I have nothing against what you said. And you are correct, there are mysteries in science too. But I do think that many of the classical philosophical questions are so hard, we don't even know how to go about even giving a good answer. Free will, for instance, or how can matter think? We know it can, but have zero clue as to how it does this.

Yes, it is true that religion and philosophy can be ridiculed and that some of that ridicule is at times, relevant. I love navel gazing, so I'm restricted to phenomenology and better descriptions, it does it for me. But it won't fulfill others.

As for questions that get answered, that's correct. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "philosophy" and what kind of questions you have in mind. If you mean, say, political philosophy, then yes, I think you are correct.

I too value empiricism and empirical evidence. Incidentally, as a side note, Locke and Hume were MUCH more sophisticated than many so called "empiricists" today, but, there are things we know with little evidence or were we only have intuition or best guesses.

But I do think that many of the classical philosophical questions are so hard, we don't even know how to go about even giving a good answer. Free will, for instance, or how can matter think? We know it can, but have zero clue as to how it does this. — Manuel

Very true. Plenty of bad answers, of course. Sometimes the question itself isn't formulated well enough that there can even be an answer.

Incidentally, as a side note, Locke and Hume were MUCH more sophisticated than many so called "empiricists" today — Manuel

Agreed. I'm always impressed when reading those guys. Hume's thoughts on government everyone should read.

Yep. You and I are virtually on the same page on almost all topics. I wonder why? ;)

And yes, we can put words into a "question like" format, doesn't mean it's coherent or sometimes, even answerable by us.

I'm not much into political philosophy. I like phil of mind, epistemology, metaphysics. And on these alone, they have so much gold. Much richer than most modern interpretations.

But I'm sure they both have quite sensible things to say about politics too.

That's fine. Where does one go? Depends on each person, I personally like descriptive generalization that make sense to me, that can help elucidate what I experience, obviously inadequately, but it's an approximation.

Others will deny that the self is a problem at all.

Some think science offers all answers.

Some become mystics. — Manuel

I think you have a point there about people and their diverging points of view. But then, what an individual experiences is not just a matter of choice and personality. We are what we read, and if all I read was analytic philosophy, all I would know is what Quine and his ilk have to say. My subjective inclinations are steered by the literature, and if you bring up the mysteries of philosophy, analytic philosophy is not going to be very welcoming since it has a positivist devotion to clarity. My issue with this kind of thing is simple: The world is anything but clear on these threshold matters of philosophy and to pretend it is is to look away from the world and retreat back into the comfort of the familiar. I don't think philosophy should be comfortable. The world is weird beyond measure when basic questions are taken up.

I don’t see the difference.

Science seeks to understand nature, seeking naturalistic explanations. That’s natural philosophy. Yes, we’ve since given it another label — but ontologically it’s no different. — Xtrix

Philosophical ontology certainly is a question that seeks an explanation, but it does not do this through what one would call natural means. It is an apriori inquiry, about presuppositions of what natural sciences have to say.

Eh. I myself don’t take the conventional distinctions between religion, philosophy, and science very seriously— any more than I take historical epochs like the “middle ages” and “renaissance” seriously. They’re useful in everyday discussion, but when looking at it a little closer they aren’t at all as clear or as neat as one would like to think.

What’s called religion in many ways deals with the same questions as philosophy…and science. I think the knee jerk reaction to this is historical — the Catholic Church persecuting early astronomers, or creationists trying to get ID taught in schools, etc. There’s a fear that our sense of truth is undermined if science and “religion” aren’t separated — that one deals with facts and the other with faith, etc. I used to think the same, and in many instances still do— but with the acknowledgement that it’s not always so simple. — Xtrix

I do appreciate your belief in a kind of unified epistemology. You are right, there is an equal footing for all knowledge claims that ignores the divisional distinctions. This is called philosophy. Philosophy wants to understand, not this or that category, but all categories. Genetics and astronomy have very different thematic interests, but what they have in common is they both issue from the same kind of epistemic relations, which are observational; so what is it to observe? Philosophy asks not just basic questions, but the MOST basic question possible, and this demands a pulling away from observational claims to observation itself.
Religion is essentially a metaphysics of ethics and aesthetics. Take away the stories and the bad metaphysics, and this is what it comes down to.

