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?
In my opinion, there are some good answers to this question. One of them was given by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell: it consists in the fact that philosophy, in fact, asks such questions that are fundamentally unsolvable, while science asks fundamentally empirically solvable questions.�
Moreover, if a certain question was previously considered empirically unsolvable (for example, the question of the origin of the universe), then it was considered as a philosophical one. And when at some point in time there are tools for its empirical solution (in this case, high-power telescopes), then it begins to be considered as scientific.
But this should not be taken to mean that philosophy is just some kind of “protoscience”. In fact, as Russell rightly writes,
In short, philosophy is the most successful tool we have to answer rationally for ourselves, to think, discuss, and agree on the answers to the unsolvable questions that we are forced to answer anyway.
In other words, we cannot objectively answer the question “what is good and what is bad”, but we still need to write the criminal code somehow. And here philosophy provides the tools to solve this problem.
Going beyond Russell's views, we can say that what philosophy and science have in common is the nature of their argumentation: both science and philosophy use rational argumentation and operate with the laws of logic. But they use them to achieve fundamentally different goals: science provides us with a set of empirically verified models in order to effectively solve specific problems; philosophy provides us with rational tools for discussing answers to worldview questions.
At the same time, philosophy is not a science, and science is not a worldview. Every time we try to build a “scientific worldview”, we get an ideology. We are well aware of a couple of such ideologies: national socialism, based on” scientific racial theory”, and Stalinism, based on”scientific Marxism”. We tried it, but didn't like it.
In short, so. If you are interested, you can listen to a more detailed discussion of this issue in my lectures.
All existing definitions of philosophy are either too broad or too narrow. The structure of philosophical knowledge includes all the comprehension and comprehension of the world by a person and his place in it. In this sense, it is not philosophy that is part of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge is a kind of philosophy. If you look at the works of such famous scientists as Newton, Copernicus, Leibniz and many others, you will find that most of these people wrote works on philosophy. The sciences gradually took shape and emerged from the structure of philosophy. Sociology came out of it relatively recently. Today, several disciplines are distinguished within philosophy, including ontology, epistemology, axiology, logic, ethics, aesthetics, and some others, including the philosophy of science. Therefore, I would say that philosophy can be considered a field of knowledge from which sciences are born.
For me, philosophy is the basis of my thinking about the grounds on which someone believes that philosophy has a reason to be a science.
Without knowing what the subject of our interest is, we already demand proof of its scientific nature in advance. That is, I suspect that we do have an idea about it… Own a certain idea, which was doubted. So we ask what it is, the subject-the object of our interest.
Philosophy is precisely the questioning of the validity of all grounds, including one's own.
Science is obviously about objectivity. And obviously about accuracy, that is, unambiguity. Unambiguity is objectivity. That is, true for all. Universal truth. Doesn't philosophy strive for truths that are the same for everyone?
Why doubt the scientific nature of philosophy? Confused by solipsism? More precisely, did existentialism confuse the cards? Didn't like the ergo sum cogito? Like, if I write this, but it already exists-legitimate due to the very fact of the existence of these letters of mine.
Well, yes, it is very un-scientific – when thinking does not exist without a thinker. And understanding is without an understanding person. What nonsense, isn't it: if I, the writer, know the meaning of my writing, then the reader, who does not find such a meaning, just as legitimately has the right to consider my writing non-existent. How can both be true? Are science and contradictions incompatible? (Really?)
What kind of nonsense does your Hegel have: A equals No-A?!
More scientific than science itself is the fact that about philosophy. A science that questions itself, isn't it? A tyrant who asks if he has the right – is he a tyrant? Isn't it true that there are no such tyrants, he is by definition not a Tyrant.
At first, there was an order with philosophy: objectivity was considered beyond and above the individual, and all that remained was to know it – the spitting image of science. The ontological stage. We learn, they say, being.
Then we slowed down and thought: is this how we learn? Epistemological and epistemological stage.
And suddenly existentialism: they say, God is with him, with being, existence is my object. And existence is me. I am the world, I am being, it turns out.
