ontos just means "thing" — jacksonsprat22
You did. But...clearly you want no discussion. Have a good evening. — jacksonsprat22
Surely. But I'm emphasizing (vis a vis Heidegger) phusis as "emerging, abiding sway," the presence of an entity disclosed to us in aletheia (truth, unconealedness). This was the Greek sense of "being." — Xtrix
Heidegger contradicts de Beistegui in a number of ways.
— Xtrix
Trying to figure out why you think this. — StreetlightX
In any case if I knew you only wanted to read things that agreed with your preconceptions then I ought not to have posted anything. — StreetlightX
What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis. — Xtrix
What I’m interested in is not lengthy quotations which have nothing to do with the OP, but insights into the Greek meaning of being as phusis.
— Xtrix
No you're not. You're interested in elaborations on the Heideggarian party line. — StreetlightX
It seems to me that scientific practice rarely requires meditation upon the fundamental nature of nature; it's contextualised and regionalised. So in that regard, any conception of nature as its own thing (in toto or in itself) does not seem to be a requirement of doing science. — fdrake
I guess that leaves questions of transcendental priority; can someone conceive of any particular predictive understanding of nature without using something like phusis? If it's a ground for science, it's not going to be a ground of scientific practice, it'll be a ground in terms of conceptual/logical priority. — fdrake
So it seems to me if the analysis of phusis takes a central place in science, it only does so as a transcendental ground, and needs only behave that way given the stipulations of interpreting it that way. Maybe Deleuzians would put difference at the center, maybe Schopenhaurians would put will there. — fdrake
I don't know what the last examples have to do with. Put "difference" and "will" at the center of what? Phusis? — Xtrix
Regardless, I wasn't advocating putting phusis as the "central place in science," I'm saying it is a basis for science if and only if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science (which I contend is a naturalism or physicalism). Just the uncontroversial etymology of the words "nature" and "physics" will immediately show you there is. — Xtrix
Let me know when you conduct this experiment. I wish you the best of luck, but I won't hold my breath. Personally I think it's a waste of time. But in any case, the point stands: there's no evidence for your claim. So why say it? That's not scientifically sound either. — Xtrix
I haven't once said anything remotely like that, because before we can "couple" non-science with "science," we have to know what "science" is. — Xtrix
No one can offer a definition that shows Aristarchus wasn't doing science but Galileo was, for example, so who cares? — Xtrix
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly tried to demarcate science, ignoring evidence that doesn't fit. Also not scientifically sound. I can make guesses as to why this is, psychologically, but otherwise it's not very interesting to me. — Xtrix
The experimental evidence is in our face phenomenon... — VagabondSpectre
That's not what you said. You said:
You're looking at it backward actually. QM and GR are "in our face" phenomenon that we cannot deny. — VagabondSpectre
So quantum mechanics and general relativity are "experimental evidence" now? That's completely meaningless as well. — Xtrix
No, you contrasted "rationality" by conflating it with "rationalism" (hence why you mentioned Descartes) which is completely wrong. Inductive reasoning already assumes reason (it's right there in the word), and hence rationality - ratio is Latin, which translates as "reason." — Xtrix
So what is the point of this thread again? — VagabondSpectre
So the connection goes: phusis -> naturalism, naturalism -> scientific practice? In what regard is phusis a basis for scientific practice if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science? — fdrake
Let me know when you conduct this experiment. I wish you the best of luck, but I won't hold my breath. Personally I think it's a waste of time. But in any case, the point stands: there's no evidence for your claim. So why say it? That's not scientifically sound either.
— Xtrix
Why ask me for an appeal to authority when you can just dismiss it as an appeal to authority? — VagabondSpectre
You opened the post by bringing up an ill-defined anecdote about how scientists say their god is nature (do you need me to quote everything line by line?), — VagabondSpectre
What do you think scientists meant by "nature" and "god", and why is that relevant to why natural philosophy dominates every other understanding in today's world? — VagabondSpectre
Isn't it possible that modern science is not dominated by Cartesian or natural philosophy? — VagabondSpectre
No one can offer a definition that shows Aristarchus wasn't doing science but Galileo was, for example, so who cares?
— Xtrix
Why do you get to get to ask me to prove an unending series of negatives? First you'll goad me into showing Aristarchus wasn't doing science, then you can just keep pulling random names out of a hat until I get too tired to carry on... — VagabondSpectre
If some ancient philosopher based their epistemological framework around the predictive power of their mathematical or explanatory models, then maybe they employing the modern scientific method to some extent. But really, who cares? — VagabondSpectre
The experimental evidence is in our face phenomenon... — VagabondSpectre
That's not what you said. You said:
You're looking at it backward actually. QM and GR are "in our face" phenomenon that we cannot deny. — VagabondSpectre
So quantum mechanics and general relativity are "experimental evidence" now? That's completely meaningless as well.
— Xtrix
I'm having a hard time comprehending what you're trying to say here. "In our face phenomenon" refers to the experimental observations that force us to accept GR and QM as strong models. — VagabondSpectre
If you think you have a "gotch'ya" here, you don't. You're just be semantically obtuse or else misunderstanding. — VagabondSpectre
No, you contrasted "rationality" by conflating it with "rationalism" (hence why you mentioned Descartes) which is completely wrong. Inductive reasoning already assumes reason (it's right there in the word), and hence rationality - ratio is Latin, which translates as "reason."
— Xtrix
Have you ever heard of the "etymological fallacy"? It's sort of similar to equivocation; definitely an excellent source of wanton misinterpretation... — VagabondSpectre
You're trying to win the argument by somehow showing that I am technically incorrect, when you have not seem to understood or addressed the statement I have made. Even if my critique of Descartes has been unfair (not giving him enough credit as a scientist, I guess), you're still not actually addressing my position; you're just rejecting it out of hand. — VagabondSpectre
Once again, just to be clear, modern science employs an inherently inductive method to actually confirm and usefully deploy its models in the real world; that's what has let it advance so much compared to less strictly focused schools — VagabondSpectre
So what is the point of this thread again? I know you feel you have been amply clear, but just indulge me. — VagabondSpectre
Every inquiry is a seeking [Suchen]. Every seeking gets guided before- hand by what is sought. Inquiry is a cognizant seeking for an entity both with regard to the fact that it is and with regard to its Being as it is. This cognizant seeking can take the form of 'investigating' , in which one lays bare that which the question is about and ascertains its character. Any inquiry, as an inquiry about something, has that which is asked about [sein Gefragtes] . But all inquiry about something is somehow a questioning of something [Anfragen bei . . .]. So in addition to what is asked about, an inquiry has that which is interrogated [ein Befragtes\ In investigative questions — that is, in questions which are specifically theo- retical — what is asked about is determined and conceptualized. Further-
more, in what is asked about there lies also that which is to be found out by the asking [das Erfragte]; this is what is really intended: with this the inquiry reaches its goal. Inquiry itself is the behaviour of a questioner, and therefore of an entity, and as such has its own character of Being. When one
makes an inquiry one may do so 'just casually' or one may formulate the question explicitly. The latter case is peculiar in that the inquiry does not become transparent to itself until all these constitutive factors of the question have themselves become transparent.
Science uses concepts. A biologist will use concepts like organism, gene, structure and function. These concepts link up with predictions and experiments. Do you see any use of the concept of phusis by scientists in their theories or experiments? — fdrake
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.