When you say that Nietzsche is not anti-science, do you have this group of postmodernists in mind as being truly anti-science ? — Joshs
Do you know of any philosopher who is actually anti-science in the way you mean it? — Joshs
Whatever meaning we find is a meaning we create. — Fooloso4
Do you know of any philosopher who is actually anti-science in the way you mean it?
— Joshs
Perhaps Wittgenstein. Although it may be more of an attack on scientism. — Fooloso4
But when that meaning, however inadequate, becomes the worldview of a culture and all institutions and values are built around it for many centuries there may be a magnificent price to pay for its diminution or cessation. — Tom Storm
It seems to me that only a theorist could potentially write off science as they cheerfully embrace all of its fruits and technologies in their congenial universities. In life theory doesn't much matter. No one worries about the problem of induction when they are parking their car in the supermarket lot. — Tom Storm
That would be is antithetical to Nietzsche’s thinking. — Joshs
Can we find some passages that directly speak about this? — baker
The other idiosyncrasy of the philosophers is no less dangerous; it consists in confusing the last and the first. They place that which comes at the end -- unfortunately! for it ought not to come at all! -- namely, the "highest concepts," which means the most general, the emptiest concepts, the last smoke of evaporating reality, in the beginning, as the beginning. This again is nothing but their way of showing reverence: the higher must not grow out of the lower, must not have grown at all. Moral: whatever is of the first rank must be causa sui [“self-caused”]. Origin out of something else is considered an objection, a questioning of value. All the highest values are of the first rank; all the highest concepts, that which has being, the unconditional, the good, the true, the perfect -- all these cannot have become and must therefore be causes. All these, moreover, cannot be unlike each other or in contradiction to each other. Thus they arrive at their stupendous concept, "God." That which is last, thinnest, and emptiest is put first, as the cause, as ens realissimum [“the most real being”]. Why did mankind have to take seriously the brain afflictions of sick web-spinners? They have paid dearly for it!
And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: "We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!" Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. "Reason" in language -- oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Twilight of the Idols
is there any method of acquiring reliable knowledge better than methodological naturalism? — Tom Storm
Btw, please don’t tell me you prefer Jordan Peterson to Nietzsche. — Joshs
What methodological naturalism is particularly unsuitable for , I would argue , is the understanding of myriad psychological phenomena ( , etc). For these domains I prefer a radical constructivism. — Joshs
Are you then suggesting that Nietzsche didn't properly comprehend those higher concepts?My view is, these 'thinnest and emptiest concepts' are indeed of a higher order of reality, but unless you're able to comprehend them properly, they do indeed become empty words. As they were handed down and ossified into theoretical dogma, they lost all connection to reality, but that is a flaw in their exponents. — Wayfarer
It’s significant that you perceive this criticism as ‘hatred’. Says something, I think. — Wayfarer
How about asking them?I posit that the hatred is because they rob the world of magic — Tom Storm
I posit that the hatred is because they rob the world of magic — Tom Storm
In social science, disenchantment (German: Entzauberung) is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of religion apparent in modern society. The term was borrowed from Friedrich Schiller by Max Weber to describe the character of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society. In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, whereby "the world remains a great enchanted garden”. — Wikipedia, ‘Disenchantment’
Did God ever live?What do people think about Nietzsche’s Death of God? — Tom Storm
What studies did Weber base such assessments on?In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, whereby "the world remains a great enchanted garden”. — Wikipedia, ‘Disenchantment’
The way I put it is that religious fundamentalists appeal to science to prove the existence of God. Scientific materialists appeal to science to argue the non-existence of god. — Wayfarer
the pop-intellectual-science types wrongly appeal to the prestige of science in support of their generally lousy arguments. — Wayfarer
Did God ever live? — baker
Problem is people also ignore climate science for similar professed reasons. I think science and the notion of the expert is very poorly tolerated these days — Tom Storm
Incorrect. Climate science is clearly empirical. — Wayfarer
I have a hard time understanding the basic premise. The idea that there was once some kind of "golden era" or "an enchanted time" when people took religion seriously (including actually believing in God) seems alien to me.We answered that earlier. It's a metaphor. — Tom Storm
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.