I know it will sound weird if I say that philosophy ‘sent folks to the moon’ two centuries before NASA. But what I mean is that most of the important conceptual elements required for this technological achievement were in place with the breakthrough work of certain key philosophers. — Joshs
Most of us simply aren’t familiar enough with philosophy, or good enough at making the translation from philosophical to scientific language, to recognize this parallel. — Joshs
Is that an accurate account, to your knowledge? I like the sound of it well enough. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Yes. I doubt that Aristotle thought in terms of total opposition between Subjective (ideal) & Objective (real), in the modern sense. But, he seems to have pioneered the mundane Pragmatic approach, that was later adopted by modern Science, to replace the sublime Theoretical/Theological*1 methods of the Scholastics. Nevetheless, I see the roots of modern thinking in his treatise on Nature. For example, where Plato used the notion of universal Ideal Form (eidos) as the ultimate reality, Aristotle used the term in reference to specific material objects.Regarding Aristotle and the subject of objectivity - I think the whole concept, or rather orientation, of objectivity, is part and parcel of the modern period. The word itself only came into regular usage in the early modern period. And I think the deep reason for that is that pre-moderns, even very sophisticated pre-moderns such as the Greeks, experienced the world differently - not as an ensemble of objects, but as an intentional creation, and so had different kind of relationship with it -an 'I-Thou' relationship, not subject and object. — Wayfarer
:smirk:All we have here is peer review (Academia to Facebook) and echo chambers (Academia to Facebook) choosing camps and scoffing at the enemy. Fetishizing the untestable. — ZzzoneiroCosm
:up:To the extent that philosophy clears away clouds, eliminates confusion, it has value. — ZzzoneiroCosm
:zip:But philosophy also has its part in creating clouds and confusions. Think egocentric self-distortions. I see it on the forums every time I check in.
:fire:We only need the new if we're clearing ancient clouds and have never seen the sky. We need the new to eliminate inherited errors of thought - confusions, covert and overt. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Cite an example. :chin:When a scientific paradigm changes, what counts as evidence changes with it. — Joshs
"Testable" in what way/s?All philosophical accounts are testable ...
They create a specific ‘way’( a metaphysics), and assume future philosophy will follow this path and add more clarity and detail.
In other words, they claim to have reached the bottom (the way) as far as they can tell. — Joshs
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.