Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Fido - It seems to me that you are not quite doing philosophy. If your view of knowledge is correct then Descartes was a fool for concluding that Cogito was even worth knowing let alone a secure axiom. You have to ask yourself who is likely to be right about this.
It is dangerous to make statements about knowledge, solipsism, Socrates and so forth in a philosophy forum, especially extremely idiosyncratic ones, and usually much safer to preface assertions with 'It seems to me...' or something similar if you think there is even the slightest chance that you might be wrong.
I don't know much about the sophists, but my dictionary tells me that it was Plato's aristocratic background that may have led him to dislike the sophists, partly because they were democtritising knowledge and political understanding.
The enlightenment's peak is in the 18th century but it is in the 17th century that it begins. It is also then that the most major colonisations take place.
Don't give philosophy too much credit. The colonial era happened because technology allowed for better seafaring and navigation, and because it was economically lucrative. The seafaring and navigation were technological developments that, along with other scientific developments (esp from Newton), gave man a newfound sense of control over nature. Incidentally, medical science began to really explode at this same time.
The appearance of enlightenment philosophy owes itself to reflection on the new sciences, whose practical application affected everything (including colonization). In other words, enlightenment philosophy was a symptom of its era, not the cause.
scince is in itself a philosophy, an empircal materialist philosophy.
Don't give philosophy too much credit. The colonial era happened because technology allowed for better seafaring and navigation, and because it was economically lucrative. The seafaring and navigation were technological developments that, along with other scientific developments (esp from Newton), gave man a newfound sense of control over nature. Incidentally, medical science began to really explode at this same time.
The appearance of enlightenment philosophy owes itself to reflection on the new sciences, whose practical application affected everything (including colonization). In other words, enlightenment philosophy was a symptom of its era, not the cause.
I completely disagree with this. There is philosophy of science, but science is not a philosophy. One can philosophize about science, and one can inform philosophical inquiries from science, but science itself is NOT a philosophy. It's a loose collection of methodologies.
That's besides the point. You're playing semantic games to avoid responding to my point that enlightenment philosophy was a symptom of enlightenment science and NOT the other way around. Hume's philosophy would have never ever been possible if it weren't for science.
What did the science require of philosophy? Only freedom from it.
There is no differences between science and philosophy, no difference between philosophy and mathematics, or between philosophy and reason...
A moment in measure is as much philosophy as a life in observation...Does the activity demonstrate a love of knowledge???
So you're saying that the words science, philosophy, mathematics, and reason are 100% interchangeable and synonymous, right? And it's a complete ruse for us to make any kind of distinction between them, right? Which is why the skill set, methodology, and vocabulary of everything from atomic logic to integral calculus to lipid biophysics are completely interchangeable.
We make distinctions between these academic, intellectual, and professional disciplines because they are different. And as the word philosophy is used in our language, the discipline science cannot fall under its umbrella. There can be a philosophical discourse about science, and there can be a scientific examination of philosophy, but that is a different matter.
The etymologic source "love of knowledge" has nothing specific to do with the functional use of the word "philosophy" in either speech or in academia. It's meaningless.
... animism was never, in truth, left behind. The participatory proclivity of the (visual and auditory) senses was simply transferred from the depths of the surrounding life-world to the visible letters of the alphabet. Only by concentrating the synaesthetic magic of the senses upon the written letters could these letters begin to come alive and to speak. "Written words," says Socrates, "seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent ..." Indeed, today it is virtually impossible for us to look at a printed word without seeing, or rather hearing, what "it says." For our senses are now coupled, synaesthetically, to these printed shapes as profoundly as they were once wedded to cedar trees, ravens, and the moon. As the hills and the bending grasses once spoke to our tribal ancestors, so these written letters and words now speak to us.
We have seen as well that iconic writing systems - those that employ pictographic, ideographic, and/or rebuslike characters - necessarily rely, to some extent, upon our original sensory participation with the enveloping natural field. Only with the emergence of the phonetic alphabet (by the Hebrews), and its appropriation by the ancient Greeks, did the written images lose all evident ties to the larger field of expressive beings. Each image now came to have a strictly human referent: each letter was now associated purely with a gesture or sound of the human mouth. Such images could no longer function as windows opening on a more-than-human field of powers, but solely as mirrors reflecting the human form back upon itself. The senses that engaged or participated with this new writing found themselves locked in a discourse that had become exclusively human. Only thus, with the advent and spread of phonetic writing, did the rest of nature begin to lose its voice.
