+
/ Topic > Re: Philosophy in Chains! [#5] /
/ TOL > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Philosophy Forums > General Phil. > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Ngz: alt.philosophy,alt.religion.apologetics / 26March2003 /
.
Long Vision vs Short Vision / 2
[or: Why Philosophy Supercedes Science]
.
"How can one hide oneself before that which never sets." -- Heraclitus
.
>>> Wittgenstein previously wrote: <snip> and then, whenever
>>> someone else wanted to say something metaphysical,
.
>> tx: Or "mystical" (as we saw the 'sense of life' must be).
.
>>> to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give
>>> a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.
.
>> Meaningful propositions are here arbitrarily confined
>> exclusively to "scientific" propositions; an idea which
>> is neither justified nor rational.
.
> On March17 Mr. Ben replied: Hardly arbitrarily. The road
> to this point has been long and filled with discarded
> skeletons of complex metaphysical systems that simply
> were not worth the paper they were written on.
.
The Reader should bear in mind that this judgment comes
directly from 100% *hindsight*.
.
> Freud, Jung, Plato, Marx, etc. They all had something
> interesting to say,
.
Yes?
.
> yet much of what they said was based on inferences that
> simply were not adequate to support the weight of the
> conclusions they later made.
.
In other words, speculation and creativity involve many
conjectural and conceptual leaps that dramatically outpace
the slow and labored movements of Logic. HAI!
.
> The point is that a meaningful proposition about the world
> must necessarily take into account ... well ... the world.
.
Except that Science can only take into account that (small)
part of the world that it can actually *see*; ie. according
to the categories and definitions by which our scientific
"Reality" is conceptualized (and thus understood).
.
> You can say whatever you'd like about invisible pink
> unicorns or other immaterial objects, but if you are going
> to say that humans are such and such, or they should behave
> in such a way, or that societies are based on such and such
> ... well, you better start taking into account the facts
> about these things.
.
Right. Virtue is knowledge; as Socrates sayeth.
.
> Ignoring the real world in order to build up grandiose
> philosophical constructs is simply not a very good idea.
.
I tend to agree. And so do Hegel and Russell; eye guess.
.
> What you get are models of that, though they may be very
> interesting, simply don't work very well.
.
Your solution is to do away with these models altogether? Our
solution is to adapt and upgrade the best models according to
the templates provided by reality (ie. life, universe, etc).
.
>>> Although it would not be satisfying to the other person -
>>> he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him
>>> philosophy - this method would be the only strictly
>>> correct one.
.
>> No. He would not have the feeling that we were teaching
>> him philosophy because his "feeling" correctly discerns
>> that this method is NOT philosophy at all!
.
> Depends on whether you are teaching him the philosophy of
> flower arrangement, or the basis of human morality (and I
> suspect that there is probably quite a bit that the physical
> empirical world has to say about flower arrangement as well).
.
The empirical world is also an interior decorator?
.
>>> 7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
.
>> I would like to rephrase this statement so as to make
>> it more intelligible: "What science cannot speak about,
>> philosophy must pass over in silence." In putting the
>> assertion into this form, we can better see its strengths
>> and weaknesses. Its strength is that in this form the
>> statement claims to be substantially true (ie. according
>> to a restrictive vision of philosophy). Its weakness lies
>> in the assumption that *only* science is qualified to make
>> statements asserting the truth about things. But this is,
>> in fact, not so. Poetry, art, music, history, *and*
>> philosophy are ALL modes of expression distinct from
>> science as such, and they all "speak about things"
>> in ways that science *cannot* copy or imitate.
.
> But matters of personal preference and aesthetics are
> not commensurable between people,
.
hmmm?
.
> and when they are, it is a matter of empirical support (how
> many people would agree that a particular type or style of
> art has emotive meaning). And when you get deeply into the
> subject, science again roars its ugly head in explaining
> the biochemical and neurological processes by which humans
> form their opinions about poetry, art, and why they do so.
.
HA! So you've been pulling my leg all along, have you? Swino!
.