So ” get out of science, philosophy!”?
Understanding the true answer to this question will determine the fate of society-save it in the third millennium. It initiates a philosophical, intellectual, and scientific revolution as the foundation of social progress. To do this, you need to follow the ancient principle of ” question everything.” The first step is to overcome the prevailing misconceptions in fundamental concepts-science, theory, thinking, logic. Today, private studies of reality that supposedly emerged about four centuries ago are recognized as science, and philosophy is considered a generalization of the results of science. At the same time, any text is called a theory, and thinking is recognized as an attribute of animals or, at least, of all people. At the same time, logical thinking is considered an attribute of all people with a sound mind that arises without training. All this serves as an ideology of the social status quo served by a cohort of intellectuals. Only overcoming their ideological monopoly will save society. To do this, it is necessary to re-think their adherents with the renaissance of classical philosophy, with which they broke the continuity. More than half a century of research has allowed the founders of science to identify alternative ideas in the interpretation of the meaning of these words. The basis of their systematic explanation is a cumulative series: reflection → information → ideas → ideal →knowledge → science → post-science. Their interpretation is given in many posts on Q.
The attribute of life is regulatives as a means of reflecting the area of life. Their most developed form is the nervous system. They start with innate instincts and their information flows. Then there were non-innate information systems that arise in animals during their life on the basis of sensory organs. In animal communities, there is a more developed form of ideas created by the community and adopted by individuals by imitation – the ideal. All this was inherent in hominids and the reason for their transformation into humans as language and the verbalized ideal of knowledge emerged. At the same time, in animal communities, the ancestors of descendants learned certain actions, and then the knowledge of people in joint activities. This is how the first form of science emerged – experimental (empirical). This cognitive potential of humans was sufficient for 2.5 million years. And only ten thousand years ago they began to create complexes of knowledge-teachings (doctrines). This was the progress of science-the creation of complete pictures. There was a lot of speculation in them and their attribute was pluralism. This fact was realized by the ancient Greeks, who initiated the study of ideas, the ideal, the mind, knowledge, sciences, and thinking, which became the content of philosophy. In this regard, philosophy should be briefly defined as the science of science and its cognitive potential and the canon of theorizing sciences. The ancient Greeks called it a goal to move to a more developed form of science – theory – by developing special cognitive techniques that are the content of dialectics and logic as forms of thinking. Their followers continued this approach and did much to contribute to the progress of society. Especially relevant is the ideological legacy of medieval philosophers, who provided enlightenment, the revival of society and actually created dialectical logic accessible to people with sound minds. But the secularization of philosophy according to Marx – the use of it by the people for the socialization of society led to its replacement by philodoxy, which today dominates the world and in our country. It gave rise to the interpretation of fundamental cognitive concepts mentioned at the beginning with the goal of mankrutization of the people. The beginning of overcoming their ideological monopoly can only be the assimilation of logical thinking as the best tool of labor and the sharpest weapon according to Engels. This is the focus of my logical thinking lessons on YouTube from 2020
Why do we need philosophy if science has found answers to all the questions that philosophy asks?
What is the significance of philosophy in science?
Is philosophy a proto-science and has philosophy “lost weight” after the emergence of science as such?
In my humble opinion, philosophy is not a science, but a stage of knowledge that precedes science. Along with religion, art, etc.
Read more here.
)
Philosophy is the queen of sciences, because it has created a Theory of everything that orders the world and the place of man in it. Does it help you live? It helps, and thank God.
Science is one of the forms of faith, religions, but the most detailed-factual, claiming not the highest accuracy and consistency, that the truth works only within small material concepts of the world. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the fundamental and original (after mythology) parent of science, and is also both a way of knowing and a style, a spirit of existence for a person
I recall the famous statement of D. E. Galkovsky:
“What is philosophy? If you ask yourself this question, you will be surprised to see a circle of ugly masks around you, each of which will make faces in its own way. Right up to Heidegger's ” there is a priest on a pile, a cap on a priest, a pile under a priest, a priest under a hood.”