I take that to be self evident. Though I'm not particularly analytic. I'd say I'm 17th, 18th century phil + Chomsky and Tallis.

And a bit of Galen Strawson. But pure analytic phil, depending on the figures, doesn't satisfy me.

The early stage of the theoretical process that include the applied principles and epistemology SHOULD be the same. So both methodologies should start from current epistemology, use the same naturalistic principles and through logic they should arrive to functional and meaningful frameworks. — Nickolasgaspar

With this, you will get a philosophy of science, but nothing more. True, all things start with inquiry, but then, philosophy asks very different questions. Einstein talked about time and space, e.g., but not as foundational conditions for consciousness. As to epistemology, science cannot touch this: one cannot observe empirically an act believing or knowing. The best one can do is analyze features of knowledge relationships, you know, S knows P, is justified in this, and P is true; but the rub is in this justification, for P can't be affirmed as true unless there is a line of justification that leads from P to S. Impossible to "observe" this line because P is entangled IN S's relationship to it.
Science simply has nothing to say about this, nor about ethics or aesthetics or reality or being and existence, and so on. What distinguishes philosophy is that the questions it addresses are structurally open, that is, even if you did have an answer, that answer would be contingent. But then, this is true for all knowledge claims whatsoever. All roads lead to philosophy.

I take that to be self evident. Though I'm not particularly analytic. I'd say I'm 17th, 18th century phil + Chomsky and Tallis.

And a bit of Galen Strawson. But pure analytic phil, depending on the figures, doesn't satisfy me. — Manuel

Then there is only one way to go. Alas, it is not easy and most think it is prohibitively obscure, and they are right, frankly. But anything is better than Chomsky, Strawson, Quine, Ryle, Dennett and so on. Not that they don't have anything interesting to say, but to be taken as the principle insights for understanding philosophy is just missing the grand point of it all. I mean, if you like rigorous, well defined puzzle solving, then fine, but they will take no further than this.

I am talking about continental philosophy. Begins, if there is such a thing, with Kant.

Well said in the first, my sentiments also, in the second. Although, the beginning might be in Descartes, Kant then being the standard by which all others in the class, are measured.

With this, you will get a philosophy of science, but nothing more. — Constance

-No you are confusing Philosophy of science(the study of how the methods of systematized epistemology work and the quality of the end product), with the rules of logic and principles science and philosophy must follow in order to achieve their goals, credible knowledge and valuable wisdom.
Those are two completely different things.

. True, all things start with inquiry, but then, philosophy asks very different questions — Constance

That doesn't let her of the hook. Philosophers still need to take in to account the established knowledge and use it as their starting point, they also need to avoid unfounded principles (supernaturalism, idealism etc) in their interpretations and they need to check and include need data and feedbacks.
Their questions are different because their goals are different. Both ask questions about how the world works but Philosophy have an additional set of questions that include meaning and value.
Science stops before meaning and value because its job to produce knowledge. Philosophy has to take that knowledge from science and inform its frameworks on value and meaning.
This is how Philosophy can ensure that their frameworks convey wisdom.

Einstein talked about time and space, e.g., but not as foundational conditions for consciousness. — Constance

-Why he should ever have done that? The first are phenomena studied by physics while the later is a biological phenomenon studied by Neuroscience. I didn't know Einstein had a second degree in Neuroscience!
If you are referring to Modern Philosophy talking about consciousness being fundamental(whatever that means), well some philosophers do talk about it, but that doesn't make a Philosophical idea.
That is pseudo philosophy because Cosmology and Neuroscience haven't been epistemically unified....yet at least.
We don't have observations that point to any links between those different phenomena.

As to epistemology, science cannot touch this: one cannot observe empirically an act believing or knowing. — Constance

Of course it can.I empirically can observe your thoughts, knowledge and beliefs.
We even have a technology that we can read complex conscious thoughts without the need from an individual to communicate them!...By just reading fMRI scans (2017).
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
Maybe you meant something else?