> Most philosophy concerning art and poetry is in and of
> itself also a form of poetry.
.
Not quite. Poetry is unique. It's closest partner is music,
not philosophy. It might be better to say that 'most philosophy
concerning art and poetry is in and of itself also an artistic
creation'. Which revised statement is certainly true. Which
also shows why philosophy can NEVER be reduced to science!
.
> It sounds pleasing to the ear, and makes a sort of internal
> sense, but it's appeal is largely aesthetic, and not
> explanatory nor really reliable or useful in any sense.
.
In other words, any philosophy that takes art, music, poetry,
history, and literature seriously is THEREBY made inferior
to Science!
.
> Positivism does not state that these philosophies
> do not exist,
.
Of course not; for that would be just too darn silly.
.
> nor that they are not interesting or pleasing ...
.
Oh ho!
.
> merely that they are not very relevant for explaining a
> particular subject because they have no real substance.
.
In other words, scientific-type philosophy, which often takes
on the forms of positivism or materialism (or some other such
hybrid), is generally unable to make much sense out of the
obscure and deranged scribblings of men like Plato and Hegel
and other such-like pre-scientific thinker-writers!
.
>> Now Wittgenstein would have us believe that we ought not to
>> listen to any of these things because only science has the
>> right to legitimately make truth claims. This is simply not
>> true. If poetry, art, music, history, and philosophy (ie.
>> in the most general and unrestrictive sense) are seen to be
>> sheer nonsense by Wittgenstein, that's one thing. That's
>> just his (ignorant) opinion, and thus acceptable as such.
.
> Strawman. Simply because PHILOSOPHIES of poetry and art
> are without substance does not mean that poetry and art
> are without substance.
.
That's true. Criticism of the former can be entirely
independent of criticism of the latter.
.
> They are human endeavors, and humans engage in them for
> reasons having to do with how their mind works, how it
> evolved, and how they live and interact with each other.
.
Art requires society and civilization, mind and culture,
leisure, *and* freedom. Yes, art requires *all* of these things
in order to manifest through the forms of concrete creations
by particular people. Yes, but in saying all of this, we have
said nothing at all about *where* art comes from, or what its
*meaning* is. Mr Ben here would have us believe that it's all
just a kind of automatic epiphenomena that is 'thrown off'
or 'expelled' as the mind goes through its motions. In other
words, art, philosophy, etc, has no inherent meaning. It is
all just a futile show and noise that achieves only one thing:
it distracts people from pursuing the only thing that really
matters. And that's *Science*, of course!
.
> And history is certainly an empirically justified endeavor.
.
I agree. But history is ALSO as much art as it is science.
Both elements are needed. History that is artless lacks energy
and conviction, and ultimately fails to communicate information
to the reader. History that forsakes science follows whatever
whim seizes the writer, and thus lacks disciple and coherency.
History is more like philosophy than anything else, because
both require art *and* science, logic *and* reason, the
universal *and* the particular.
.
> It consists largely of physical tangible evidence of the
> same sort that biology, geology, and astronomy rely on.
.
Astronomy? I don't think astronomy is quite appropriate to
the point you are raising here. Anyway, this is incorrect
because the evidence of most value are the texts from former
days. Thus the evidence historians seek comes from the
information written, drawn, or inscribed upon various
artifacts. The actual physical material has little value
apart from its being the carrier of the information provided
by the texts. So this is radically different from the way
that biology and geology treat their evidence!
.
> Inferences made of past events are certainly empirical.
> Interpretation is also empirical, though broad far reaching
> unsupported interpretations are much less so.
.
O dear me; I fear Mr Ben is too far-gone for us to save!
.
>> But when he turns around and tells me that I too must
>> accept his opinion as absolute truth *then* he is straying
>> far beyond the bounds of reason into pure dogmatism. Thus
>> the problem with Wittgenstein is that his notion of Reason
>> is just too darned narrow and restrictive to be of any
>> lasting value or utility ...
>> "Get over it", sayeth the cyber-prophet.
.
> Who says you have to accept anything anyone says?