But that doesn't mean you're looking at stupid people. The real definition of philosophy is so terrible that it is avoided by all means, blocked by screens. “Philosophy is the knowledge of how things really are.” Which, for example, makes it impossible to teach philosophy in its essence, and not as a cultural style.�
Imagine, a dissertation defense is underway. The applicant gets up and starts: “I believe that no one needs to defend their dissertations. However, I need money to pay for a kept woman. So I decided… “After that, the “philosopher” would be taken to Kashchenko. Besides, it wouldn't even be funny. The period of such wit is the 18th century. So the philosophers are trampling.
But imagine the POLITICAL power of people who practice philosophy. They do not see Windows Windows, and the command line on a black screen. And they spin up the disks where they need to go without any design or sentiment.
Therefore, even in very cultured countries, there are 18 degrees where people bring philosophical rhetoric to the stage of ritual gibberish, only to forget it forever. For it is INDECENT to philosophize. This is a hit-and-run. A person needs something, “he went out to seek the truth,” and a person's life is short and terrible. And the horror of private yachts and the Bahamas is not enough for everyone. For the vast majority of people, this is not a horror, but the limit of dreams.�
Therefore, what is usually called philosophy is a stylization that allows you to give a philosophical light not directly, but from the side and at an angle. Such indirect light leads to a general increase in intellectual temperature, people learn to think independently, but this independence does not apply to the subject of research. And even that is still very dangerous.”
Thesis form:
Philosophy is synonymous with the process of reasoning in conditions of insufficient facts, ergo: reasoning of the ignorant by definition.
The “philosophers” themselves emphasize (and this is true) that they talk about topics for which the sciences have not yet managed to accumulate facts, and therefore, on topics about which the sciences are not yet capable of their main activity-the search for patterns and generalizations.
Thus, in the face of a lack of facts to comprehend, “philosophy” inevitably becomes a lesson in arbitrary fantasy and random verbal combinatorics.
The “philosophers” themselves importantly call this the search for the most general patterns.
As soon as a particular science collects enough facts to begin to make practically useful generalizations and determine patterns on the basis of which it is possible not only to reason, but to create something practically useful, “philosophy” immediately disappears with shame from the topic.
But the shame is not enough for her for long, and soon after that, “philosophy” once again begins to hum about how it,” philosophy ” was in the beginning of everything and how the sciences owe it everything…
Next, “philosophy” powders its shameless nose and, as if nothing had happened, again climbs into another place where the sciences have not yet accumulated facts, again begins to shake its skirts, turn its philosophical backside and put on airs…
Since today there are no areas of knowledge that are not occupied with sciences, “philosophers” are being driven from everywhere. They can only huddle with each other on the Internet, quote their idols from that happy time when science was still not enough and remember how good it was for Hegels, Kants, Lockes then!.. that is, instead of engaging in honest love of fantasies and unusual phrases, imitate it, that is, self-service. What else can they do?
Normal people are sick of philosophy…
Philosophy and science are synonymous, but not the same thing.
They are types of wisdom, just like art and / or religion. They differ in the degree of theorization and interconnectedness, mutual reflection and intersubjectivity. Science arose from the need for theorizing in the conditions of complete rejection of religion only in Greece, other peoples created their own philosophies, but they were and still are religious, for example, the Russian Orthodox or the Iranian Muslim (even with the development of nuclear technologies 2500 years later).
years after the secular ideas of Democritus and Empedocles on the atomic structure of matter).
The secular view of the world turned philosophy into a super-science, because religion did not satisfy the demands of Western civilization for freedom for the individual. In the East and in Russia, despotisms provide freedom only for a few, but not for everyone. So, the idea of life is associated with freedom as the main condition for self-development.
Philosophy began with the wisdom of the secular metaphors of Homer and Hesiod. According to Habermas, philosophy flows into the social sciences in our time in conditions of sociocentrism and rejection of pure scientism, blurred by postmodern rationalism.
