I've always felt that philosophy and science greatly compliment each other. Without philosophizing about life there would be no meaningful questions for science to answer. Sometimes I get the impression that scientists actually envy philosphers on some level and disguise that envy in bitterness. I envy and admire both scientists and philosphers.
I don’t science envies philosophers. A lot of scientist are philosophers which is why they can come up with testable hypothesis. Not a lot of philosophers are scientist and come up with ideas that cannot in principle be verified.
My experience with hard science and math folk is like this: "Science is to philosophy what pigeons are to statues." I disagree, but that's been my anecdotal experience.
@@gooddaysahead1 Aristotles explanation of force and motion has been debunked. He argued that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object which has been experimentally debunked. Both heavy and light objects accelerate to the ground at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This shows that purely relying on human reasoning and intuition is not the correct way to gain knowledge.
Reasoning/Logic is not just a necessary tool used in Science, it is used effectively in Philosophical treatises and arguments as well. And metaphysics is simply the branch of philosophy dealing with asking questions regarding the fundamentals of reality. Open questions: like is reality simply just what Materialists believe (some, fanatically insist) it is, or possibly something else? Philosophers certainly do not discount new discoveries in science - but can use discoveries in science to bolster or subtract from their own philosophical positions. The sad part about some reductive materialists today, is they confuse materialism with science - and believe science proves materialism. When such is not the case at all. Materialism happens to be just another philosophical position, that can be well reasoned and argued, but in several areas of human knowledge, and philosophical reasoning - remains very much an open question. Science is about admitting what we don't know. This could be the same regarding good philosophy.. Run from anyone who claims they have solved some fundamental questions that still remain open - in science or philosophy, such as the mind/body problem, or biogenesis.
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific.... Check out *the manifesto for a post-* *materialist science* online.....
So true. Don't worry about the explanation -- such a focus alone likely may obfuscate one's enquiry -- focus on the argument, criticize such arguments, negate, good dialectic, Reason and logic, and then something refined remains, an essence almost. I just recieved 'Select works of Plotinus, because I hear the Taylor's translation is superior to Armstrong's. Looking forward to it. I want to read all the great Greeks.
Metaphysics Illumination Humanity needs to fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)...so that its darkness (misery, murder, mas shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet.
The metaphysical investigations of today (at least in the form of certain Gedanken/Thought Experiments) might just turn out to be the evidence-based science of tomorrow. Physics needs as much viable imagination spice as it can get; most of them may be discarded, but some might eventually add valuable flavor.
@@gooddaysahead1 Well, it is a fact that modern philosophy has been actually based on theology. Theological concepts were secularized.... Philosophy is thus just seculatized theology in disguise, & materialism is the new state's religion....
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific.... Check out *the manifesto for a post-* *materialist science* online.....
@@trojanhorse860 Interesting. So you're arguing for a pre-Rennaisance view of things now? That would be the most "truthful" way to live? No, theological concepts were not turned into a science. But that's not what creationists would say.
I love philosophy, but I just can't grasp what they are talking about. I feel it's important for us people to discuss such fundamental things. But it remains a bit inaccessible to me. It's at such a level of abstraction. Can I develop my mind to be able to understand discussions like this? Or is it about being familiar with certain ideas and literature? Or is it even meant to be fully understood? Or do I simply lack the intelligence needed?
This has increased my skepticism about metaphysics, as a means to illuminating reality. The whole thing strikes me as more of a way of structuring one's concepts, how one can (coherently) talk about things.
1. Ontology is not about existence but about being. 2. From Aristotle, existence is nothing else than the actuality of consciousness. 3. The development of philosophy shows that there is not such thing like physical and non-physical substances, as Descartes taught. Extension and thought are just two attributes of the same substance, which is only one. 4. Lastly, metaphysics is the study of the substance or, like Hegel defined it, thinking about substance.
If philosophy is the search for knowledge (justified true belief) and the purpose of knowledge is to make my life better (and by extension each human life), why not strive for the simplest set of assumptions which provide guidance for how to best live each human life?
