Philosophy, if it cannot ANSWER so many questions as we would wish, it has at least the power of ASKING questions which would increase our interest in the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commons of everyday life.
Considering Berkeley's Idealism is a waste of time. Talk about rabbit holes! One of the biggest ones in academic philosophy,
Descartes famously said that the only thing he could be certain of was his own existence. There is still something to be said for that.
Russell clearly and convincingly refutes Idealism.
Something can exist independently without being lodged in a mind.
Surely no one of sound mind takes Idealism seriously especially if it's all in the mind.
What can we know that is not within the sphere of our personal existence? It depends on what it is that we are wondering about, the exact subject matter, because different subjects involve different criteria as to what we can believe.
So are we now know going to talk about why we think the sun will come up in the morning?
Is there anything more boring than Kant's epistemology? I think not.
I grew up reading Russell in high school not knowing really what I was reading so I have kind of come full circle. Somewhere I have his history of philosophy volume but I will not reread it.
Russell is not dive bar reading.
Russell admits the reality of intuitive knowledge, but we need not, I need not, philosophize about it.
Remind me to never get caught up in Hegel's metaphysics.
A priori knowledge will never explain the world.
Philosophical knowledge is no different from scientific knowledge.
The essential characteristic of philosophical knowledge, which makes it distinct from science, is criticism. Philosophy examines the principles employed in science and in daily life; philosophy is about critical inquiry. Does this mean that philosophy can be seen partly as philosophy of science? There is always room for mistakes in both philosophy and science.
What is the value of philosophy? This is the ultimate question along with the distinction between philosophy and science in which I am interested.
Is philosophy merely innocent trifling? Something for the leisure class to engage in? Endless controversies over which there are no solutions.
Science should be interest to all of us even if we are not scientists because we all benefit from the results of science. Of course, we can all be harmed and die from the results of science also.
But philosophy typically only benefits, shakes up, or harms those who study it.
The value of philosophy will be recognized only by those who recognize and appreciate the goods of the mind as well as the goods of materialism. The few vs. the many.
It is exclusive amongst the goods of the mind is philosophy to be understood and valued. Only those who understand this can be persuaded that philosophy is not a waste of time.
Philosophy aims at knowledge which looks at critical examination of prejudices, beliefs, and convictions. This can make philosophy hard to quantify as to its success and failure.
Philosophy aims at the grounds of our knowledge beliefs, prejudices, and convictions. But it cannot her maintained that philosophy has had any great success in its search for definitive answers to its question, but it can also be said that the questions that philosophy asks do not always have definitive answers or answers to which their are contrasting answers. Philosophy does not profess definitive answers or progress as would scientists or historians. Such is the nature of philosophy, Philosophical knowledge eventually becomes scientific knowledge. This fact must be understood. Does this mean that philosophy is pre-science? Must philosophic questions always precede scientific questions or are they two sides of the same questions?
Science was called philosophy or natural philosophy at the beginning. The uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real. Questions that lead to definitive answers become science Questions still with uncertain answers remain philosophy. Of course, isn't science always considered tentative pending new evidence and new interpretations?
It is part of the speculative business to philosophy to keep asking questions even if no answers are forthcoming or that the answers of philosophy are not demonstrably true. These questions are important and we need to keepbeeing reminded of them. The questions of philosophy shield us from false and assumed answers which are not true.
The value of philosophy cannot be based on the presumption of verifiable knowledge.
The value of philosophy is best characterized by its acceptance of uncertainly. This can drive physicists like Hawking nuts because they cannot deal with uncertainty. If the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are dominant in the thinking of Hawking, and the laws if physics break down a a singularity and the singularity must be done away with.
Questions which seem to have definitive answers are placed under science. Questions which to not yet have definitive answers are called philosophy. Of course, science is always definitive also.
The strength of astronomy lies in its uncertainty.
Philosophy is to be studied not for the sake of its definite answers to its questions, since to definite answers can be delivered, butrther for the questions themselves. Asking philosophic questions broadens our view of the world.
The author's last chapter on "The Value of Philosophy" is worth the price of the book by itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment