9 Answers

  1. And in what capacity do you ask this question? As a scientific philosopher or as an onanist philosopher?

    Philosophy always goes beyond all limits, it can exist both as the strictest science and as meaningless chatter. Philosophy is not bound to be of any use, but it casts doubt on the very category of use.

    Nevertheless, even in such an extreme space, or beyond any space (even metaphorical), where it would seem that no rules are possible, philosophy has rules.

  2. Philosophers do not consider philosophy a science, it is a science by one of the definitions, but there are many definitions that call philosophy not a science, but a worldview, spiritual activity, and much more.

    As for “verbal masturbation” – in the American education system, philosophy belongs to the Humanities block, which also includes music, cultural studies, law, literature, linguistics, history, and several other areas that are not sciences in the literal sense. When you refer philosophy to ” verbal masturbation,” you refer these disciplines to the same category. You are left with two options – either give up all of the above, or admit that you are a “verbal wanker”

  3. Philosophy is a meta-science, methodology, worldview and a certain way of life. Philosophy is a great sign that man is not just an animal. If there are no rules(thinking), i.e. if logic is violated, then this is psychopathology. There is verbal masturbation, for example, postmodernism. But world philosophy is not only postmodernism.

  4. Such a point of view(philosophy is all talk) is completely a failure. There is certainly a difference between philosophy and science, but just as there is a difference between the ocean and the sea. Not all philosophy is science, but all science is philosophy.

    Science is an experimental philosophy, completely built in accordance with the principles laid down by philosophers of science – from Aristotle to supporters and opponents of Karl Popper. Scientific worldview, causality, logic – these are inventions of philosophy. There is no logic in nature – it was invented by philosophers. There is no causal relationship in nature, it was invented by philosophers. Scientific worldview – well, you understand.

    Without them, no experiment is worth anything – it is not clear how to draw conclusions, it is not clear how to study, it is not even clear what we are studying at all. After all, the fact that by studying one crab we study all crabs was invented and explained by philosophy.

    Of course, philosophy, as in any field of human activity, is full of all sorts of nonsense. But you try to explore the world, and then see if you can do it without building up whole continents of nonsense populated by idiot inhabitants.

    It also amuses me that if someone doesn't understand integrals, it's their problem, not Newton's. But if someone does not understand Kant, then this is Kant's problem. Kant is a fool. Oh, I'd be happy, but I'd give a finger and a foot for everyone to be as stupid as Kant.

    All of the above prepares you for the necessary understanding-science is a worldview. This is not a set of facts, not a set of accepted theories, and not at all a test of hypotheses by experiments. Science is a worldview based on the task of studying the world as thoroughly as possible. Everything else is secondary, and that is why science improves itself much faster than other worldviews. But we should not forget that they are also being improved.

    Science is the richest and most consistent system of explanations. Without science, we wouldn't be flying into space and writing answers to TQ. But all this does not make science something fundamentally different from religion or magic. Science is the best we have, yes, but it's not the Absolute, it's not God, it's not the end of the road.

    This is easy to understand when you consider how little we actually know. Science is a very, very young thing, maybe a hundred years old. And most likely-much less. Life on our planet is 3 billion years old. Can you imagine the amount of knowledge you need to describe it? We know at most well 0.00001 mythical percentage of everything. And for sure-a couple of billion times less. What impudence do we have to have to conclude that we understood something there? This is a rhetorical question.

    Many adherents of the scientific worldview confuse ideal science with real science. An ideal science deduces hypotheses, tests them with experiments with a sufficient statistical sample, and unbiasedly builds some global theories based on them. These theories are tested again, and again, and again. Perfect science is a magnificent phenomenon, for which you are not ashamed to kill or die. But there is no such science. And it won't.

    At the same time, real science is a completely different beast. The lion's share of experiments is based on a statistically unreliable handful of samples, no one checks anything, and scientists twist the facts so that their explanation of the fragmented world turns out to be generally accepted. They do not twist maliciously, they twist because they are people. Just like the rest of us. There's no one but us, they're all exactly the same. Moderately clueless, each in their own way, of course.

    Simply put, real science is a hooligan. Moreover, the huyuk is still the same. Grant systems and peer-review lead to the accumulation of useless knowledge in the studied areas, while nearby forests are filled with unexplored creatures. The largest lizard on the planet, the three-meter Komodo monitor lizard-from personal experience history-was studied on the basis of fifty individuals. And then we know something?

    Just do not say that the Komodo dragon is an exception. Komodo lizard is much better studied than most species of animals and plants on the planet earth. If you want to say that biology is simply lagging behind, and everything else is better studied – then you will not be right here either. Physics, chemistry and others are not in the best position.

    But there is another problem – science is limited by its axioms and therefore is not able to study many possible phenomena. Let's say that gods or miracles are beyond the competence of science. This is important to understand: science has no way of saying anything at all about gods or miracles. Because they disrupt causal mechanisms, and science cannot function outside of them.

    This does not mean that the science is bad. It's the best thing we have in terms of describing the world. No one knows the world better than science. But you don't have to take it for something more, you don't have to make a god out of it, you don't have to fanatically pass it off as the absolute truth. There is no truth in nature. The truth exists in our heads. Truth is a product of logic, logic is a commitment. The world just exists, it doesn't owe us anything. It's huge, and if we lived another half-million years, we wouldn't have explored much of it. And many things will remain unknowable even if science has an eternity to spare. Or two.

  5. Philosophy was called a science by only two people, Hegel and Marx. The first believed that he would be able to give a scientific basis to philosophy, the second built philosophy on the science of his time.

    And so – theology, philosophy and science are different.

    A philosopher is an inquisitive person(in fact, this is how the word is translated) who reflects on the world *without contradicting himself*. Therefore, there are no laws and axioms in philosophy, as in mathematics and physics, but there are postulates. Interestingly, a huge number of disciplines have grown out of the dung of philophy into the blooming garden of science. So, the thing is useful.

  6. This is a verbal and / or figurative accompaniment to anonism of the brain, without which the brain becomes senile and ceases to think anything. Anyone who has shown interest in this question should agree with the somewhat unfortunate formulation of the question and ask themselves a question with my clarification.At the same time, you will need to come to some certainty by conducting a full-scale experiment on yourself. And of course, it will be necessary to publish the results of this experiment, which the public from Yandex QQQ expects with great interest and even more curiosity.

  7. Of course , this is a science that allows you to shake off the dust from history and look at situations and learn from them for society. But for the average layman, it is also important to think critically and build your own principles for perception and interaction with the world around you. But verbal anonymity is also appropriate)) the essence of the fact that we live in affluence and we have the strength and time to talk about such things

  8. There are no rules in philosophy – only people who don't know anything about philosophy.Philosophy is a social science that deals with historical data about the past, present, and future. Social evolution is subject to the laws of dialectics and the big Logic of existence, cognition and transformation – the philosophical Triad of subject-productive philosophy, where the product of ontology becomes the subject of epistemology, the product of epistemology becomes the subject of dialectics, which creates a project for the transformation of this subject, that is, the known society.

  9. Because “classical” philosophy is not connected with reality. We need a new philosophy that does not allow this state of affairs, and is strictly focused on practical actions. Real philosophy should study human thinking, the possibilities of thinking, and not verbal constructions, as “official” philosophy.

Leave a Reply