The analysis of a concept is a legitimate philological task, but little or nothing useful to determine a current scientific theory. Heidegger wrote well, but not for scientists. — Borraz
Does anyone here have an analysis to share, original or otherwise? — Xtrix
Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them. Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Pp 35-36
Cartesian anxiety refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other".
Letters have a pragmatic function in the structure of the word, and words have a pragmatic or technical function in the formulation of theories — Borraz
The advent of the new conception of physics and science swept aside the Aristotelian concept of science - as it had to do, because this conception was based on a thoroughly outmoded method largely comprising armchair reflections on what things ought to do, without the rigorous observation that true science requires. — Wayfarer
Insofar as "our senses and our reason" are "natural" (i.e. of nature as well as in nature, that is, do not transcend nature), how is it even possible for us to "know" more than, or anything else but, "nature" when our cognitive apparatus consists of only "natural senses and reason"?... what was (and is) this philosophy of nature? What is the basis of its interpretation of all that we can know through ou[r] senses and our reason? — Xtrix
The even more fundamental, or preliminary (thus, 'perennial'), question at the root (ῥάδιξ) of (Western and non-Western) "thought": "what is real?" - more precisely: what about 'any X' differentiates 'real X' from 'not-real X'?A clue is given from the word itself: "natural." And so "nature." This word comes from the Latin natura and was a translation of the Greek phusis.
It turns out that φῠ́σῐς (phusis) is the basis for "physical." So the idea of the physical world and the natural world are ultimately based on Greek and Latin concepts, respectively.
So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought.
It is an elemental conception of the 20th century. Please read:
Popper, K. R. (2002): Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, London & N.Y.: Routledge [1978], 7, pp. 15 ss. — Borraz
"Useful to determine a current scientific theory" is incoherent. Philosophy plays no role in scientific theory? Of course it does. The basis for modern science has its roots in Greek ontology, which is the subject of this thread. It's not simply a matter of philology, it's a history of Western thought and, therefore, modern science. — Xtrix
"Heidegger wrote well"? Says who? I didn't think he wrote particularly well, myself. What have you read, exactly, to make a claim one way or another about him I wonder? — Xtrix
I really don't agree with this.... To say there was an "outmoded method" is also anachronistic, if we're to agree that there is such a thing as the "scientific method" at all, which I don't believe there is -- nor has it ever been defined. — Xtrix
Insofar as "our senses and our reason" are "natural" (i.e. of nature as well as in nature, that is, do not transcend nature), how is it even possible for us to "know" more than, or anything else but, "nature" when our cognitive apparatus consists of only "natural senses and reason"? — 180 Proof
The even more fundamental, or preliminary (thus, 'perennial'), question at the root (ῥάδιξ) of (Western and non-Western) "thought": "what is real?" - more precisely: what about 'any X' differentiates 'real X' from 'not-real X'? — 180 Proof
Fun thing I discovered recently: the roots of "physics" and "ethics" have senses very, very similar to "nature" and "nurture". Etymologically, the physical or natural is the inborn; the ethical or "nurtural" is the cultivated. — Pfhorrest
"Useful to determine a current scientific theory" is incoherent. Philosophy plays no role in scientific theory? Of course it does. The basis for modern science has its roots in Greek ontology, which is the subject of this thread. It's not simply a matter of philology, it's a history of Western thought and, therefore, modern science.
— Xtrix
Excuse me, but saying that contemporary science has something to do with the Greek concept of nature, perhaps, probably indicates that one has vague ideas of one and the other. — Borraz
Even the conception of the physical during the Enlightenment is not related to contemporary physics. By the way, have you heard of Einstein? — Borraz
"Heidegger wrote well"? Says who? I didn't think he wrote particularly well, myself. What have you read, exactly, to make a claim one way or another about him I wonder?
— Xtrix
For example, Heidegger, M (1976) Wegmarken, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, in Gesamtausgabe; V.9. I Abteilung : Veroffentlichte Schriften 1914-1970, pp. 105 ss. — Borraz
"I don't agree.... I don't believe.., ..nor has it ever been defined."
From our friends at Dictionary.com:
"scientific method, n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis."
As to your opinions and your beliefs, how do they weigh in the scales of argument? — tim wood
in regard to etymology, the Greek word is similar to saying something like: "Events keep Happening."
It is relentless and leaves us poor mortals trying to get a grip when we control very few things. — Valentinus
The advent of the new conception of physics and science swept aside the Aristotelian concept of science - as it had to do, because this conception was based on a thoroughly outmoded method largely comprising armchair reflections on what things ought to do, without the rigorous observation that true science requires. — Wayfarer
First and foremost the 'doctrine of scientific materialism', which holds that the only real, or ultimately real, entities in the Universe are those describable in terms analogous to mathematical physics. — Wayfarer
From Miguel de Beistegui's Truth and Genesis: — StreetlightX
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.