A practical philosophy which supports humans making well informed decisions must be assumption based. Many philosophical assertions resolve to unknown. It is difficult to make decisions if there is no knowledge about which path to take when coming to a decision point. If we restrict our philosophy to the real world, we can build a knowledge based on a foundation of a limited set of assumptions. A practical philosophy is bounded by the unknown. We can make decisions while inside of this boundary; but, have no reliable knowledge outside of the boundary.
@@trojanhorse860 Socratic. Then biblical. Hmmm. Interesting combo. I don't care if you believe in the existence of God. Just don't impose a Bronze Age religion on me.
@@trojanhorse860, the self has a choice: follow God (good) or follow Satan (evil). In every decision: do no harm (except in self defense or defense of others).
I think philosophy should be practical. I don't want to debate someone whether invisible squares exist. But I would like to understand whether morality is learned or is it something within our nature. Given Darwin's view of nature, morality would seem slightly absurd. The answer to that question has practical application. Maybe our scientific friends can help us, but they also need us.
@@tomjackson7755 Appears you haven't been exposed to the argument that human morality is an evolutionary survival strategy. Try looking into Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennet. They're not lightweights.
@@tomjackson7755 Sociobiology is an interesting subject you may want to dive into. It's only been around for about 45 years and it caused quite a stir...at first.
@@gooddaysahead1 It appears that you don't understand that human morality is an evolutionary survival strategy the same way as tool making is. They are both learned and both offer a survival advantage. Human babies seem to be born with some kind of empathy component but that is far from morality and is basic self preservation.
Making nano chips isn't survival strategy. But digging ants out of old logs with sticks is. And how does morality become defined as something humans have for other humans outside their own tribe? Where did all of this complex morality come from? When was its genesis? I'm not talking about theology. I'm talking about an innate and very complex strategy for survival which is a very complex strategy of empathy. It is not an infantile strategy, as you claim. Maybe you think it is Collective Unconscious? Ancestral memory? I'm fond of Carl Jung and these are interesting hypotheses. But they are very difficult to prove. Again, it appears you're not familiar with sociobiology. Sociobiology is a very academic set of ideas that point a multiplicity of behaviors that are indeed inherited, genetically. You might want to look into E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett. They are the true fathers of this well formed and well considered theory. They do a good job of explaining things without all the aggression. Btw...atheists all. "To every complex question there is a simple answer-and it's wrong!" H.L. Mencken
He seems to give a lot of credit to science. Is that because he wasn't trained in science, or because he was? The first thing he cites is Bass, that seems like an admission of his own inexpertise. No assumptions are disallowed in exploring the unknown. Why should metaphysics "stay in its lane" and not offer up explanations? It seems to me that that is the position of one who believes that only science has theoretical...unambiguity. As we should know that is not the case. Reality and rhetoric go hand in hand. At least when it comes to understanding and explanation. When it comes to consciousness rhetoric gives precedence to will.
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific.... Check out *the manifesto for a post-* *materialist science* online.....
How’s this for “Metaphysics”… Thought Experiment/Mathematical Pattern of Pythagoras Theorem… Imagine a Pentagon in your Mind and each angle of the 5 Points of a pentagon. 5x108= 540; Speed of light in Miles Per Second Equals 186,624 MPS… 186,624/540= 345.6 (Pythagoras Theorem) “345”… This would meet the definition of “Liquid Light”… I think I explained it satisfactory enough for a young mind grasps instantaneously, put it to the test… Metaphysics is 100% Sound and Based On Meta-Trons Cube, which I Solved, The RainMaker… The Star Tetrahedron or The Star of David… It’s Glorious… I work for that… The Diamond Of LIFE… Who wouldn’t… “CONSCIOUSNESS/INTELLIGENCE”… and my Numbers literally Creates Everything in “Toroidal-Perfectionist-Memory Loops in the Exclusion Zones (The Dark Energy from separating (+) and (-) charge in a water droplet/container of water… Water goes from “neutral” to “charged” instantly… This is a result of the Honeycomb Shaped Structural Lattice Sheets Created by Structuring Water, Vortexual Based Wave Dynamics)… This is in every cell of your body entangled Hydromagnetically… It’s repeatable in every experiment, just add a hydrophilic material… Casimir effect imminent, so to speak… Consciousness is proven via “Friction” between (-) and (+) charge…
It’s water… and I understand it 100%… Plus, I have studied cells… The ENERGY created by separating Hydrogen and oxygen atoms is exactly what I described… Honeycomb Lattice Structured Water… If it’s not that, it’s bulk water with a neutral charge… The Honeycomb Energy Containment is similar to an “Array”… It’s 100% true… it’s only a word salad to the in-informed…
I don’t understand the idea of a “natural kind”. The “dog” example he gives is so hard to justify. “Dog” can be defined cladistically. It can also be defined as everything I call “dog”. There is also the class of all the domestic animals a particular person likes, which might be all dogs and his own special cat…. I don’t see how “naturalness” comes in.
Would that tell us about philosophy or the curriculum at colleges? Is philosophy restricted to professional academics and students? Schopenhauer condemed it and with good reason.
Philosophy and science do not operate in a void. They both depend on human reasoning and knowledge which is fallible and limited (to say the least). Science certainly is not some kind of pristine truth - but man, some people are trying like the dickens to turn science into a new kind of religion of infallibility.
I've always felt that philosophy and science greatly compliment each other. Without philosophizing about life there would be no meaningful questions for science to answer. Sometimes I get the impression that scientists actually envy philosphers on some level and disguise that envy in bitterness. I envy and admire both scientists and philosphers.
I don’t science envies philosophers. A lot of scientist are philosophers which is why they can come up with testable hypothesis. Not a lot of philosophers are scientist and come up with ideas that cannot in principle be verified.
@@kos-mos1127 Can you support your last statement?
My experience with hard science and math folk is like this: "Science is to philosophy what pigeons are to statues." I disagree, but that's been my anecdotal experience.
@@gooddaysahead1 Aristotles explanation of force and motion has been debunked. He argued that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter object which has been experimentally debunked. Both heavy and light objects accelerate to the ground at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. This shows that purely relying on human reasoning and intuition is not the correct way to gain knowledge.
@@kos-mos1127 Simple trial-and-error could have figured that 1 out. Aristotle just didn't have a good day. I could do that experiment!
Reasoning/Logic is not just a necessary tool used in Science, it is used effectively in Philosophical treatises and arguments as well. And metaphysics is simply the branch of philosophy dealing with asking questions regarding the fundamentals of reality. Open questions: like is reality simply just what Materialists believe (some, fanatically insist) it is, or possibly something else? Philosophers certainly do not discount new discoveries in science - but can use discoveries in science to bolster or subtract from their own philosophical positions.
The sad part about some reductive materialists today, is they confuse materialism with science - and believe science proves materialism. When such is not the case at all. Materialism happens to be just another philosophical position, that can be well reasoned and argued, but in several areas of human knowledge, and philosophical reasoning - remains very much an open question.
Science is about admitting what we don't know. This could be the same regarding good philosophy.. Run from anyone who claims they have solved some fundamental questions that still remain open - in science or philosophy, such as the mind/body problem, or biogenesis.
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific....
Check out *the manifesto for a post-*
*materialist science* online.....
can't believe this made it on this show 😳
So true. Don't worry about the explanation -- such a focus alone likely may obfuscate one's enquiry -- focus on the argument, criticize such arguments, negate, good dialectic, Reason and logic, and then something refined remains, an essence almost.
I just recieved 'Select works of Plotinus, because I hear the Taylor's translation is superior to Armstrong's. Looking forward to it. I want to read all the great Greeks.
Metaphysics
Illumination
Humanity needs to fill a giant black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)...so that its darkness (misery, murder, mas shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and its heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet.
Audio is messed up again :(
The metaphysical investigations of today (at least in the form of certain Gedanken/Thought Experiments) might just turn out to be the evidence-based science of tomorrow. Physics needs as much viable imagination spice as it can get; most of them may be discarded, but some might eventually add valuable flavor.
Philosophy is the true "university"! (Schleiermacher)
Amen
"Theology is the Queen of all the sciences." - T. Aquinas
I think that's a biased comment. hehe
@@gooddaysahead1 Well, it is a fact that modern philosophy has been actually based on theology. Theological concepts were secularized.... Philosophy is thus just seculatized theology in disguise, & materialism is the new state's religion....
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific....
Check out *the manifesto for a post-*
*materialist science* online.....
