So, now I basically look for a theory about other theories which has the power to organize the room of theories. From my understanding, I now want to learn about the meta-meta theory. — Trachtender
Mr. Lyotards and other post-modern thinkers seem to talk about this issue, if I understood it correctly. The result seems to be that there lots of different narratives that are all “true”. So I search for this super theory that explains how everything is a theory and has some truth elements in it although the theories may be contradicting each other. — Trachtender
Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy. — Tobias
Try to figure out what "truth" means, exactly. Not what you hope it might refer to, but what it means. I think you will conclude that the important word is "true." That whatever meaning truth has, it is by reference, and only by reference, to some thing or things that are true. And those things that are true are propositions. Keeping this in mind and working out the implications ought to help you keep your feet on the ground while thinking about these matters.I search for some sort of ultimate truth. — Trachtender
Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation. — counterpunch
I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, — Tobias
You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. — Tobias
The OP asks a metaphysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. — Tobias
Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real... — Tobias
Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own. — Tobias
Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty. — counterpunch
No. Science has been rendered a whore to military and industrial power justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools. — counterpunch
I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn. — counterpunch
Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards! — counterpunch
That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science. — counterpunch
a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. — Tobias
Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch — Tobias
Thank you for your answer, you were right my assumption that there would be only 1 meta-meta theory is not justfied and I realize that now too. My thoughts were that when position A says X=1, position B says "No" X must be =0, and position C says X=3, then the next level theory should have the power to say X=0,1,3 and thus integrate all the lower theories. (I use numbers here as example for complex theories that may contradict each other but still make sense in themselves) ...but that there could be more such theories I wasnt aware off, which then would need another meta*3 theory...meta — khaled
Another inconsitency in my thinking, I realize your objection now too... thank you for the concrete literature recommendation. Since Hegel is notoriously hard to understand and 200 years old, are you familar with a more current thinker that has synthetized this approach further and in a more "understandable" way - or is Mr. Hegel still the way to go — Trachtender
Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay? — counterpunch
Thank you for your post, do you have a concrete literature recommendation like a specific title or author? — Trachtender
I was sorry you felt condescended to. — counterpunch
Then be pissed off. I don't know how else to address the fact that you don't get it. Should I just let you go on and on - talking bollocks because you don't get the basic idea? — counterpunch
Now I'm sorry you're not willing to work at philosophical understanding. — counterpunch
You just sit there with your fucking mouth open. — counterpunch
Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective. — khaled
What does one have to do with the other? — Tobias
I say, only if you're an ideologue. If you accept that science is a valid description of reality, there's no scientifically valid reason to create nuclear weapons. Get it? — counterpunch
I'm going to contrast and compare an ideological understanding of reality with a scientific understanding of reality.
Broadly, religion describes reality as heaven above, hell below - the earth inbetween, God in heaven, Satan in hell, and man inbetween. God is good, Satan is bad, and man is inbetween. Politics describes a world made up of nation state shaped jigsaw puzzle pieces. God is traditionally, the authority for political power in a given territory, and different territories have different ideas of God. There's also money, but let's put that aside. That is an ideological understanding of reality.
In contrast, science describes a single planetary environment, and the evolution of humankind - who emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and dispersed in every direction. Human beings began as nomadic hunter-gatherers, in tribal groups between 40-120 strong, then hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilisations, began farming, and adopted a settled way of life. Science describes a solar system, with the sun at the centre, and planets in orbit around it - as one solar system of 200 million in our galaxy, and our galaxy as one of trillions in an infinite universe. That's a scientific understanding of reality. — counterpunch
I'm sorry, no. I don't know of anyone else who attributes the climate and ecological crisis to a misapplication of technology, in turn attributed to a mistaken relationship to science that dates back to the trial of Galileo — counterpunch
That distinction between a scientific understanding of reality and an ideological understanding of reality is almost impossible to put across to people, and as far as I'm aware — counterpunch
as far as I'm aware - I'm the only person on earth who thinks it even remotely significant. It's like it exists in a blind-spot. — counterpunch
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.