I think it is worth clarifying the question, do we mean science (any) and philosophy (as a science), or is the philosophical worldview part of the scientific one?�
Personally, I see science as a variety of tools that are applicable in certain situations. In a little more detail, the essence of any science, if you move away from precise definitions, and try to describe intuitively-the representation of some phenomena in a formalized form and a set of patterns/patterns by which these forms interact with each other. Even if these systems are seemingly perfect (math!), there are still all sorts of artifacts (say, n-dimensional spaces, supertasks, higher axioms of infinity, and other mathematical tinplate that has a mediocre relationship to the real world). Therefore, in order to be able to use all these tools, there must be some kind of meta-system that regulates the applicability of these tools in practice. Then I'll give the floor to smart books:
Philosophy claims to be something more than science, its beginning and end, the methodology of science and its generalization, a higher-order theory, a meta-science. Science exists as a process of putting forward and refuting hypotheses, the role of philosophy in this case is to study the criteria of scientific and rational character. At the same time, philosophy makes sense of scientific discoveries, including them in the context of formed knowledge and thereby determining their meaning. Related to this is the ancient notion of philosophy as the queen of sciences or the science of sciences.Those areas of knowledge for which it is possible to develop a clear and workable methodological paradigm are distinguished from philosophy into scientific disciplines, as, for example, physics, biology and psychology were distinguished from philosophy in their time
Structurally, from the point of view of philosophical concepts and means of cognition proper, philosophy also has many aspects that speak about its scientific character and its entry, at least in some respects, into the sphere of scientific knowledge.
A particular system of knowledge is considered scientific or related to the field of science, if it meets certain criteria.
Mythological and religious knowledge is characterized by a belief in the supernatural, the supernatural. This belief is absent in science. (Here it is worth noting that in philosophy they still operate with concepts that in science would rather be attributed to the supernatural)
The scientific criteria are as follows:
1) Objectivity, or the principle of objectivity. Scientific knowledge is connected with the discovery of natural objects taken “by themselves”, as “things in themselves” (not in the Kantian sense, but as not yet known, but knowable). At the same time, there is a distraction from the interests of the individual, and from everything super-natural. Nature must be known from itself, and in this sense it is recognized as self-sufficient; objects and their relations must also be known as they are, without any extraneous additions, that is, without introducing anything subjective or supernatural into them.
2) Rationality, rationalistic validity, evidence-based approach. As some researchers point out, everyday knowledge is, among other things, referential in nature, based on “opinions”, “authority”; in scientific knowledge, not just something is reported, but the necessary reasons are given for which this content is true; the principle of sufficient reason applies here. The principle of sufficient reason states: “No phenomenon can be true or valid, no statement can be true without sufficient reason, why exactly the case is so, and not otherwise” (Leibniz G. V. Soch.: In 4 volumes, Moscow, 1982. Vol. 1. P. 418); reason becomes the judge in matters of truth, and criticality and rational principles of cognition become the way to achieve it.
3) Essentialist orientation, i.e. the focus on reproducing the essence, regularities of the object (the reflection of repeated, but insignificant properties of the object is also subordinate to this goal).
4) Special organization, special consistency of knowledge; not just orderliness, as in ordinary knowledge, but orderliness according to conscious principles; orderliness in the form of theory and a detailed theoretical concept.
5) Verifiability; here, both the appeal to scientific observation, to practice, and the test of logic, in a logical way; scientific truth characterizes knowledge that is in principle verifiable and ultimately proves to be confirmed. The verifiability of scientific truths, their reproducibility through practice, gives them the property of universal validity (and in this sense, “intersubjectivity”).
General validity in itself is not a criterion sign of the truth of a particular proposition. The fact that the majority will vote for a certain provision does not mean that it is true. The basic criterion of truth is different. Truth does not follow from universal validity, but on the contrary, truth requires universal validity and provides it.
All the mentioned criteria of scientific character are applicable to a part of the content of philosophical knowledge, especially to ontology (philosophy of nature), epistemology (epistemology) and methodology of scientific knowledge, which can be found in virtually all philosophical systems that have a corresponding problem.