But even if were we unable to empirically investigate subjective states and we couldn't produce medicinal solutions for states like pain and depression and anxieties and child disorders, or diagnostics linked to pathology and physiology of brains, surgery protocols etc etc etc, the question would be,if a systematic,objective approach and method cannot touch this phenomenon..what can and how can we be sure for the objective takes of that "unknown" alternative method?

The best one can do is analyze features of knowledge relationships, you know, S knows P, is justified in this, and P is true; but the rub is in this justification, for P can't be affirmed as true unless there is a line of justification that leads from P to S. Impossible to "observe" this line because P is entangled IN S's relationship to it. — Constance

-Well this is what we do in all aspects of our investigation. We make objective observations and we try to demonstrate Strong correlations between Causal mechanism and Effect by Describing and Verifying the Sufficient and Necessity role of that Link.
Of course all this is achieved by Objective Observations. All those observations are behind the thousands of papers found in Neurosciencenews.com describing how the brain achieve every different state and function.
I don't really understand where did you hear about the "impossibility" to observe and describe the causal role of brain functions to our Mind properties and how they allow us to have testable predictions and technical applications.
Do you also think the same for the "unobservable" process of Digestion, or Mitosis or Photosynthesis??

Science simply has nothing to say about this. — Constance

Again the thousands of books and publications of Cognitive Science would disagree, the Techniques and medical applications will find your claim strange. Our theories and medical/surgery protocols render your claim factually wrong. There are many things that Science can say and mountains of knowledge that can offer to Philosophy.

nor about ethics or aesthetics or reality or being and existence, and so on. — Constance

-OF course science has an essential role in all of them. Why do you think our morality has involved?
Where did Philosophy got its feedback? How do we know our place on the world(Common Ancestry, DNA, No biological Human races, not the center of the universe etc).
Science has informed us how to tell which of our superstitious beliefs are real and which existential claims are irrational to be believed because we don't have objective evidence.
You seem to ignore the role of science in Philosophy.
You can not have the one without the other.
Sure philosophy might help us define concepts and evaluate meaning and value, but without knowledge those would be empty evaluations. Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor of coming up with wise claims about our world. AGAIN without knowledge NO CLAIM can be considered as wise.

What distinguishes philosophy is that the questions it addresses are structurally open, that is, even if you did have an answer, that answer would be contingent. But then, this is true for all knowledge claims whatsoever. All roads lead to philosophy. — Constance

-That is a common misconception. BiG Bang cosmology was metaphysics before it was verified objectively and become science.
Continental drifting was metaphysic before it became a scientific theory.
EVERY single scientific hypothesis is philosophy before it is verified or rejected.
String theory is metaphysics.
Again Science is the second most important step in any philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy goes some steps further and tries to address Ethical and aesthetic and political questions, but that is impossible task without Epistemology and Knowledge.

So we should stop trying to separate those two and we should acknowledge as pseudo philosophy the inquiries that ignore scientific knowledge and Naturalistic principles...period.

The important distinction to be done is only between Epistemology and Metaphysics.
We should never mix those two and we should all be informed on what frameworks are in one group and what in the other.

I have nothing against what you said. And you are correct, there are mysteries in science too. But I do think that many of the classical philosophical questions are so hard, we don't even know how to go about even giving a good answer. Free will, for instance, or how can matter think? We know it can, but have zero clue as to how it does this.
. — Manuel

You are correct some to the classical philosophical questions are unanswerable for many reasons.
First of all since Philosophy deals with value and means, most of their answers are mostly subjective.
(meaning of life,of existence,what we value etc).
The big problem is with those questions which are the product of begging the question of fallacious assumptions or factually wrong presuppositions.
Two great example for all three is Free Will and consciousness.
We know that Humans have will and we also know from science that is not free 99% of the time.
We have a good idea(we don't know all the story) on what mechanisms are Necessary and Sufficient for a conscious state with a specific content to emerge but "philosophers" insist in bringing in the supernatural as if it has the same number of good evidence to qualify as competitive explanation.

Nick, don't all knowledge fields use methodologies in an attempt to reliably arrive at the truth of whatever the field has an aim at knowing or understanding?

To be a knowledge field should require an epistemological framework, right?

Is empirical observation a reliable way to verify a hypothesis is true? And is it the only or primary way?
Does deductive logic or mathematics require empirical observation?

Empirical observations may be "objective", but the conclusions one draws from it, aren't they going to be inductions?

"Natural science" constructs theories around observations. The theories themselves are not empirical, are they?
Ethicists, eg bioethicists, also construct theories around observations.
What makes "natural science" theories more "objective" than ethical theories, or economic theories, or political theories, or mathematical theories?

It is the attempt to use argument and reason alone to derive truth, in those shrinking domains where this is considered a legitimate undertaking. These domains just lack a better method.

Academically, the legitimacy of this activity is bolstered with vast amounts of canon.

Well said in the first, my sentiments also, in the second. Although, the beginning might be in Descartes, Kant then being the standard by which all others in the class, are measured. — Mww

For me, after I read Kant, I felt I understood the foundations of philosophical issues. It occurred to me that there is simply no way AT ALL to escape some form of idealism. This is not to say at all I agree with the CPR. But I had never really understood that science was derivative, as Leo Strauss put it. Every empirical knowledge claim in this world is derivative of the intuitive and cognitive foundation that is set before us.

It is not the empirical analysis of things that we first encounter in the world. It is meaning, and analysis follows on this.

It is not the empirical analysis of things that we first encounter in the world. It is meaning, and analysis follows on this. — Constance

:clap: :up:

Well said.

I wouldn’t bother too much with Ayn Rand dogmatists/liars who are interested only in posturing.

Let them be happy with “philosophy becomes science when it is objectively verified” or whatever Nickelodeon characterization they’re attached to.

You’d have a better chance talking to a sea blob.

-No you are confusing Philosophy of science(the study of how the methods of systematized epistemology work and the quality of the end product), with the rules of logic and principles science and philosophy must follow in order to achieve their goals, credible knowledge and valuable wisdom.
Those are two completely different things. — Nickolasgaspar

The issue I take has to do with your "same naturalistic principles". Philosophy is not naturalistic, if I take your meaning. the method? Well, I can only think of two. The most general is the scientific method, and this is in the nature of thought and experience itself.
The other method is that of pursuing presuppositions in accepted ideas. This is philosophy. But then, I do see that ALL inquiry in science is like this, and this is perhaps what you are saying. It is one thing to accept the "normal science", which is the same as my accepting my cat, all expectations confirmed over and over. It is another to ask questions about this: the question is common to all desire to know.
I obviously don't take issue with logic. That would be impossible. It is the thematic nature of the inquiry. Philosophy has a different mission, one that looks to presuppositional foundations of knowledge claims AS knowledge claims. Science is not interested in this; only in the specific knowledge claims of its field of interests.

That doesn't let her of the hook. Philosophers still need to take in to account the established knowledge and use it as their starting point, they also need to avoid unfounded principles (supernaturalism, idealism etc) in their interpretations and they need to check and include need data and feedbacks.
Their questions are different because their goals are different. Both ask questions about how the world works but Philosophy have an additional set of questions that include meaning and value.
Science stops before meaning and value because its job to produce knowledge. Philosophy has to take that knowledge from science and inform its frameworks on value and meaning.
This is how Philosophy can ensure that their frameworks convey wisdom. — Nickolasgaspar

Ah, but here you go astray. Take a second (or, a first?) look at idealism, or, as it is later taken up, phenomenology. Science has a wide readership and it produces great cell phones, but as a foundation for philosophy, it has little to say, and what it does have to say amounts to speculative science, merely. You are never going to get this tart to your dessert plate:all one can ever witness is the phenomenon. Wittgenstein knew this. Dennett knows this, they all know this.

-Why he should ever have done that? The first are phenomena studied by physics while the later is a biological phenomenon studied by Neuroscience. I didn't know Einstein had a second degree in Neuroscience!
If you are referring to Modern Philosophy talking about consciousness being fundamental(whatever that means), well some philosophers do talk about it, but that doesn't make a Philosophical idea.
That is pseudo philosophy because Cosmology and Neuroscience haven't been epistemically unified....yet at least.
We don't have observations that point to any links between those different phenomena. — Nickolasgaspar

The point about Einstein is that his was an empirical theory about motion, distance measurements, etc. An apriori theory of time and space is very different. It tries to describe the conditions in place that make such observations even possible. A bit like checking out what a telescope does prior to processing the data it gives us. Experience is not a mirror of nature, to borrow a phrase. How could it be this? Have you seen a brain?

