'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?   Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:03 pm

1.) Science has become a numbers game, a game of probability, which kills possibilities.

2.) Science only considers potential within the confines of applied logic and the precedent of established scientific structures.

3.) Dynamism is unorthodox, therefore discounted by established, authoritarian sciences.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3181
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?   Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:54 pm

Science is a method more than anything, and methods are inclusive and exclusive, and become used for purposes beyond their mandate: for example scientific method is used to discount anything that scientific method hasn't bothered to apply itself to, or cannot apply itself to, thus becomes a principle of preemptive exemption and denial, a psychological function. But before science this principle was thriving under religion and doxa, so science has done a little good at pushing back those two.

Science has always resisted the real progress that appears within science; as you said, it basically sticks to what it already thinks it knows. Empirical method pays lip service to openness to possibilities but without philosophy it cannot see how its own program reproduces a certain kind of closed consciousness. But I would take science over religion most days.

Science is simply a servant to philosophy, which means to human being and to truth. Yet since philosophy has been slowly killing itself and making itself irrelevant in the world, science has come to think of itself as master to no one. And since science cannot operate without a master, it simply became mastered by capital-- as scientific rationality, technological reason, materialism, positivism, utilitarianism. Again, I would still take these over religion, but really they are just a more modern form of religion; a form that is at least slightly improving on its original substance, usually in spite of itself.

Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy's task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WendyDarling
arrow
arrow
avatar

Posts : 341
Join date : 2016-06-18
Location : @home

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?   Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:17 am

Shared understanding is a precious commodity it seems.  Thought my words had lost their English-ness and were being read as if spoken in tongues or something.

So we are agreed that philosophy has dropped the ball?  And science must be checked and perhaps checkmated in which case a complete overhaul of its methodology.  Logic as it stands now is aggregious, but trying to pinpoint the crux of the problem will be plaguesome.  Prepare for loads of questions. Will you give me your best definition of logic formal and then its applied structures and let me pick it apart?  To me, it's limiting in its nature.

Philosophy has to broaden it's horizons.  If I can re-interpret and redefine logic, will that help?

"Maybe philosophy will assert itself and science will regain its soul. If it does, human being would be freed. But philosophy's task has become much larger: not simply one city-state, one culture or one nation anymore, but the whole earth is its proper object and context now. To this end it would cultivate many means into the depths of the earth, even non-philosophical means-- just as philosophy cultivated itself through and as its antithesis of religion, it is doing so again through and as science. All it may take is one man to seize the reigns once the ground has been sown. Philosophy will make the global scientific-political apparatus respond to a truth-status. This is inevitable, because time only moves in one direction."-C

Everything above has romanticism and sexism all over it.  Science having a soul is news to me.  What does "human being would be freed" mean? By all means start a thread for this undertaking over in Logic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3181
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Kekistan

PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?   Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:00 am

Human being is enslaved to its illusions and to its need for illusions, to what is sometimes called false consciousness, or what I usually call psychopathology. Religion, politics, science are all domains in which this pathology appears and exerts a regulating, necessary influence: it is important to grasp that every being must struggle up through falsity and untruth in order to reach beyond these and to attain to truth, clarity, sanity and reality, and only what we have born within ourselves and overcome within and as what we are is ever understood, to paraphrase something Parodites wrote once. Truth is a process, reality is a process, these are not givens.

For human being to be freed would mean for it to cast aside not only illusions/falsities but also the need for these. The entire history of human thought and culture is this gradual progress of overcoming illusions and the need for them. So philosophy needs to be asking in what sense does human being need illusions and falsities? This requires direct examination of illusions and falsities within science, religion, politics and economics, ethics, philosophy of mind, and just about anywhere pertinent to human consciousness and the world. A real philosophy jumps right in and starts doing the dirty work. This "dirty work" is what you're going to find on this site here.

Yes science has a soul, every established human discipline or methodology had a soul, its being an abstraction and extension of human being generally, and a condensation of and collapse around particular aspects of human being. We equate ourselves with our experiences, and the more so when these experiences are methodological and rooted in the phenomenology of being striving upward upon the existential climb of consciousness. The soul of science is tempered by other soul-elements not commonly associated to science, namely those relevant to philosophy or to shared existential-social subjectivity. The tendency for science to trend into materialism, reduction, positivism and technological rationality (think the Holocaust, for example, the scientific program of nationalism qua genocide and racism) has been well noted many times (see my signature quote also).

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." -Parodites

"Was it necessary for the sense of truth that Nietzsche described as developed by the Judeo-Christian tradition that then manifested itself in the scientific methodology to turn against the symbolic foundation of that structure and demolish it... Jung's answer was that the conflict between science and religion is a consequence of the immature state of both of those domains of thinking... it's just that we aren't good enough at being religious or at being scientific to see how they might be reconciled." -Jordan Peterson
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?   

Back to top Go down
 
Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Science-
Jump to: