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?
I think the answer to this question should be sought in the history of the birth of modern science, which has based its constructions on an experimental approach based solely on those natural phenomena that can be directly observed and that do not seem to depend on the observer.
There was a “deification” of nature, nature became the measure of all things, the concept of “natural science” and “natural sciences” appeared. The word “natural” and “natural” came to be used as “true”and” authentic.” And the phrase “the nature of things” became understood as “the essence of things”.
At one time, I was deeply impressed by Paul Feyerabend's book “Against the Method”. I'm not sure that he goes into the history of identifying the words “natural” and “existing” in his book, but I think he's talking about this, maybe not directly.