I caught that "whatever that means." You need to get out more, I mean, read something else other than what Neil Tyson DeGrasse tells you to read. Me, I've taken lots of science, and I do understand it quite well. But I have also read lots of phenomenology. The latter is philosophy. An entirely different order of analysis.

Of course it can.I empirically can observe your thoughts, knowledge and beliefs.
We even have a technology that we can read complex conscious thoughts without the need from an individual to communicate them!...By just reading fMRI scans (2017).
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news-stories/2017/june/brain-decoding-complex-thoughts.html
Maybe you meant something else? — Nickolasgaspar

You jest, no? Seriously, is this what you think? If a child is drowning and the event produces ripples in the water, then by an examination of the ripples, I know what the child's drowning is all about?? What do you think an MRI is?

But when I say one cannot observe empirically the act of believing or knowing I mean to say that even in one's interior observations, where the belief arises and one can step back and one can step back and acknowledge this in an act of reflection, the knowing the belief is there is still bound to the indeterminacy of belief itself. It is like what Wittgenstein said about logic: it only "shows" itself, but one can never know what it is because it takes logic to observe at all, and this begs the question in the worst way. Belief cannot catch, slip in through the back door, as Hegel put it, sight of what it is to believe.

But even if were we unable to empirically investigate subjective states and we couldn't produce medicinal solutions for states like pain and depression and anxieties and child disorders, or diagnostics linked to pathology and physiology of brains, surgery protocols etc etc etc, the question would be,if a systematic,objective approach and method cannot touch this phenomenon..what can and how can we be sure for the objective takes of that "unknown" alternative method? — Nickolasgaspar

The question goes to what the knowing of anything is. You would have to show how anything out there gets in here (pointing to my head). Do this, and I will convert instantly to your side of this matter.

Well this is what we do in all aspects of our investigation. We make objective observations and we try to demonstrate Strong correlations between Causal mechanism and Effect by Describing and Verifying the Sufficient and Necessity role of that Link.
Of course all this is achieved by Objective Observations. All those observations are behind the thousands of papers found in Neurosciencenews.com describing how the brain achieve every different state and function.
I don't really understand where did you hear about the "impossibility" to observe and describe the causal role of brain functions to our Mind properties and how they allow us to have testable predictions and technical applications.
Do you also think the same for the "unobservable" process of Digestion, or Mitosis or Photosynthesis?? — Nickolasgaspar

Well, there is a lot of language in this, and it is all from science. You need, if you want to understand philosophy, to look elsewhere, other than a body of thinking that is self confirming. This would bring in questions. A physiologist reads about, witnesses the digestive system, say, microscopically as well, and with all the detail. Ask this scientist, how do you separate what you witness from the phenomena produced in your brain such that your thinking and intuitive impressions are not REALLY just about the hard wired problem solving mechanisms that deal with the affairs in general? How do you separate your knowing about what is before you from the conditions of knowing?

No one I have ever read has any issue with science. At all! They simply say that science is not the place to go if you want to talk about philosophical issues. It is not foundational, but is derivative of the intuitions we call the world. Look out on a starry night and what do you see? Why is there this finitude that prevents penetration into eternity? Isn't that the inside of your cranium you're experiencing? This is my question for materialists on this matter. Phenomenology has its own manner of thinking.