@@trojanhorse860 Interesting. So you're arguing for a pre-Rennaisance view of things now? That would be the most "truthful" way to live? No, theological concepts were not turned into a science. But that's not what creationists would say.
The spirit (Geist) comes to itself, to the same extent, that it recognizes what in principle eludes all theory and empiricism.
I love philosophy, but I just can't grasp what they are talking about. I feel it's important for us people to discuss such fundamental things. But it remains a bit inaccessible to me. It's at such a level of abstraction.
Can I develop my mind to be able to understand discussions like this? Or is it about being familiar with certain ideas and literature? Or is it even meant to be fully understood? Or do I simply lack the intelligence needed?
This has increased my skepticism about metaphysics, as a means to illuminating reality. The whole thing strikes me as more of a way of structuring one's concepts, how one can (coherently) talk about things.
Metaphysics is a way of structuring questions by ignoring their context.
At best. I wouldn't even give it that much credit.
“Consciousness and Awareness Of Consciousness”!? Not- Which is not reality? But....Which is Metaphysical!
@@1SpudderR Metaphysics is a fancy word for "God of the Gaps." Personally, I'm a post-Renaissance person.
@@gooddaysahead1 Quantum mechanics is "God of the gaps".
Please interview
Michael Levin
1. Ontology is not about existence but about being.
2. From Aristotle, existence is nothing else than the actuality of consciousness.
3. The development of philosophy shows that there is not such thing like physical and non-physical substances, as Descartes taught. Extension and thought are just two attributes of the same substance, which is only one.
4. Lastly, metaphysics is the study of the substance or, like Hegel defined it, thinking about substance.
If philosophy is the search for knowledge (justified true belief) and the purpose of knowledge is to make my life better (and by extension each human life), why not strive for the simplest set of assumptions which provide guidance for how to best live each human life?
A practical philosophy which supports humans making well informed decisions must be assumption based. Many philosophical assertions resolve to unknown. It is difficult to make decisions if there is no knowledge about which path to take when coming to a decision point. If we restrict our philosophy to the real world, we can build a knowledge based on a foundation of a limited set of assumptions. A practical philosophy is bounded by the unknown. We can make decisions while inside of this boundary; but, have no reliable knowledge outside of the boundary.
Philosophy is the search for understanding. Any type of inquiry is the search for knowledge.
The highest form of knowledge is the knowledge of the self. Know theyself & you w'd know God.
@@trojanhorse860 Socratic. Then biblical. Hmmm. Interesting combo. I don't care if you believe in the existence of God. Just don't impose a Bronze Age religion on me.
@@trojanhorse860, the self has a choice: follow God (good) or follow Satan (evil). In every decision: do no harm (except in self defense or defense of others).
I think philosophy should be practical. I don't want to debate someone whether invisible squares exist. But I would like to understand whether morality is learned or is it something within our nature. Given Darwin's view of nature, morality would seem slightly absurd. The answer to that question has practical application. Maybe our scientific friends can help us, but they also need us.
It is already known that morality is learned. The only people that think otherwise are trying to prop up some false god belief.
@@tomjackson7755 Appears you haven't been exposed to the argument that human morality is an evolutionary survival strategy. Try looking into Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennet. They're not lightweights.
@@tomjackson7755 Sociobiology is an interesting subject you may want to dive into. It's only been around for about 45 years and it caused quite a stir...at first.
@@gooddaysahead1 It appears that you don't understand that human morality is an evolutionary survival strategy the same way as tool making is. They are both learned and both offer a survival advantage.
Human babies seem to be born with some kind of empathy component but that is far from morality and is basic self preservation.
Making nano chips isn't survival strategy. But digging ants out of old logs with sticks is. And how does morality become defined as something humans have for other humans outside their own tribe? Where did all of this complex morality come from? When was its genesis? I'm not talking about theology. I'm talking about an innate and very complex strategy for
survival which is a very complex strategy of empathy. It is not an infantile strategy, as you claim. Maybe you think it is Collective Unconscious? Ancestral memory? I'm fond of Carl Jung and these are interesting hypotheses. But they are very difficult to prove. Again, it appears you're not familiar with sociobiology. Sociobiology is a very academic set of ideas that point a multiplicity of behaviors that are indeed inherited, genetically. You might want to look into E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett. They are the true fathers of this well formed and well considered theory. They do a good job of explaining things without all the aggression. Btw...atheists all.
