from the axioms using the rules of logic.
In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing published independent papers[2] showing that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible. — Wikipedia on Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem
Almost recently the late Stephen Hawking declared:“Philosophy is dead” — David Jones
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.