4 Answers

  1. Most often imitate the understanding of pseudoscientific philosophical chatter.

    Scientific knowledge is a developed and improved common sense that we use in everyday life. Extra-scientific objective knowledge is all that is obtained with the help of this ordinary common sense, and in principle it is no different from scientific knowledge, and it is unscientific only because it is simply not interesting to science, perhaps yet.

    Science is the only effective way to get new truths about the world, and all the talk about some special non-scientific knowledge, which, supposedly, if not superior to scientific knowledge, then, in any case, is on a par with it, is nothing more than empty chatter.

    Someone will probably say that I preach a rabid scientism. Although the word scientism is a dirty word, but I agree, even if I am a scientist-but! then let the defenders of” unscientific knowledge ” give at least one example of what is knowledge, and, at the same time, is inaccessible to knowledge by means of science, but is accessible only by their special methods. Talk about something metaphysical is not accepted, because the metaphysical is not knowledge, but something unprovable and irrefutable, i.e. something that is the object of faith.

  2. A slightly strange question (as if implicitly but “calling science into question”). But since I myself “suffer from the same dope”, I will try to answer it, alas, in two versions (philosophical and life), since the answer will be different in each of the options.

    In a philosophical way.

    Everyone understands (for a fact) that knowledge can be of different ” qualities “(roughly, it can be both false and reliable, at least).

    I hope it's clear (if not, ask for an explanation) that “knowledge” (any, even “non-objective”) can only be in the ” subject “(knower), outside the subject of any “knowledge” is not and can not be (because there is stupidly no one to know about knowledge). This means that any knowledge is “subjective” (by its nature).

    But the subject (of knowledge) itself, in order to “have knowledge”, must already really exist (“objectively”) and have “freedom” (i.e., at least some independence) from other “objective reality” (including itself). Otherwise, any mechanism or a bunch of sticks with ropes would have to be recognized as a ” knowing subject with knowledge.”

    Where and how an “objective” subject in the” objective world “can have” non-objective “knowledge is therefore completely unclear (because “in theory” this is clearly impossible). That is, despite the fact that knowledge is subjective (by its nature), the sources and “recipient” of knowledge are more than objective (real), so there can be no “non-objective” knowledge (by its origin).

    That is, the question of” objectivity of knowledge “seems to rest on “freedom” (a certain independence of the cognizing subject from “objective reality”). The erroneous use of “freedom” by the subject of knowledge is not the reason for the objectivity of his knowledge (after all, there is “no one else to blame” for this). That is, it is this freedom that generates both the possibility of knowledge itself and the reason for errors of knowledge (leading to “false knowledge”). I (in theory) I could “go further” and consider the concept of “freedom “in other concepts of” philosophical pure reason”, but I will not do this and finish philosophizing on the concept of”freedom”. There are only three important reasons for this “reluctance” :

    • Tried (and more than once) to do this (to create my own philosophy of knowledge, like I. Kant), but my attempts inevitably ran into infinite recursions (such as” the primacy of a chicken or an egg”) and/or outright tautologies (such as” white is white”), and unlike (including I. Kant) I am sometimes able to see such mistakes behind myself.
    • I see no reason to “consider” myself a genius (like Kant) who is able to “make humanity happy” with his philosophy (“the most correct” of course, but what else?), i.e. I am not burning with a thirst for “fame” (you can safely consider this “modesty” or” pride ” of your choice).
    • Everyone came up with it for me a long time ago (there were people who were not my match) and instead of the “most correct philosophy” (a discourse about concepts), they used a banal practical “method of objectifying” knowledge (now called the “scientific method“, although everything with it is “not as simple” as it seems).

    The “scientific method” itself is of course 100% subjective (i.e. frankly “invented by people”), but in fact (application) allows you to get the very “objective knowledge”. Of course, some” three-brained reptilians from the constellation Orion “could hypothetically “invent” a different method of” objectifying knowledge “(including other logics and mathematics), but the knowledge obtained by this method will largely be similar to ours (since we ourselves philosophically” think “and” reptilians ” may also be).