From these considerations, we can conclude that philosophy is part of the scientific sphere of knowledge, at least in part of its content, and in this respect philosophy is a science, a type of scientific knowledge. Its subject specificity as a type of scientific knowledge lies in the extreme generalization of information from the point of view of the main issue of the worldview.
Oxford Dictionary:
philosophy
NOUN
The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Teaching, discipline, anything but science
If philosophy is a science, then consider the Pope writing to you! Give some examples of how this science has influenced the economy, agriculture, the structure of the state and its policy… A well-known fact is taken from history and who has prepared such a conclusion. Utopian philosophers, realists… this is like a lot of opinions and ways to solve a question that everyone understands… It is equivalent to many parties in the state, according to Krylov – “the swan, the crab and the pike…” The truth is above all, and philosophy rejects it. I wonder how you can be a philosopher today and not understand the Bible, for example… I am becoming more and more convinced that Nehemiah 7 : 66 is right, he called our 6th civilization at the end of the activity (in this cycle) o s l a m I. Pyramid Builders Singers = 78,000 years ago. . .
In my opinion, everything is quite simple. Science strictly requires practical evidence. And philosophy is basically knowledge gained through experience and feelings.
It is not. In the methodology of science, there is a so-called question of demarcation, i.e. criteria for what is considered a science and what is not. “Once upon a time, it was dominated by the principle of verificationism, which assumes that only the theory that can be verified empirically can be scientific.”
Now the principle of falsificationism proposed by Karl Popper is used, according to which a scientific theory is only one that can in principle be empirically refuted. So, the claim that we all live in the matrix is not scientific, because we cannot even hypothetically imagine an experiment that could refute this claim.
Philosophical statements in this sense are irrefutable, and therefore not scientific.
As usual, everything depends on the definitions, i.e. on what exactly we call science. If, for example, “Every field of knowledge is a science to the extent that it uses mathematics,” then no. So tell the teacher.
Philosophy is a way of knowing the world.
Man in the pre-philosophical period knew the world with the help of religion, myths, signs and belief in the supernatural, mystical. At this level of development of civilization, when there were no special technical frills, it was enough for a person to believe that someone had created him, that the world around him was the result of the purposeful activity of some higher being or beings. All events that went beyond the usual were explained simply: the gods are angry or happy, show their will, and so on.
With the accumulation of knowledge, it became easier for a conditional person to live. You don't need to think about food, because the cattle graze in the pen, about the roof over your head, because you live in a city, a polis, you don't need to think about the danger of animals or neighboring tribes, because another person will think for him. Free up time for yourself and your loved one. The man began to wonder who he was, why he came to this world? Why, apart from natural manifestations, does God not manifest himself in any way? In other words, natural skepticism manifested itself. Congratulations, humanity has entered the age of philosophy. A long period of understanding of life, the relationship of a person and the whole world around him began. From the first attempts to explain the structure of the material and mental universe of the ancient Greek philosophers to the present, philosophy was the way in which people learned about everything around them. It was no longer enough to say that everything was God's will. It was necessary to explain why this was the case and not this way. Over time, what we now call scientific disciplines have separated themselves from philosophy; physics, biology, psychology, chemistry – all of our scientific knowledge is based on philosophy.
It is not for nothing that one of my teachers said that philosophy is a science of sciences, but after the Renaissance, with the beginning of industrialization, and then in the XX century and with the beginning of the Scientific and Technological Revolution, it was again not enough for a person. Philosophy could no longer explain, as before, the myths and legends that lie beyond the comprehension of the human mind. How does the atom work, what was before man about 10 billion years ago? back, why does chlorophyll a and b exist? The period of philosophy was replaced by a scientific way of understanding the world.
Philosophy, although it has moved away from the role of a worldview, has become a way of arranging the structure of scientific knowledge. There is a philosophy of physics, design, and political philosophy. In this narrow sense, philosophy is a science, because it, as a scientific discipline, has its own methodology and subject of study, there is a function and goals.