> Don't like Wittgenstein, don't read it. Don't believe it.
.
Since many people ARE being influenced by Wittgenstein
(including philosophy students), it would be highly
irresponsible of me to simply pretend that he doesn't exist.
Banish him forevermore from the history of philosophy, you
say? I don't think so!
.
> However, you haven't actually addressed any of the substance
> of his assertions. You have merely rejected them. I would
> be interested in a particular set of examples where non-
> empirical philosophy in a particular subject gave us
> information about that subject that was superior in
> reliability or utility than the empirical version. Or a
> non-empirical philosophy for which no empirical statements
> could be made that actually made any difference whether
> the statement was true or not.
.
Ummm ... Well, eye don't really work that way, but perhaps
some other philosopher can provide you with this info U seek?
.
> The inability of non-empirically based philosophical
> systems to provide these things is why Wittgenstein
> said what he did.
.
I understand. Philosophy is better off starting from more
empirically-based philosophical-systems than from these awful
metaphysically-based theological-systems. With this I quite
agree. Wittgenstein might even say that the latter are not
"true philosophy" at all, and it would be difficult (if not
impossible) to refute him on that particular point.
.
However, establishing philosophy's starting point within
empirical definitions and boundaries does not necessarily
commit philosophy to remain *always* within those safe and
well-trodden grounds. Yes, as if crossing the line were in
itself an act of Treason against Reason! Not on my watch, Mr!
.
> Merely contradicting those assertions won't make
> ungrounded philosophy any more useful.
.
True, but then our logos-philosophy is NOT ungrounded. It is
just not grounded in anything that empiricism and positivism
can recognize. The flaw here is clearly not in the former, but
in the latter. For those who value Science over Philosophy,
I can only recommend *total* immersion in a long and intense
study of the whole history of philosophy. Begin with the pre-
Socratics, and slowly work your way up to the contemporary
scene, omitting nothing along the way. If all that pain can't
cure someone of their arrogant pretensions to absolute
knowledge, then nothing can; and that poor soul is lost!
.
Now here is *another* important difference between science
and philosophy: Science (because of its reliance on math and
logic) requires the use of words and concepts and ideas that
are very specific and well-defined. The more concrete and
particular and unvarying your definitions-of-things are, the
better they are! This is where the almost universal tendency
to create "jargon" comes from.
.
Thus a specific branch (or sub-branch) of science manifests
as the genesis and use of a specialized and technical language
whose intricacies and logics are known fully only to those
scientists who participate in that 'field of enquiry'. This
means that the general reader is practically required to
'learn a new language' in order just to read the writings
of these scientists. Very NOT user-friendly!
.
So! Now contrast all this with philosophy, which uses words,
ideas, and concepts that are far more flexible and expressive
(ie. more like art). These are general and universal words and
ideas that outlast the generations, and so are available to
everyone; as opposed to those found among the jargonized
literature of so-called "pure science". Thus philosophy has
good writers and bad writers, because of the abundance of
its literature, but science has only bad writers (Azimov
and Clarke excepted), because of the abundance of *its*
specialized and technical writings!
.
In a sense, then, philosophy presupposes that the full
meanings of certain words, ideas, and concepts are *NOT* given
all-at-once, as it were, but must be dug out of there kicking
and screaming every inch of the way! But this is simply a
natural adaptation to the inherent complexity of reality as a
whole, and so is fully justified; even on the purely logical
and methodological level of things.
.
Now it's also true that this "plasticity" of the conceptual
apparatus can and does lead to much confusion and even out-
right contradiction - and thus appears to be MUCH inferior tto
science - when comparing various philosophers with each other.
But *that*, eye dare say, is a small enough cost to pay for
the necessary "play" or "free-floating center" that the
philosopher often requires to tackle his particular problem or
nemesis. In other words, philosophy demands a level of general
freedom that very few people can even dream about, let alone
acquire (by any or all means)!
.
Think about it ...
.
- the almost semi-methodological one - ttextman ;>
.