-OF course science has an essential role in all of them. Why do you think our morality has involved?
Where did Philosophy got its feedback? How do we know our place on the world(Common Ancestry, DNA, No biological Human races, not the center of the universe etc).
Science has informed us how to tell which of our superstitious beliefs are real and which existential claims are irrational to be believed because we don't have objective evidence.
You seem to ignore the role of science in Philosophy.
You can not have the one without the other.
Sure philosophy might help us define concepts and evaluate meaning and value, but without knowledge those would be empty evaluations. Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor of coming up with wise claims about our world. AGAIN without knowledge NO CLAIM can be considered as wise. — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy observes the world of observations. It does not go beyond this, but into it. It is not that there are no reasonable knowledge claims in science, but rather that such claims themselves bear analysis. Look at it like Dewey or Rorty do: There is a volcano. An event. And my perception of the volcano is an event. I am "here" and the volcano is "there". Do I know there is a volcano? Of course. What does it mean to know, that is this relation that exists between me and that over there? Now wait....that is a different kind of question entirely. I have to remove my geologist's smock. This is an epistemic relation, not a causal one.
You should be able to see that this is a problem. For philosophy, it was THE problem for more than a hundred years, until many just decided to forget it. It will NEVER be resolved is empirical science. You can think as you please, ignore it as you please, but every philosopher knows this.

-That is a common misconception. BiG Bang cosmology was metaphysics before it was verified objectively and become science.
Continental drifting was metaphysic before it became a scientific theory.
EVERY single scientific hypothesis is philosophy before it is verified or rejected.
String theory is metaphysics.
Again Science is the second most important step in any philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy goes some steps further and tries to address Ethical and aesthetic and political questions, but that is impossible task without Epistemology and Knowledge.

So we should stop trying to separate those two and we should acknowledge as pseudo philosophy the inquiries that ignore scientific knowledge and Naturalistic principles...period.

The important distinction to be done is only between Epistemology and Metaphysics.
We should never mix those two and we should all be informed on what frameworks are in one group and what in the other. — Nickolasgaspar

The "pseudo" part of all this is just someone's desire to stick with familiar thinking because thinking outside of this is uncomfortable. A bit like putting one's head in the sand. to see things clearly, you have to learn to live with the world as it is: it is indeterminate not just historically (the Big Bang, and so on); it is indeterminate structurally! The trouble is, I don't think you know what this even means.

Every empirical knowledge claim in this world is derivative of the intuitive and cognitive foundation that is set before us. — Constance

How about.....derivative of the intuitive and cognitive foundation that belongs to us. If not, yours works.

How about.....derivative of the intuitive and cognitive foundation that belongs to us. If not, yours works. — Mww

I agree with both. I lean towards yours.

EVERY single scientific hypothesis is philosophy before it is verified or rejected.
String theory is metaphysics — Nickolasgaspar

It depends on whether speculation in the sciences is "philosophy". I think it is not. Even the definition of speculative philosophy is something different.

I don't agree. Not that I think Quine or Kripke are too interesting, but contemporary continental philosophy is pretty bland to me.

Chomsky is excellent. I think people often read into some superficial notions of "scientism", which I think is a mistake.

But Kant is fantastic. Schopenhauer maybe better.



99% of the time we are not free? That's a bit much, no?

I don't agree. Not that I think Quine or Kripke are too interesting, but contemporary continental philosophy is pretty bland to me.

Chomsky is excellent. I think people often read into some superficial notions of "scientism", which I think is a mistake.

But Kant is fantastic. Schopenhauer maybe better. — Manuel

But if you like Kant, then you'll adore Heidegger. And Husserl. And Fink; here is an intro:

instead of soaring up over the world "speculatively," we, in a
truly "Copernican revolution," have broken through the confinement of the natural
attitude, as the horizon of all our human possibilities for acting and theorizing,
and have thrust forward into the dimension of origin for all being, into the constitutive source of the world, into the sphere of transcendental subjectivity

Fink, Husserl's colleague and disciple, follows on the heels of Kant in his Sixth Cartesian Meditation. Haven't had the time to look carefully into Schopenhauer. Soon.

I used to like Heidegger, now less so, but he's interesting. Husserl has insightful things to say, but I do think he gets caught up in very serious mental gymnastics.

But to be fair, Husserl was following Descartes to an extent. The Continentals skipped over the empiricists, which I think is a mistake. I won't hide my pro-Locke, pro-Hume biases and although I think Locke has some chapters which I think should be mandatory reading for phil of mind, skipping over Hume is pretty remarkable. He's a force, I think.

