So citing what "contemporary philosophers do" is a good argument against philosophy being ontological. Why? — Xtrix
Philosophy is what contemporary philosophers do. This is essentially your response to my (and Heidegger's) statement that philosophy is ontological. — Xtrix
No science deals with the Being as a Being. Each science has its own particular field. If you think the opposite, give an example. Do you know of any scientific article published in a scientific journal dedicated to the Being as a Being?philosophy is ontological while science is ontical. That's not the same thing, no, but you can't do one without the other. — Xtrix
scientists who study a parcel of reality (...) do not care at all about the "being as being". — David Mo
Philosophy isn't a subject so much as an activity, in which muddled ways of saying things are exposed and analysed.
— Banno
Spot on.
To be more precise it is a mind activity. An activity of expressing your mind. The output of philosophical thought is information about the mind activity of the philosopher. — Pop
Maybe this is all a matter of common sense. Don't be so dismissive of common sense, because even philosophers use it. — David Mo
However, apart from the intuitive clarity with which one immediately sees that science and philosophy are not the same, according to the author of the text, I think I have given you plenty of reasons to justify that distinction. But you have preferred not to see them. Don't blame me. — David Mo
There is no rule for you to differentiate philosophy from science because when some more or less precise criteria are given - even by yourself - you turn a blind eye. — David Mo
Therefore, you try to cheat. You take some philosophers of the past who were also scientists-when science and philosophy were not clearly differentiated, as Pfhorrest told you- and put their books under the old name of "philosophia naturalis". Of course this is not a special subject of study. There is no faculty of Philosophia Naturalis in the world. No subject, no science. If you want to invent a name for this nothing I suggest "Totumlogy". or "Totum Revolutum". Because for the "science" of Being as Being there is already a name: Ontology. And it has nothing to do with Physics or Biology, but it is a particular branch of philosophy. Well differentiated, by the way. It is a name from the times when many priests disguised as philosophers were trying to say the scientists and free thinkers what they could think and what they couldn't. A timeworn name, it is clear. I think this is the main reason why today is not a very popular name among philosophers. — David Mo
If I've made mistakes, you've certainly not demonstrated them in this discussion
— Xtrix
I could point out a few things you've written that an expert in philosophy would not have said. — David Mo
You haven't studied philosophy in a faculty and it shows. It's not serious. — David Mo
I'm not a philosopher by profession either, and this is not a forum for professionals. But I'm not trying to belittle amateurs like me. It's not humility. It's common sense. Because sometimes they can show me that I'm arguing about things that I don't master and if I've pretended before that I'm the wisest I'd be very embarrassed. It's a matter of self-esteem. — David Mo
So citing what "contemporary philosophers do" is a good argument against philosophy being ontological. Why?
— Xtrix
Because if you exclude by definition most of the class of objects that are usually called X, what the hell should we call them? That's what's called making a persuasive definition. An anti-philosophical vice. — David Mo
Philosophy is what contemporary philosophers do. This is essentially your response to my (and Heidegger's) statement that philosophy is ontological.
— Xtrix
If you define philosophy as ontology (which I don't know if it's Heidegger's or your own invention) — David Mo
you leave out of philosophy most of today's philosophers, who don't talk about being as such, but about particular issues such as ethics, for example. — David Mo
Your definition is exclusive, that is, a bad definition. — David Mo
philosophy is ontological while science is ontical. That's not the same thing, no, but you can't do one without the other.
— Xtrix
No science deals with the Being as a Being. — David Mo
Each science has its own particular field. If you think the opposite, give an example. — David Mo
Do you know of any scientific article published in a scientific journal dedicated to the Being as a Being? — David Mo
Therefore, scientists who study a parcel of reality (I prefer to talk about reality than about the undefined Heideggerian Being) do not care at all about the "being as being". They work on atomic particles, allergies, nebulae or electric cars. And nothing else. — David Mo
If you want to say that at certain levels scientists are interested on questions traditionally attributed to philosophy, the concept of matter, of truth or the role of induction in science, this may be true. It is also true that these questions cannot be answered today without scientific knowledge. — David Mo
All that to say this: I’m pretty sure scientists don’t care all that much about being qua being, and I’m almost positive Everydayman doesn’t give a damn about it at all. — Mww
Because I (1) don't believe any of those criteria are "precise," and (2) I see both philosophy and science as also similar in certain respects:
1) They are so precise than you had been unable to put an example of a philosopher using this methods. 2) Don't change of subject. No one is speaking of some similarities (although your list includes some wrong similarities -is world rational???) We are speaking of many things that separate science from philosophy.