P.S. "If we were frank about ourselves, we should confess
that our unbounded confidence in the purely material helps is
merely a mask for our deep-rooted skepticism, for our absolute
lack of confidence in the power of reason" (Raffaello Piccoli,
'Benedetto Croce: An Introduction to His Philosophy', 1922,
page 91). In other words, the twentieth century has caused an
all but universal loss of faith. It is a loss of faith that
is NOT confined to Spirit only; but also engulfs Reason, such
that instinct and emotion become, not just the foundation,
but the (almost-absolute) *totality* of ALL human-being!
x
+
/ Topic > Re: Philosophy in Chains! [#6] /
/ TOL > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Philosophy Forums > General Phil. > Philosophy in Chains! /
/ Ngz: alt.philosophy,alt.religion.apologetics / 28March2003 /
.
Observing Galileo's Moon
[or: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logos]
.
"Famous in the history of science is the argument *ad
ignorantiam* given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed
leading astronomers of his time the mountains and valleys
on the moon that could be seen through his telescope. Some
scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was
a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see
what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact
a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And
this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the heavenly
bodies, Galileo could not prove false!" -- from the much-
feared 'Introduction to Logic', by Copi and Cohen, page 117
.
textman sayeth: The relevance of this fascinating historical
episode to believers is not much difficult to discern,
really. According to the unbelievers, Galileo represents the
empiricists, while the 'scholars of the age' represent the
cyber-prophet. Thus the moon represents human-being, and the
hills and valleys represent the elements that compose this
'human-being' creature (namely, instinct, emotion, and mind).
.
As for the mysterious "invisible crystalline substance",
this is that odd thing we call Spirit. Thus it is that these
scientist-philosophers, or empiricists (or whatnot!), are
saying that human-being can be fully understood by reference
to instinct, emotion, and mind. This position thus respects
the tri-partite nature of the human brain, and so offers a
complete and detailed account of human-being. Right?
.
So now when the prophet comes along preaching about Spirit and
Logos, he is adding into the mix things for which there is no
direct or physical evidence, and things which are not required
anyway for the explanation and understanding of human-being.
In other words, this prophetic logos-philosophy is a *LIE* from
start to finish because it is based upon a fallacy. That is, it
postulates a certain reality, namely spirit, and then says that
because Science can neither prove nor disprove the reality of
Spirit, this "philosophy" is as legitimate as any other.
.
... The nerve of some people!
.
But wait! All this is not *quite* right. The offensive one
does NOT ask science to prove or disprove the reality of the
objective-subjective spirit. Rather, eye openly proclaim that
Science cannot grasp Spirit because it is not the sort of
thing that can be observed directly (and therefore measured).
Instead, we question the *adequacy* and *utility* of empirical
accounts of human-being and human realities! And by offering
an *alternative* to those (weak and ineffectual) accounts, we
base the legitimacy of our logos-philosophy *solely* on its
ability to *better* explain these marvels and mysteries
that elude BOTH Science and Theology.
.
Please allow me to clarify. Consider the wind. It is a thing
that both is and is not a thing. It is a thing that cannot be
seen or grasped, but it can be experienced. Thus we comprehend
the idea of 'wind' because the reality of it can be felt
directly (by our bodies). It can also be perceived indirectly,
by observing its effects on trees and flags and smoke, etc. It
is the same situation as we have with spirit. We can feel its
reality directly (in our minds and hearts), *and* indirectly
observe its movements by its effects (as they appear in
things like art, music, and literature).
.
In other words, I'm not postulating something for which there
is no evidence at all - as is the case with our "invisible
crystalline substance ... which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies" - but rather, something which is necessaary
to account for the hills and valleys that we do see directly.
.
When Science takes charge, and proceeds to dictate the whys
and wherefores of Philosophy, what we usually end up with is
a three-dimensional universe inhabited by three-dimensional
beings. Cosmic-Being is simple; just as human being is simple.
The strength of this position is that it works; for the most
part. Scientific philosophy therefore *does* describe and
explain the vast bulk of our world and all the things in it.
