That’s the fundamental difference between cognitive science and philosophy. — Wayfarer

Some use the term cognitive philosophy. The old divisions are not immutable.Some question the usefulness of such arbitrary divisions.

Is this an explanation or a description? What is being explained? Why is it that the biological functions that give rise to the experience can never be adequately explained?

Do you think that such experience comes from a source other than the organism? — Fooloso4

Those questions are part of science, philosophy of language or else metaphysics, but not phenomenology. Have you not heard of the "Epoché"?

That’s the fundamental difference between cognitive science and philosophy. Cognitive science seeks an objective account, treating consciousness and cognition as objective phenomena. But philosophy considers the nature of the subject, what it is to be a subject, which requires an altogether different perspective. — Wayfarer

You should have said "phenomenology" there instead of "philosophy" and I would have agreed with you. Philosophy has broadened it's horizons to include philosophy of language and cognitive science. This is the point you always seem to miss by polemicizing the consideration of the differences between the different fields of modern philosophy into an either/or supposed struggle between light and dark forces, rather than recognizing that all avenues of inquiry have their place in the overall philosophical investigation of nature and human life.

Some use the term cognitive philosophy. The old divisions are not immutable.Some question the usefulness of such arbitrary divisions. — Fooloso4

It's not at all arbitrary and with all due respect I feel there's a major conceptual issue you're not seeing in regards to this issue.

You should have said "phenomenology" there instead of "philosophy" and I would have agreed with you. — Janus

OK, good point, and generally agree with what you're saying.

But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics.

Materialism: A philosophy of despair and conflict

The debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. As such, Materialism has exerted an enormous – and very harmful – influence in our culture. It is not for nothing that the word “materialism” is synonymous with greed and the exclusive focus on material possessions. The most important cultural consequence of scientific Materialism has undoubtedly been modern individualism, an extreme form of the dualistic belief in the reality of the separate ego.


The seemingly separate ego experiences itself as detached from – and at odds with – an indifferent outside world, in which it must struggle to maintain itself. Materialism naturally leads to belief in separation because this philosophy sees Consciousness as a by-product of the brain. In that case, Consciousness is by definition tied to an individual and mortal body, and thus different from individual to individual. In this way, Materialism is in large part responsible for the suffering that the dualistic belief in separation entails: egoism, greed, exploitation, feelings of inferiority, hatred, abuse, violence… These are all thoughts, feelings and behavioral patterns that originate in the conviction that I – as this person, with this body and this mind – am nothing more than this individual being, separate from the other people around me, separate from nature, separate from the Universe. — Peter Saas

Scientific method is appropriate to the solution of objective and engineering problems. But the whole issue with scientific materialism is the attempt to use those methods to define purely philosophical problems. Of course it is true that phenomenology, starting with Husserl, recognises that, but simply referring to phenomenology is not sufficient. The problem needs to be articulated and understood in order to be addressed.

The debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. — Peter Saas

To me that debate is pointless, because there can be no decidable resolution. From one perspective (the phenomenological) consciousness is fundamental. From another perspective,(the scientific) the physical is fundamental. Phenomenology brackets the question of the external world (the physical) and science brackets the question of the internal world (the phenomenological). We can learn from both inquiries, but why should we choose one over the other, especially since that would be to commit a category error.

It might be objected that the question is neither scientific nor phenomenological, but metaphysical. But there are no decidable results in metaphysics; only imaginable possibilities and questions. And this is why religion cannot ever be more than a matter of faith; which is just fine; there's nothing at all wrong with faith.

I think the rise of materialism is due to the rise of technology and mass-production, which in turn is due to the (lucky?) discovery of fossil fuels, and the consequent exponential rise of prosperity (not for all of course!) and decline of religion. There is an element of seeing religion as being "mere superstition" which from a purely (as opposed to practically) rational point of view it is. Don't forget that by some estimates 84 % of the world's population identify themselves as being religious.

The materialism you are upset about is obsession with material wealth and goods (think about the implications of that usage of the term 'good') I would argue. not a fixation on materialist metaphysics, which arguably very few people even think about. So, I see the debate between idealism and materialism as philosophically pointless and sociologically irrelevant, and I think Sass is wrong in subscribing the rise of (economic and erotic) materialism to a philosophical debate that very few are interested in. Capitalism, the idea of personal profit pervading every sphere of human life, is more the culprit, it seems to me.

