Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It is likely that historical classical philosophical thought would not agree with this statement of the question. She would have put her argument something like this:
Can the judgments of the sciences of philosophy be serious? Where under the sciences are understood mainly those natural and other similar sciences, which philosophers also called empirical. Their rational essence, in the main, belongs to reason. Whereas philosophy exists in the highest cognitive capacity of the mind and its system. Therefore, the question would be more correct if it was put in this form: “What is science from the point of view of philosophy?”. After all, the less perfect must be spoken of by the more perfect (this is an axiom), which is what reason and philosophy speak of in this case.
Philosophy for science is an additional tool of knowledge, but it is still poorly interpreted into scientific language.
Philosophy tries to answer questions that Science has no answers for.
Let's just say that if science is two ends of the same stick, one end is one opinion, the other end is another opinion, then in the end, philosophy is part of the stick between the two ends.�
Where philosophy begins and science ends is difficult to say, since the evaluation criteria are based on almost all the components of not only scientific arguments, but also the personal qualities of the argumentators.�
“If science can be divided at the two ends of the stick, then philosophy is in between.” �Dadaev G. S.
One cannot exist without the other, just as a stick cannot consist of only the ends.�
The rest is up to you to make sense of…
Heh. Interesting question.�
Most likely, philosophy for science is like some kind of means of knowing the perfection of man and the world. After all, science and philosophy converge at some points. Science for philosophy is probably something that people came up with, trying to achieve perfection. From this, you can also create an inverse problem.
It's like two subjects of study, from which both draw conclusions based on some answers.