Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

texas-humbug t1_isoznd4 wrote

Reply to comment by SquadEasyDay in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 17, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

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