To me that debate is pointless, — Janus

There's a lot of things you say are pointless, but I most often believe there's a point you're not seeing.

very few people even think about.... — Janus

Ask the proverbial person-in-the-street. They may not have an articulated or well-thought-out answer but a great many will basically believe the materialist worldview, simply because the alternatives no longer appear credible.

Capitalism, the idea of personal profit pervading every sphere of human life, is more the culprit, it seems to me. — Janus

They're all inter-connected - science, capitalism, materialism, individualism. It's the times we live in.

There are many here among us who think that life is but a joke. But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us stop talking falsely now, the hour is getting late.

To me that debate is pointless, because there can be no decidable resolution. From one perspective (the phenomenological) consciousness is fundamental. From another perspective,(the scientific) the physical is fundamental. Phenomenology brackets the question of the external world (the physical) and science brackets the question of the internal world (the phenomenological). We can learn from both inquiries, but why should we choose one over the other, especially since that would be to commit a category error. — Janus

I agree with the thrust of this. But don't most phenomenologists incorporate the scientific these days under the rubric of a provisional and fallibilistic intersubjective agreement?

There's a lot of things you say are pointless, but I most often believe there's a point you're not seeing. — Wayfarer

I say it's pointless because it's undecidable. What is the point you think I'm not seeing.

Ask the proverbial person-in-the-street. — Wayfarer

Which man of the street, though? If you accept the statistic that something like 84% of people are religious, then those people will not accept the materialist viewpoint ( even if they are beguiled by the kind of materialism I was referring to; a fact which supports my view more than the contention that their obsession with material things is on account of a philosophical debate)..

They're all inter-connected - science, capitalism, materialism, individualism. It's the times we live in. — Wayfarer

I agree with that, but I think capitalism is by far the most pernicious negative influence at work in the world today. The sociological importance of an abstruse debate between idealism and materialism pales into insignificance in my view.

I agree with the thrust of this. But don't most phenomenologists today incorporate the scientific these days under the rubric of a provisional and fallibilistic intersubjective agreement? — Tom Storm

I'm not clear as to precisely what you are asking here. There have been movements towards incorporating phenomenology and neuroscience; Varela, Thompson et all spring to mind. Or Dennett's idea of neurophenomenology. I'm sure there are others.

But the problem from the purely scientific POV is that any such investigation will be relying in good part on subjective reports about what is going on in the mind, which is exactly the kind of criticism leveled at phenomenology by its scientifically-minded critics.

It's not at all arbitrary and with all due respect I feel there's a major conceptual issue you're not seeing in regards to this issue. — Wayfarer

The distinction reflects an historical development. There are indications that cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches will become more common. Neurophilosophy is a good example. Philosophical biology is another.

But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics. — Wayfarer

Did I say it did?

Re phenomenology and the 'abstruse debate' - I remember when I got hold of Husserl's Crisis of the European Sciences - there was, I seem to recall, a numbered list of (I think) 12 major aspects of the crisis. And they're very similar to the kind of critique that I have been trying to give (although I haven't got that book and it's very hard to find online.)

I will also add that Husserl's cultural milieu (as with Heidegger's) encompasses the Germanic academic discipline of 'geisteswissenschaften' - tranlsated as science of spirit - which is something almost entirely alien to Anglo-american and analytic philosophy.

There are indications that cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches will become more common. Neurophilosophy is a good example. Philosophical biology is another. — Fooloso4

Absolutely! And it is precisely because they have started to incorporate the phenomenological and 'embodied cognition' approaches, which in turn grew out of the movement away from old-school scientific materialism.

But those such as Daniel Dennett and other philosophical materialists still advocate precisely the kind of 'objectification of everything' which I'm attempting to critique here.

Did I say it did? — Fooloso4

That was addressed to Janus.

That was addressed to Janus. — Wayfarer

No, it wasn't: go back and check.

You should have said "phenomenology" there instead of "philosophy" and I would have agreed with you.
— Janus

OK, good point, and generally agree with what you're saying.