    Hence, as it were, the philosophical (conceptual) conclusion follows unequivocally : non-scientific knowledge cannot be “objective”. Which, of course, can be (and easily) philosophically challenged (by giving different definitions of the concepts: “subjectivity”/”objectivity”, “knowledge”, “scientific”, “freedom” and/or introducing additional entities without the need for “a priori knowledge”, etc.). This conclusion is therefore of course incorrect or “subjective” (to your taste), since philosophy itself is “incorrect”, because it explores the world in “concepts” that clearly do not exist objectively in this world (regardless of philosophical minds that can't seem to know without concepts nothing at all). If you want to get confused, ask the philosopher about his understanding of “objectivity” (“brain removal” is guaranteed).

    —

    On life (outside of any philosophies).

    The beginning is the same up to and including svoboda . But then we ask the question is freedom a vital necessity or is it freedom (“complete”)? from any vital necessity (natural regularity) and its objective reality?

    If the answer is “complete”, then it turns out the same philosophy, and 100% detached from life (located in the free flight of “pure [from the vital reality of] reason”), and therefore obviously not objective (our philosophical greetings to the brothers in pure reason – “reptilians”).

    If we answer that freedom is a recognized vital necessity, then according to the concepts we are deprived of any “freedom” at all (damned 100% determinism!), and therefore we cannot receive any knowledge (being in “full power from the vital element”). But this is “in theory”, and how in practice (we give the answer “in life”, and not “in theory”)?

    Through life… it rarely “requires” a rigid single-set “reflection” on something = “the only correct answer” (the same glass looks like a trapezoid from the side, and “round” from above, i.e. both “trapezoid” and “circle” are reliable, although completely different “knowledge”about the glass). That is, even with completely deterministic freedom (which” in terms of concepts ” is equal to its complete absence), life provides a free choice between many very different alternatives (each of which is quite real, and therefore objective). The essence of the choice is situational and conditional (for” top” the choice of “round” will be more objectively determined, and “side” the choice of “trapezoidal”, but the choice between “top” and “side” is completely “free”), i.e. free choice requires “reason”. And the essence of freedom (life) is obtained in the “vision” of as many and diverse life “alternatives” as possible (objective, of course), and not the question of “absolute universal uniformity” (as it seems “in terms of concepts”).

    Accordingly, any knowledge can be “objective” (thinking corresponds to its objective being), even those that do not formally correspond to the “scientific method” (because it is not objective itself, but only “invented by people”).. I.e. objective knowledge and hypothetical reptilians are largely similar (questions about the “entirety” of knowledge as “absolute identity” they are not life), but most likely the logic and methodology (and the more “form”) they receive from people with “reptilians” can be very different.

    That is, the life approach allows you to get certain answers even to fundamentally unsolvable “philosophically” questions.

    I don't have the “concept” and therefore unable to use any concepts (other people), and a bonus still and know that knowledge “in terms of” generally not available (in “on Socratic”: “I only know that I know nothing, but many do not know“), and that's why I feel much more free than ever before (when he sought to “freedom of mind” from reality).

  3. Let's take two philosophies: materialistic and Hermetic ( esoteric). There are two philosophies – there are two sciences.

    Since modern society is brought up and educated on the ideas of materialism, it recognizes its own science as the only true one.

    For such a science, a person is meat with bones and a brain as a generator of thoughts and feelings.

    Example, I, as a healer, examine you and tell you what is in your kidneys (god forbid) three big ones and stones and sand. And at the bottom of the right lung, there is a tissue pathology. In addition, the external collateral ligament in the knee joint is dilapidated. Question – is this extra-scientific knowledge? Naturally, this is so, because the healer did not have any medical instruments and devices to determine this.

    “Science” laughed at the healer's unscientific ignorance. However, after checking with scientific methods and tools, it turned out that the healer was completely right.

    I consider myself a modern philosopher, but not a materialist one, but an esoteric one. And I'm afraid that most traditional philosophers do not accept it, extra-scientific knowledge, in any way.

    P.S. I don't view comments.

  4. They don't understand. There is no objective knowledge. Scientific knowledge is an analogue of human common sense, but at the level of the entire civilization. Just as for a person, his ideas about the world are subjective, so for the whole of humanity, the understanding of the world is also subjective, but much much closer to the truth than that of a hermit in the desert. The fact is that science has absorbed the vast experience of all people.

Leave a Reply

Categories