But those figures you mentioned are good, I just really dislike postmodernism. That's where I draw the line.

IMHO your disagreement is not sufficiently informed.
First of all not all speculations are Philosophical We are only referring to structured hypothetical frameworks.
Now science , before leaving the Philosophical Academia was identified as Natural Philosophy. ALL hypotheses formed within science are by default Metaphysics(philosophy), as long as they obey the principles of Methodological Naturalism's, the rules of logic and the established epistemology.

I used to like Heidegger, now less so, but he's interesting. — Manuel

Why less so now? I’m curious.

I eventually felt that he lead me nowhere. He has a very unique capacity to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, but I can't build off of that. And the distinguished philosophers who followed him (Sartre, Gadamer, etc.) didn't really expand on what he said to my satisfaction.

He can be read in too many ways, and although you can always find a quote of his to contradict a statement he said elsewhere, he didn't really illuminate much on the mind, which is what I think is fruitful.

In short, I got stuck there with no way out. So it stopped being such a novelty. I still think he's interesting, but I prefer other methods of philosophizing, such as Tallis whom I think "does Heidegger" better because one can work on his foundations, and some of the classics of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, who have rich insight that I can try to do something with.

The issue I take has to do with your "same naturalistic principles". Philosophy is not naturalistic, if I take your meaning. This is philosophy. But then, I do see that ALL inquiry in science is like this, and this is perhaps what you are saying. It is one thing to accept the "normal science", which is the same as my accepting my cat, all expectations confirmed over and over. It is another to ask questions about this: the question is common to all desire to know.
I obviously don't take issue with logic. That would be impossible. It is the thematic nature of the inquiry. Philosophy has a different mission, one that looks to presuppositional foundations of knowledge claims AS knowledge claims. Science is not interested in this; only in the specific knowledge claims of its field of interests. — Constance

- I can see why you have an issue with that statement, since I didn't provide any clarification.
By Naturalistic Principles I am referring to Methodological Naturalism not to a metaphysical worldview (Philosophical Naturalism). Unfortunately our only verified epistemology is provided by Empirical Means. Those Empirical means can only detect an investigate a Naturalistic Realm so we are limited in our descriptions and methods of verification.
Its like being in a room and the only exit to the rest of the world is a door(Naturalism). Sure, we can not exclude the existence of hidden trapdoors and passages(Idealism, Superanturalism) but as long as we are unable to locate them we are limited to that single door.

So by choosing those principles we are not encouraging some kind of arbitrary bias but its a Pragmatic Necessity that we can not really avoid if we care having Objective foundations.
You see "empirical methodologies" are not essential but Objectivity is and as far as we can tell, the only approach able to produce objective epistemology is the Empirical (at least for now).

Philosophy is indeed not naturalistic. Philosophy is the quest for wise claims about our world and only Naturalistic frameworks can be evaluated for their epistemic value.
Without knowledge we can not have wise claims.

the method? Well, I can only think of two. The most general is the scientific method, and this is in the nature of thought and experience itself.
The other method is that of pursuing presuppositions in accepted ideas. — Constance

-Aristotle left behind a philosophical work which is questionable at best, but what he is famous of is his work on Systematizing and organizing Logic and Philosophy. Aristotle first understood the essential steps for every philosophical inquire that can allow us to reach wise conclusions.
You can see the steps of the philosophical method in my avatar pic but I will list them here too.
1. Epistemology(what we know and how we know )
2. Physika (investigation of the world...science)
3. Metaphysics (Hypothesizing on the founding of the two previous steps.)
4. Aesthetic
5. Ethics
6. Politics


-" It is one thing to accept the "normal science", which is the same as my accepting my cat, all expectations confirmed over and over. It is another to ask questions about this: the question is common to all desire to know."
-Yes Philosophy includes science as a step in the whole process and it does go some steps beyond the gathering of knowledge by tackling matters of meaning and value. The problem rises when we include in our premises concepts that aren't justified by our epistemology or science (begging the question, poisoning the well).
The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of comforting ourselves by assuming the concepts we need to prove.