.
But as long as some small aspect or element eludes adequate
explanation and/or description other philosophies are logically
and rationally justified. Therefore this logos-philosophy is
founded upon a methodological principle somewhat as follows:
Any philosophy that seeks to "explain things" requires the
operation of two factors: reason and freedom.
.
Freedom without reason is Theology. Reason without freedom
is Science. Philosophy requires BOTH Freedom AND Reason. In
practical terms, this means that an adequate methodology
*requires* the recognition that Philosophy supercedes and
overcome Science. That She is NOT inferior to Science ...
That She is *NOT* the whore and slave of Science!
.
So free-philosophy begins from the recognition that Science
does not cover everything, and so our view must be of a four-
dimensional multiverse inhabited by human beings: most of whom
are three-dimensional creatures, and some of whom are four-
dimensional creatures. This fourth or (better still) "fifth
dimension" - which is part of the substance or essence of
the whole cosmos - we dare to name as *complexity* (and/oor
mystery). In terms of human-being in its particular, concrete,
and *historical* manifestations, we call this pervasive and
universal four-dimensional subjective-objective reality
'logos' or 'spirit'.
.
Now I have been trying desperately (of late) to show the
reader that everything we have been talking about here is
logically and methodologically justified. The 'Galileo's Moon'
criticism does apply to some forms of philosophy, and most
forms of theology, BUT it does NOT apply to our logos-
philosophy! Our philosophy is both legitimate and "scientific"
because it does NOT violate the 'NO-Mystical-Fantasies-Please
Rule'! Logos-Philosophy thus proceeds according to the
dictates of Reason. It is Reason-Driven, as opposed to
being *merely* logic-driven (as most of Science is).
.
But now the empiricists and skeptics and unbelievers are
howling their objections so loud eye can barely hold a notion
steady: "That's not true! You are constantly making reference
to supposedly "real" transcendental entities - 4X: Cosmic-Being
or Deity as a transcendent personal being - for which there
is no rational justification as far as any reality-centered
philosophy goes!" So yes, yes, eye quite agree. Okay? Let's
be clear on this. This sort of God-talk is not properly
Philosophy as such, but rather theology.
.
Now we have spoken much about how Philosophy is to be
distinguished from science, but we have said nothing about
how Philosophy is to be distinguished from Theology. Here is
how it works: Philosophy proceeds upon the basis of Reason
and History. Science proceeds upon the basis of Logic and
Causality. And Theology proceeds upon the basis of Faith and
Sentiment. All talk of God, in other words, is necessarily
*faith-talk*. Whereas Philosophy is essentially *logos-talk*!
.
Perhaps I have not sufficiently clarified the NECCESSITY and
PRIORITY of this distinction in the past. But this distinction
nevertheless exists - *always and everywhere* - as an assumeed
element within the "system" of logos-philosophy. Now it's true
that my scribblings DO confuse the issue somewhat (ie. a great
deal) by mixing up theological and philosophical statements
with wild abandon. As if they were all cut from the same
"nonsense-cloth"! But this is not necessarily true. In fact,
these kinds of distinctions can and *should* be made. If only
for the benefit of our ignorant and unbelieving friends!
.
In any case, what all of this means, basically, is that, under
our far more flexible categories, this concept of 'Logos' (or
Spirit (or Way)) comes out of neither Science nor Theology,
but rather is a uniquely philosophical idea. And it is this
fundamentally philosophical nature of Logos and Spirit that
renders both Science and Theology *incapable* of dealing
with it properly and correctly and usefully!
.
In other words, if Science doesn't *BACK-OFF* and give Lady
Wisdom some elbow room (ie. so that She can do Her stuff),
then Science, I'm *very* sad to say, is going to get its
arrogant ass kicked! And good and hard too; if we have
anything at all to do with it.
.
Grrrrrr ...
.
- the distinctly confusing one - textmann ;>
.
P.S. "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's
what it means to be a slave." -- in 'Blade Runner' by PK.Dick
x
Goto P-in-C #7
textman
*