Categories
- Art (181)
- Other (1,710)
- Philosophy (1,375)
- Psychology (1,917)
- Society (503)
Recent Questions
- Why does a person need God if he has a conscience? It certainly won't help an unscrupulous person.
- You have 10 thousand rubles invested in your game account. Should you delete your account or give it to your friends?
- How to deal with cognitive distortions?
- What happens if a person in a coma is given LSD (or other psychotropic substances)?
- Everything is an art, the only question is the correct presentation. Is this expression true?
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.