agree that philosophy begins with a problem or with questions that need to be asked. I suppose amongst the problematics of Platonism was the nature of knowledge, the good, the true, the beautiful, the just, and such large and difficult-to-define questions. But also notice the significance of aporia in those dialogues - questions which can't be answered and for which no easy solution presents itself — Wayfarer
philosophers have no business offering opinions within a scientific discourse — J
Their super-power, if any, lies in their ability to defend themselves from challenges that would redirect their discourse into other disciplines. — J
He is talking about wise men with a "rare faculty" whose teachings are based on authority, not personal understanding. — goremand
philosophers have no business offering opinions within a scientific discourse
—
Dope. — Srap Tasmaner
Or in insight. That was, for instance, the basis of the Buddha's authority - one which was never imposed on others — Wayfarer
I was thinking that the tradition of the "top-level" idea casts philosophy as specifically "the queen of the sciences" — Srap Tasmaner
Gauss, who termed mathematics as that — jgill
go with Gauss — Srap Tasmaner
I think Conze makes it very clear: insight can not be transmitted or taught to people who lack it — goremand
That (i.e. 'sciential philosophy' a.k.a. 'scientism') has the following features: [1] Natural science, particularly that dealing with inorganic matter, has a cognitive value, tells us about the actual structure of the universe, and provides the other branches of knowledge with an ideal standard in that they are the more "scientific" the more they are capable of mathematical formulation and the more they rely on repeatable and publicly verified observations. [2] Man is the highest of beings known to science, and his power and convenience should be promoted at all costs. [3] Spiritual and magical forces cannot influence events, and life after death may be disregarded, because it is unproven by scientific methods. [4] In consequence, "life" means "man's" life in this world, and the task is to ameliorate this life by a social "technique" in harmony with the "welfare" or "will" of "the people." Buddhists must view all these tenets with the utmost distaste.
Have you ever read Phenomenology of Perception? — Joshs
(3) Are you sure this is anything more than a dirty rhetorical trick? Another "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of thing? — Srap Tasmaner
I would distinguish between a view of philosophy as (either) the highest (or the most fundamental) science, and a view that philosophy holds some particular and special place precisely by not being science. — Srap Tasmaner
Are you sure that no other discipline has this "super-power"? — Srap Tasmaner
go with Gauss
— Srap Tasmaner
Hmmm. Is this how Catholic mathematicians say "See you later"? — Srap Tasmaner
That was an excerpt. The entire essay is Buddhist Philosophy and Its European Parallels, Philosophy East and West, 1963. — Wayfarer
Aside from Conze, the principle of monastic lineage in Buddhism and other spiritual traditions assumes the transmission of insight. — Wayfarer
I think you're very much viewing it through the lens of the rejection of dogmatic Christianity and its 'blind faith' — Wayfarer
Oh for Gödel's sake. — J
That's quite presumptuous, I think my reading is pretty straightforward. — goremand
there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that is purified and kindled afresh by... studies when it has been destroyed and blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten thousand eyes; for only by it is reality beheld. Those who share this faith will think your words superlatively true. But those who have and have had no inkling of it will naturally think them all moonshine. For they can see no other benefit from such pursuits worth mentioning. — Plato, The Republic
the desire to find something better, more interesting, than what I called "an argumentative gotcha!" Maybe it can't be found, but that's not yet clear. I repeat that, if that's all there is, it's not much of a result. — J
How would chemistry, for instance, defend itself strictly within the discourse of chemistry from the challenge that it is really a form of physics? — J
Suppose some surly neo-Freudian interrupts me at the point where I assert that “there’s nowhere else to go.” Nonsense, he says. “I’ll give you a psychological-slash-reductive explanation of why philosophers do what they do, and this explanation will have nothing to do with ‛ideas’ or ‛reasoning,’ and everything to do with culturally determined modes of expression mixed with individual depth psychology.” Ah, but I can reply, “Indeed? And what is your justification for asserting that such an explanation is true?” We see where this has to go: We’re back to doing philosophy. My surly interlocutor has been trumped. — J
Does this have to be an argument, if I can put it this way, that philosophical maximalism is equivalent to philosophical minimalism?
Does it also function as an argument that no boundary between philosophy and the sciences (and possibly other empirical disciplines, and possibly the arts, ...) is definable much less enforceable? — Srap Tasmaner
7 ) Then anything relevant to X cannot be relevant to any philosophical claim. — fdrake
there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge — Plato, The Republic
there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge — Plato, The Republic
All sentient beings without exception have the nature of the Tathāgata. — Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra
My understanding of the thread was that philosophy does something different from science. What it does different might turn out to be not so interesting ― and we have some idea in what sense it might not be interesting, if it's just a cheap "gotcha" ― or it might be interesting, only it's hard to characterize what it might be doing that's interesting. — Srap Tasmaner
But now you're talking about reduction, which I didn't think was on the table, and which surely we don't want to get into here. — Srap Tasmaner
Their super-power, if any, lies in their ability to defend themselves from challenges that would redirect their discourse into other disciplines. — J
Aye. It's an argument that if you make philosophy the most expansive and the most foundational discipline, you end up making philosophy able to be done without philosophical reasoning and also have its foundations refuted by non-philosophical reasoning. — fdrake
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.