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?
Science in many ways (not all) is similar to the same religion – it also has its own dogmas, its own rules, the following of which is necessary for any scientific research. This is the rigor of the so-called exact sciences. Unlike science, philosophy for Heidegger was akin to art, the art of meaning extraction, meaning extraction. He was a poet in philosophy, sometimes unfolding a conversation full of philosophical dots on a country road, or merrily whistling a song of concern for time on the flute of the meanings of being. Heidegger's fascination with Nazism was akin to a sweet plunge into a dark fog of meaning with the risk of falling into an ethical abyss. I believe, I sincerely hope, that at the moment, he is one of the few bright otherworldly rescuers of Nazi souls, who helps them get out of the hell of non-existence into the element of spiritual human existence. And in this, Heidegger's spirit is helped by the extreme aesthetic accuracy of his inaccurate formulations of the meanings of human existence here-and-now. He is very touchingly strict when it comes to understanding being as a necessity to be human. But to be a human being is to discover in yourself, in here-being, a conscience whose imprecise, suggestive questions are scorchingly similar to the flames of a crematory flame…
In relation to scientific research, where conditions are necessarily fixed that require the use of statistical methods for detecting errors based on mathematical schemes and graphs in the production of experiments and conclusions obtained.
Scientific ideas remain theories if they are not confirmed by other scientists with the reliability accepted under standard conditions .
To demand from philosophy, which is the most general and universal scientific paradigm, which includes in its practice the laws of functioning and transformation of natural phenomena , science, and social structures, mathematically reliable accuracy of their manifestations is a rather revolutionary step, but it is absolutely devoid of practical meaning.
In philosophy, there is a provision stating that any exception to the rules is a confirmation of the basic Law.
Heidegger and Wittgenstein are talking about the same thing, that is, the impossibility of language to describe the world order. They were both wrong. You'd think they couldn't understand the world.
I once received a great lesson on this topic from a physics teacher who did not take my lab work until I thought to round the answer to the order of the calculated error.
Thus, a strict formulation implies that you reflect both your knowledge and your ignorance. While accuracy is unambiguity, which leaves no room for additional information.
Heidegger, apparently, is not a far-sighted person. If the author has quoted correctly, this philosopher is reasoning with the cook's arguments. The hostess must be strict and her instructions precise.
Science learns the truth. In some cases, “rigor and accuracy”works. For example, in astronomy. And two Russian guys created graphene by wrapping graphite with tape, “rigor and precision” here in a deep out.
,
Understanding the truth is the last thing that needs rules.
Sooooo. Philosophy has no boundaries, but science needs calculations! Due to the lack of borders, it is possible to go in different directions. And if rigor in inaccuracy probably means that there should be no boundaries in philosophy.