-"Philosophy has a different mission, one that looks to presuppositional foundations of knowledge claims AS knowledge claims. Science is not interested in this; only in the specific knowledge claims of its field of interests."
-As I said the main mission of Philosophy is to arrive to Wise Questions or Conclusions. We strive to expand our understanding by reflecting on the facts that are available. The presuppositions used in our knowledge are analyzed by Philosophy of Science, but the fact is that we don't have a say in those presuppositions. As I already explained we are limited by our tools of investigation and the observable aspects of nature.

Ah, but here you go astray. Take a second (or, a first?) look at idealism, or, as it is later taken up, phenomenology. Science has a wide readership and it produces great cell phones, but as a foundation for philosophy, it has little to say, and what it does have to say amounts to speculative science, merely. You are never going to get this tart to your dessert plate:all one can ever witness is the phenomenon. Wittgenstein knew this. Dennett knows this, they all know this. — Constance

-Again you are confusing Technical applications with science. Science offers knowledge on the observable ontology of matter in order for businesses to make cell phones.
You can not remove science from the philosophical method because you will be unable to distinguish wise from non wise statements. Scientific observations has updated our cosmological stories, our place in our solar system and our universe, our stories of how we came to evolve instead of created.etc etc
Now Idealism is not Philosophy but a worldview. It is considered to be philosophy because its historical record. This is huge problem with philosophy that we don't see in science. When a framework doesn't carry any epistemic value it is rejected and it isn't recycled.
Idealism doesn't carry any wisdom and its principles have zero contributions to our epistemology. It is by definition a failed pseudo philosophical view with assumptions that aren't EVEN wrong.
The same is true for any transcendental or non naturalistic variety of phenomenology.

I eventually felt that he lead me nowhere. — Manuel

insight that I can try to do something with. — Manuel

I hear you. But what would you like to do with it?

I feel the question itself, the history, etc., is very focusing. It offers a new understanding of being human, really. That has plenty of application — to politics, to technology, and so on.

↪jgill

IMHO your disagreement is not sufficiently informed.
First of all not all speculations are Philosophical We are only referring to structured hypothetical frameworks.
Now science , before leaving the Philosophical Academia was identified as Natural Philosophy. ALL hypotheses formed within science are by default Metaphysics(philosophy), as long as they obey the principles of Methodological Naturalism's, the rules of logic and the established epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar

You are probably correct. Certainly science evolved in philosophical frameworks. But I think apart from logical structures science is no longer philosophical. Just the way I see it as a a non-philosopher. Once the technicalities of an idea require extensive specialized knowledge that idea becomes speculation by the scientists involved. I consider string theory to be speculative science as long as there is the faintest possibility it can be experimentally verified. If it were clearly shown to be non-verifiable, well, that's a different thing.

Now, there are concepts in science/mathematics that I do in fact believe are philosophical, metaphysical to be exact. Infinitesimals, conjectured by Leibniz and others, are objects of metaphysics. They can be considered foundational in analysis and support a mathematical structure that describes much of the physical world. But they cannot be proven to exist.

I read the section of your thesis on the composition problem. I'm familiar with weak emergence, but strong emergence focuses on consciousness and is deeply philosophical. That all tiny entities that compose to create something grander contain or exhibit the same impression as the larger composition is certainly not the case in weak emergence, which may not be fertile ground for philosophical discourse. Nice paper.

Certainly science evolved in philosophical frameworks. But I think apart from logical structures science is no longer philosophical. Just the way I see it as a a non-philosopher. Once the technicalities of an idea require extensive specialized knowledge that idea becomes speculation by the scientists involved. I consider string theory to be speculative science as long as there is the faintest possibility it can be experimentally verified. If it were clearly shown to be non-verifiable, well, that's a different thing. — jgill

Are you defining philosophy and metaphysics as dealing with phenomena which cannot be proven?
How about the idea that metaphysics is the condition of possibility for understanding the theoretical
framework within which proven facts make sense in the first place? Based on that definition , all proven facts within all sciences are elements of larger theoretical
frameworks, and those larger theoretical frameworks belong to larger metaphysical worldviews.

The conclusion is that science has never ceased being ‘philosophical’ in the sense that theoretical frameworks represent a naive metaphysics.