But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics. — Wayfarer

//oh, and nobody picked up my All Along the Watchtower allusion//

You're right I must have somehow misread. And I did pick up your allusion to (actually quote of part of) Jimi Hendrix's song (I know Bob Dylan wrote it, but in my view the song belongs to Jimi), but I didn't respond because I didn't understand the purpose of its being there. (But then I'm generally not a fan of Dylan's facilely rhyming faux-meaningful (albeit in the case of this song when sung by and played by Jimi highly evocative) doggerel). The words alone are most evocative in the third stanza to my taste.

Anecdotes (i.e. correlations at most) do not "compete" with Experiments (i.e. causal / stochastic relations) in truth-making. — 180 Proof

Do you think that feelings never play a causal role in human behaviour?

I know Bob Dylan wrote it, but in my view the song belongs to Jimi — Janus

:100:

My favourite ever single.

Absolutely! And it is precisely because they have started to incorporate the phenomenological and 'embodied cognition' approaches, which in turn grew out of the movement away from old-school scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

I have been reading quite a bit of Lloyd Gerson upon the strength of your recommendation. I have a growing number of problems with his thesis but leaving that aside, how does phenomenology fit into Gerson's schema where 'Platonism' or 'Naturalism' are the only possible approaches and the attempts to find 'rapprochement' between the two are a fool's errand?

Do you think that feelings never play a causal role in human behaviour? — bert1

No more than, for example, traffic lights "cause" drivers to step on the breaks or the gas. Simply put, they are only signals which inform habits, and when circumstances warrant they can be overriden (ignored), unlike "causes" which cannot.

My favourite ever single. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but close; top ten at least.

Agreed. That's how it differs from an "physical explanation" – phenomenology describes, not explains (i.e. maps, not models). — 180 Proof

I wonder about that. Do physical "explanations" really explain anything more than how things appear to work? In that sense they could be counted as merely descriptive as much as phenomenological "explanations" can be.

:up:

I know Bob Dylan wrote it, but in my view the song belongs to Jimi — Janus

I remember reading somewhere that Dylan feels like it's Jimi's song too.

:up: If that's so, Dylan is to be applauded. I think he's a truly great songwriter, musically speaking, but I don't think much of his lyrics.

Here's the quote:

It is perhaps the ultimate accolade to Hendrix that the creator plays the cover version of his creation.
Dylan has said as much: “It overwhelmed me, really. He had such talent, he could find things inside a song and vigorously develop them. He found things that other people wouldn’t think of finding in there. He probably improved upon it by the spaces he was using.

“I took licence with the song from his version, actually, and continue to do it to this day.”
In the liner notes to Biograph, Dylan said: “I liked Jimi Hendrix’s record of this and ever since he died I’ve been doing it that way. Strange how when I sing it, I always feel it’s a tribute to him in some kind of way.”

Thanks for posting that Z, it's a lovely statement!

All my pleasure. :starstruck:

I've been a big fan of Jimi and Dylan since I was about 13.

For me it was sixteen or seventeen, although I was more of a fan of Jimi than Bob. I acquired a taste for Bob much later in life. Back then it was Hendrix, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Van Morrison, Paul Butterfield, John Mayall, Jefferson Airplane. Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Leonard Cohen, Blue Cheer, The Stooges, MC5 and Janis Joplin mostly (and classical and Jazz).

I liked the Beatles, the Stones and the Monkees when I was thirteen.

I got into Dylan via Jimi's performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" at Monterey. Blew my fragile little mind.

Lucky you having been at Monterey! In Australia we only had very scaled down, provincial versions of major festivals like Woodstock and Monterey.

Lucky you having been at Monterey! — Janus

No, a documentary. Much too young for the Long Hot Summer of Love. :wink:

I think Gerson’s overall point, and one which I agree with, is that naturalism as we know it today grew out of the rejection of Platonism and scholastic realism in the late medieval and early modern period. It defines itself as what Platonism isn’t. Helps to bear in mind Gerson’s depiction of the ‘five antis’ of Platonism - anti-nominalism, anti-mechanism, anti-materialism, anti-relativism, and anti-skepticism.

The early moderns were determined to escape the clutches of the Schoolmen, which indeed had become a stultifying dogma. Nominalism prevailed in the debate over (scholastic) realism and set the terms for modern philosophy. See this review.

I got into Dylan via Jimi's performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" at Monterey. Blew my fragile little mind. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In all fairness, Dylan’s original version of All Along the Watchtower was pretty ordinary (on John Wesley Harding?) But the songs of that period - 1968-69 - have indelibly shaped my worldview.