"To every complex question there is a simple answer-and it's wrong!" H.L. Mencken
He seems to give a lot of credit to science. Is that because he wasn't trained in science, or because he was? The first thing he cites is Bass, that seems like an admission of his own inexpertise.
No assumptions are disallowed in exploring the unknown. Why should metaphysics "stay in its lane" and not offer up explanations? It seems to me that that is the position of one who believes that only science has theoretical...unambiguity. As we should know that is not the case.
Reality and rhetoric go hand in hand. At least when it comes to understanding and explanation. When it comes to consciousness rhetoric gives precedence to will.
Actually; philosophy has been hijacking & holding back science, & i mean the *materialist* 19th century philosophy that has been equated with science since the second half of the 19th century & counting, to the point that the materialist world view has been equated with the scientific world view, while materialism is unfalsifiable & hence it is actually unscientific....
Check out *the manifesto for a post-*
*materialist science* online.....
How’s this for “Metaphysics”… Thought Experiment/Mathematical Pattern of Pythagoras Theorem… Imagine a Pentagon in your Mind and each angle of the 5 Points of a pentagon. 5x108= 540; Speed of light in Miles Per Second Equals 186,624 MPS… 186,624/540= 345.6 (Pythagoras Theorem) “345”… This would meet the definition of “Liquid Light”… I think I explained it satisfactory enough for a young mind grasps instantaneously, put it to the test… Metaphysics is 100% Sound and Based On Meta-Trons Cube, which I Solved, The RainMaker… The Star Tetrahedron or The Star of David… It’s Glorious… I work for that… The Diamond Of LIFE… Who wouldn’t… “CONSCIOUSNESS/INTELLIGENCE”… and my Numbers literally Creates Everything in “Toroidal-Perfectionist-Memory Loops in the Exclusion Zones (The Dark Energy from separating (+) and (-) charge in a water droplet/container of water… Water goes from “neutral” to “charged” instantly… This is a result of the Honeycomb Shaped Structural Lattice Sheets Created by Structuring Water, Vortexual Based Wave Dynamics)… This is in every cell of your body entangled Hydromagnetically… It’s repeatable in every experiment, just add a hydrophilic material… Casimir effect imminent, so to speak… Consciousness is proven via “Friction” between (-) and (+) charge…
This is a word salad and will make a good joke because it sounds like you do not know what your talking about.
It’s water… and I understand it 100%… Plus, I have studied cells… The ENERGY created by separating Hydrogen and oxygen atoms is exactly what I described… Honeycomb Lattice Structured Water… If it’s not that, it’s bulk water with a neutral charge… The Honeycomb Energy Containment is similar to an “Array”… It’s 100% true… it’s only a word salad to the in-informed…
HA! This is the best definition of word salad I've ever seen.
@@douglinze4177 Its a word salad.
I don’t understand the idea of a “natural kind”. The “dog” example he gives is so hard to justify. “Dog” can be defined cladistically. It can also be defined as everything I call “dog”. There is also the class of all the domestic animals a particular person likes, which might be all dogs and his own special cat…. I don’t see how “naturalness” comes in.
No I don't want to do that thing, sir
“Consciousness and Awareness Of Consciousness”!? Not- Which is not reality? But....Which is Metaphysical!
Sir I don't need fame sir, just want to be free
Philosophy is dead. Just follow the decline in philosophy curriculum at colleges.
Would that tell us about philosophy or the curriculum at colleges? Is philosophy restricted to professional academics and students? Schopenhauer condemed it and with good reason.
No I DONT WANT ARGUMENT sir
Lack philosophy Standard. True philosophy model only exist when it explains though evidence .
Philosophy and science do not operate in a void. They both depend on human reasoning and knowledge which is fallible and limited (to say the least). Science certainly is not some kind of pristine truth - but man, some people are trying like the dickens to turn science into a new kind of religion of infallibility.
@@jamenta2 That can be said about anything. There is more that we do not know and will never know that we do know and can possibly know.