The highly anthropocentric mode of experience endemic to alphabetic culture spread through Europe in the course of two millennia, receiving a great boost from the calligraphic innovations introduced in the monastic scriptoria by the English monk Alcuin (732-804) during the reign of Charlemagne, and a major thrust from the innovation of movable type by Johan Gutenberg (c. 1394-1468), in the fifteenth century. The printing press, and the dissemination of uniformly printed texts that it made possible, ushered in the Enlightenment and the profoundly detached view of "nature" that was to prevail in the modern period. In recent centuries the industrial and technological practices made possible by this new distance from the natural world have carried alphabetic awareness throughout the globe, infiltrating even those cultures that had retained iconic, ideographic writing systems.
Tired of all who come with words, words but no language
I went to the snow-covered island.
The wild does not have words.
The unwritten pages spread themselves out in all directions!
I come across the marks of roe-deer's hooves in the snow.
Language, but no words.
... yet even more along the language theme:
(David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous)
... do you get the pun in the title yet?
So in Abram's estimation, "alphabetic awareness" was simultaneously an awakening to human interiority and an unawakening to human ties to nature ... a swing of the pendulum, if you will ... my guess is that he sees phenomonology as a component of another mode of human awareness that can swing us back to a middle ground - one that reconnects us with nature without disconnecting us from our (newfound) selves ... (I get this feeling based upon all of the quotes thus far taken from the unfinished works of Merleau-Ponty).
Anyhoo, a short poem that opens the latest chapter:
(Tomas Transtromer)
Words are individual ideas, forms...We can know no more than we can form judgements on.
... and I think that is one of the points that Abram is trying to make - that in "alphabetic awareness" words have become disconnected from the natural world and float free within an antiseptic vacuum ... much like the Western sense of self ...
I am not so sure I was disagreeing with him as pointing out that it is across the board for all forms...
I would normally agree with you that different names denote different concepts, but they, science, math, reason, and even history, medicine and many other disciplines are philosophy...
So you cannot say medicine is philosophy and then say philosophy is not medicine
many things are philosophy is many things even if the many things differ in some significant fashion...
You should note how many studies offer a PHD, as they are all philosophy... and I trust that is what I said...
I completely disagree with this. There is philosophy of science, but science is not a philosophy. One can philosophize about science, and one can inform philosophical inquiries from science, but science itself is NOT a philosophy. It's a loose collection of methodologies.
That's besides the point. You're playing semantic games to avoid responding to my point that enlightenment philosophy was a symptom of enlightenment science and NOT the other way around. Hume's philosophy would have never ever been possible if it weren't for science.
What did the science require of philosophy? Only freedom from it.
Scince is a particular system of thought, devoloped from earliar ones such as logic, reasoning, Arsistotle etc... and applied to the physical universe.
It is a form of philosophy and grows out of it.
You seem to imagine that there is somthing different or special about scince as a system of thought.
However this almoslt religous conception of Scince as the ultimate form of knowlage seems very odd to me.
I didn't say that. Science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science.
Medicine is not philosophy. Medicine is medicine.
Yes, that's the name of the degree, and this has persisted since the first universities adopted it in medieval europe when some of these other disciplines were less distinct from philosophy. And it's actually an anachronistic carryover unique to German universities that the doctor of philosophy is the name of the highest degree in MOST fields. But the fields have changed in the last few centuries. I'm perfectly happy calling Aristotle's physics philosophy. But I'm not going to accept that a modern physicist is a philosopher. It's a different discipline.
By the way -- I have a doctoral degree in medicine, and it is NOT a PhD. Does that mean that people in medicine are not philosophers?
Scince is a particular system of thought, devoloped from earliar ones such as logic, reasoning, Arsistotle etc... and applied to the physical universe. It is a form of philosophy and grows out of it. I am saying that enlightenment scince and philosophy are one movement.
You seem to imagine that there is somthing different or special about scince as a system of thought. It is one applied quite purely to the physical universe, an empircal one, and in that sense it is different from alot of other systems. However this almoslt religous conception of Scince as the ultimate form of knowlage seems very odd to me.