— Xtrix
At this point one begins to get dizzy from your continuous changes of position. You did not define philosophy as being "concerned with some aspect of being", but as an occupation on the " Being qua Being", that is, what is universal in being. Obviously, all philosophers who have dedicated themselves to a specific philosophical specialty and not to metaphysical ontology, do not concern themselves with the being qua being and remain outside your definition.But if they're philosophers, then they don't study ethics or beauty or knowledge in a vacuum. If they do, then yes I wouldn't consider them philosophers at all. I'd call them perhaps "teachers" or even "scientists," concerned with whatever domain of beings they're interested in without any questioning of being. — Xtrix
I'm sorry I don't have time for the huge task of correcting your comments. I'm probably not qualified either. But if this is any indication: you did not understand (I think you still do not) the concept of intuition in Kantian philosophy and its consequences in contemporary philosophy. Nor did you know the importance of controlled experimentation in the emergence of the New Science. You claim to be Heideggerian, but you do not handle the concepts of the ontological and ontic as Heidegger does. Etc., etc., etc.Well then please point them out -- I'm happy to learn. — Xtrix
It's the last part that has me thinking you're more of a positivist. — Xtrix
philosophy teachers, (...) but with no clear indication that they ever thought "being" for themselves. I think that's a shame. — Xtrix
But what does philosophy really "think" if not existence, if not "being" in the broadest sense? — Xtrix
Of course, if you put norms and language into being, everything is being and your definition is perfectly useless. — David Mo
Well then please point them out -- I'm happy to learn.
— Xtrix
I'm sorry I don't have time for the huge task of correcting your comments. I'm probably not qualified either. — David Mo
But if this is any indication: you did not understand (I think you still do not) the concept of intuition in Kantian philosophy and its consequences in contemporary philosophy. — David Mo
Nor did you know the importance of controlled experimentation in the emergence of the New Science. — David Mo
You claim to be Heideggerian, but you do not handle the concepts of the ontological and ontic as Heidegger does. — David Mo
I find very interesting the study of ancient philosophy. It is a sensitive subject to me for family reasons. But if you don't understand that current philosophy is very different you are lost. And what I was trying is to speak of philosophy now. What philosophers do now? — David Mo
It's the last part that has me thinking you're more of a positivist.
— Xtrix
That's because you don't know what positivism is. (Make a note of that). — David Mo
If I were a positivist I would say that all possible knowledge comes down to science and that all human problems can be solved by science. — David Mo
That's not what I'm saying. — David Mo
I'm saying that all "objective" knowledge -about facts in the world- comes down to science. Which leaves the field open for other types of knowledge, including philosophy. What I agree with the positivists is that metaphysics, more specifically ontology, is a false science that has done much damage to the reputation of philosophy. But Kant already said this in his Critique of Pure Reason: a scandal. And he was not a positivist. — David Mo
Maybe it’s as simple as finding no profit in questioning the experience of our observations. — Mww
But what does philosophy really "think" if not existence, if not "being" in the broadest sense?
— Xtrix
Relations? And if it is humans that are asking, then that which is asked about must ultimately reduce to a relation between it and humans. It follows that at least some fundamental genus of philosophy relates what is, to what we think of it. — Mww
we may be entering back into the subject/object dichotomy.
— Xtrix
I submit it is altogether impossible to escape the subject/object dichotomy, or dualism. Can’t re-enter what’s never been vacated. Metaphysically speaking, of course. — Mww
it is altogether impossible to escape the subject/object dichotomy.....
— Mww
I think we can, metaphysically. — Xtrix
ontology of "mind" and "nature" (....) I don't think is the unmitigated foundation of all being, or even of all knowledge -- although almost ertainly for modern philosophy and science. — Xtrix
I don't think to myself "here I am as an individual engaged in this activity" — Xtrix
the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted — Xtrix
we start with (and "in") being (as human beings) and with (and "in") time. — Xtrix
We can explain this type of thing using the subject/object distinction, but this assumes a lot of things (....) leading to problems that have been with us for a long time. — Xtrix
If I've got all that right, then I think this conception of philosophy is in that tradition and is a very important and very powerful interpretation. — Xtrix
it is altogether impossible to escape the subject/object dichotomy.....
— Mww
I think we can, metaphysically.
— Xtrix
How would that be arranged, that escape?
ontology of "mind" and "nature" (....) I don't think is the unmitigated foundation of all being, or even of all knowledge -- although almost ertainly for modern philosophy and science.
— Xtrix
Ontology of mind and body? The study of the origin and existence of mind and body?
If the mind/body dualism isn’t thought to be the foundation of all knowledge, but almost certainly the foundation of modern philosophic and scientific knowledge, suggests there is yet another kind of knowledge that isn’t grounded in philosophic or scientific principles. What form would such knowledge have?
Nevertheless, I agree the study of the mind/body dualism isn’t sufficient to ground knowledge of any kind; it merely serves to establish the theoretical conditions under which the possibility of it may be given. — Mww
I don't think to myself "here I am as an individual engaged in this activity"
— Xtrix
Of course not, it is impossible. Human thoughts are always singular and successive; engagement in any activity, except pure reflex and sheer accident, requires thought, so I cannot think myself thinking. I can think myself possibly engaged, or I can think myself having been engaged, but never think myself simultaneously thinking with respect to a present engagement. — Mww
the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted
— Xtrix
That can never fly as a philosophical principle, for such should then be the case that anything that is, thinks. — Mww
Ya know....poor ol’ Rene, sometimes so demonized. Given that the primary source for that infamous missive is “Principles of Philosophy”, 1, 7, one is well-advised to continue on through 8, in which he tells us what he means by “mind” from which we derive the “I”, and 9, in which he tells us what he means by “thought”. Taken as a whole, the only thing claimed to exist necessarily, is the “I” itself....not the body, not anything else. If that is the case, you have no warrant to claim being “thrown into a world and start with it” with the same absolute certainty as the existence of the thinking self demands. — Mww
we start with (and "in") being (as human beings) and with (and "in") time.
— Xtrix
I dunno, man. We can only start with or in time, if it is possible to prove with apodeitic certainty we are not ourselves responsible for the creation of time as a mere conception. — Mww
If we cannot do that, we can see it is impossible for us to be started with....to be initialized by.....that which wouldn’t even exist if not for us. The ol’ cart before the horse routine, doncha know. — Mww
We can explain this type of thing using the subject/object distinction, but this assumes a lot of things (....) leading to problems that have been with us for a long time.
— Xtrix
No doubt; the dyed-in-the-wool physicalist won’t grant the time of day to “mind”, which is fine, there being no such real empirical thing. Which just makes philosophy that much more fun......how to close explanatory gaps by making sense out of something we can never put our fingers on. — Mww
the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted. (...) What I'm saying there is that the "sum" is even more primordial than "thought," and thus the Cogito should be inverted in that sense. I didn't mean to imply everything that "is" is a conscious, thinking being. — Xtrix
As soon as you posit an "I" that thinks, or an "I" that is a conscious subject, you're only positing a certain conception of a being, and so presupposing the existence of some-thing that you're now labeling "I." — Xtrix
the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted. (...) What I'm saying there is that the "sum" is even more primordial than "thought," and thus the Cogito should be inverted in that sense. I didn't mean to imply everything that "is" is a conscious, thinking being.
— Xtrix
Not sure Rene would go for that; it is my understanding that he intended the “I” of “...therefore I am” to be necessarily conditioned by the “cogito”. In other words, they are mutually dependent, same subject, different predicates kinda thing. The “I” that thinks is not the cause of the “I” that is, and the “I” that is is not an effect of the “I” that thinks. The “I” that thinks is the very same as the “I” that is. — Mww
what we can "know" with our senses, with empirical data, is all that can be known
— Xtrix
Not an advocate of a priori knowledge, huh? Are we to maintain that it is impossible to know anything that isn’t first perceived? — Mww
Philosophy? What you call "mysteries" I refer to as intractable perplexities (i.e. miseries); and OCD-like they keep recurring, like itching that needs, but cannot be relieved by, scratching.I understand philosophy as the study of mysteries, which is why the same questions keep popping up time and time again throughout history. — Manuel
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.