Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SquadEasyDay t1_isoc3cy wrote

Could there be an argument made that all philosophy since the ancients' should just be considered science OF philosophy?

5

texas-humbug t1_isoznd4 wrote

Are you suggesting that the contributions of Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and so forth are all just science of philosophy? Do you intend, further, that there is otherwise nothing new in philosophy since Aristotle?

Could an argument be made? Yes, you can make an argument for almost anything.

Could a good argument be made? I doubt it.

I would be interested in the argument if you can make it. You might start with explaining what you mean by "science of philosophy." To me that is a very vague phrase.

3

captain_lampshade t1_isp23ma wrote

I think it’s also worth noting that philosophy, in a sense, is inherently un-scientific. Abstract concepts do not lend themselves to objective quantification and therefore cannot be measured in a way that fits the scientific method, at least in my opinion.

Edit: typos

3

SquadEasyDay t1_isp4ewf wrote

>Do you intend, further, that there is otherwise nothing new in philosophy since Aristotle?

There is "new" of course. But isn't it just "building" on Aristotle like science of his philosophy. Idk. I can't make the argument itself. Which is why I said "could" there be an argument. Maybe I should have said "could there be a good argument".

Something doesn't feel right about post ancient philosophy. Just seems like "the science of". Can't put my finger on it. In A history of Western Philosophy I remember Russell explaining the difference between science and philosophy. And post ancient philosophy just seems like what he described science as...

1

texas-humbug t1_isp8qe8 wrote

Ok. I understand.

But what you are writing is not philosophy or even about philosophy.

You say "something doesn't feel right" and it "just seems like the science of" something on which you can't put your finger. But it seems like something Russell said about the difference between science and philosophy.

There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't get us anywhere. It's the sort of thing one hears from college freshmen in a course of Introduction to Philosophy.

I, sort of, understand what you are aiming at. It is your responsibility to make it clear and argue for its correctness -- i.e., defend it.

That is western philosophy, probably since Thales, certainly since Socrates.

2

SquadEasyDay t1_isp97oq wrote

Lol I'm less than a college freshman. In philosophy at least.

1

texas-humbug t1_ispaqja wrote

Doesn't matter. You might actually have an insight into something important. I think you should develop that idea.

1

Pulivers t1_isoj2vn wrote

I would understand this statement as studying philosophy but not practicing it. Right?

1

SquadEasyDay t1_isokbny wrote

I'm not sure. There is just something "there" in ancient philosophy that isn't there in philosophy after Aristotle. Maybe it's the wisdom vs intelligence (or a better suited word). Maybe an over reliance on our limited senses/perceptions? Less to zero intuition?

2

Pulivers t1_isopr37 wrote

I quickly relise i'm not smart enough for this conversation. Do you suggest that we don't come up with anything new, but just recite and study old wisdom?

1

SquadEasyDay t1_isos6e8 wrote

>Do you suggest that we don't come up with anything new, but just recite and study old wisdom?

No, not necessarily, but is the "new" still philosophy? Is it just science Of philosophy? Or intelligence, but not wisdom?

0

captain_lampshade t1_isp2gsh wrote

I think the study of philosophy, if done intelligently, in indistinguishable from its practice. If you study a philosopher and his or her thoughts, and draw your own conclusion from those thoughts rather than taking them at face value, then are you not practicing philosophy?

2

ephemerios t1_isq85kt wrote

What do you mean by “science” here and why would it be “just” “science of philosophy”? Particularly so since, say, someone like Hegel — well-read on and responding to ancient philosophy — deemed it necessary for philosophy to become science.

1

SquadEasyDay t1_isq8nzk wrote

Why did he did he deem it necessary for philosophy to become science?

1

BillBigsB t1_iss1mq4 wrote

I wrote an intricate reply then my phone died. So, you should read Three Waves of Modernity and peruse Nietzsche and Modern Times by Laurence Lampert. In short, science is not the category but the branch. In other words, the scientific method is a particular type of philosophy but it is not an exhaustive definition of the later. Philosophy, on the political level at least, fundamentally deals in Noble Lies. Moderns chose to alter the application of such but that doesn’t mean that all modern philosophy is scientific. Rousseau and Nietzsche, in particular, certainly are not.

1