6 ms·

You seem to have a certain grasp on that subject or at least feel very strong about it. Unfortunately your post didn't correct any (perceived) mistake, it was

You seem to have a certain grasp on that subject or at least feel very strong about it. Unfortunately your post didn't correct any (perceived) mistake, it was mostly a longer way to write "That's not true". Would you be so kind and expand that reply a bit, so that I might find pointers/key words to look up myself?

dcre 10y ago
All that's required to show that philosophy's aim is not to eliminate itself are a few examples of philosophical questions that are not reducible to scientific ones. Naturally the author of the quoted post could still argue that those examples are in fact reducible. They'd be wrong, but I'm sure they could attempt an argument. That's philosophy. Here are some articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the mentioned topics that should point you in the right direction to start thinking for yourself about whether these questions are reducible to the empirical sciences: Natural philosophy Aristotle's natural philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ Hume (look at the section on causation): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ Philosophy of language Wittgenstein: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ Names: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/ Philosophy of mind Aristotle's psychology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ Kant's account of reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/
- dcre 10y ago
  Shorter version: What is change? How do we know what we know? What is the relationship between speech and the thing spoken of? What is the relationship between knowledge and the thing known?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
4e8riufc4m9rvif 10y ago
I have a beginner level interest in philosophy of mind. I can attempt to add some information on how "...and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuroscience." is very wrong. Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. I think most are generally familiar with other aspects of neuroscience. In phil. of mind there are categories of consciousness or lack thereof, though Phenomenal Consciousness is more popular area of study (experiential side of consciousness). One of the key subject in Philosophy of mind try to show whether mind can possibly be physical (ex readable article: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf), can mind be described computationally? (ex paper: http://consc.net/papers/rock.html http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) Phi. of mind also studies accesses of consciousness, study methods on how to go about studying contents of consciousness etc. I've talked to neuroscientist who despise philosophers talking about conciseness and claim their ideas are silly or can be ignored. There has also been cases where big name neuroscientist proposed silly ideas about mind that philosophers wouldn't begin to consider. In short they study different things.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. You should give neuroscientists more credit! Some of them are aware of the philosophical problems surrounding subjectivity, and have tried to tackle them [1]. That's one of my favoured scientific theories on the source of subjectivity. I can also sympathize with the disdain with whic some neuroscientists view some philosophers of mind. They've debated some completely ridiculous theories of mind in order to rationalize human importance. These consciousness debates are following the arc of vitalism, which the science of biology eventually simply replaced, and I expect these neuroscientists see it as a waste of time for similar reasons. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...
  - md224 10y ago
yk 10y ago
To some extend the difference between a science of X and philosophy of X is, that scientists try to answer the question and philosophers try to understand the question. For example, "How does a particle move under constant force." A physicist is content with just describing the movement of the particle, a philosopher will start thinking about questions like, "What is a force?" and "What is a particle?" and go on to question if these are in some sense necessary categories etc.

dcre 10y ago

All that's required to show that philosophy's aim is not to eliminate itself are a few examples of philosophical questions that are not reducible to scientific ones. Naturally the author of the quoted post could still argue that those examples are in fact reducible. They'd be wrong, but I'm sure they could attempt an argument. That's philosophy. Here are some articles from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the mentioned topics that should point you in the right direction to start thinking for yourself about whether these questions are reducible to the empirical sciences: Natural philosophy Aristotle's natural philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ Hume (look at the section on causation): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ Philosophy of language Wittgenstein: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ Names: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/ Philosophy of mind Aristotle's psychology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/ Kant's account of reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/

dcre 10y ago
Shorter version: What is change? How do we know what we know? What is the relationship between speech and the thing spoken of? What is the relationship between knowledge and the thing known?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

4e8riufc4m9rvif 10y ago

I have a beginner level interest in philosophy of mind. I can attempt to add some information on how "...and today we're seeing philosophy of mind turn to neuroscience." is very wrong. Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. I think most are generally familiar with other aspects of neuroscience. In phil. of mind there are categories of consciousness or lack thereof, though Phenomenal Consciousness is more popular area of study (experiential side of consciousness). One of the key subject in Philosophy of mind try to show whether mind can possibly be physical (ex readable article: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf), can mind be described computationally? (ex paper: http://consc.net/papers/rock.html http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) Phi. of mind also studies accesses of consciousness, study methods on how to go about studying contents of consciousness etc. I've talked to neuroscientist who despise philosophers talking about conciseness and claim their ideas are silly or can be ignored. There has also been cases where big name neuroscientist proposed silly ideas about mind that philosophers wouldn't begin to consider. In short they study different things.

naasking 10y ago
> Neuroscience studies various structures and mechanisms of nervous system and brain. Even when they seemingly discuss 'consciousness', they tend to simply mean 'awareness'. You should give neuroscientists more credit! Some of them are aware of the philosophical problems surrounding subjectivity, and have tried to tackle them [1]. That's one of my favoured scientific theories on the source of subjectivity. I can also sympathize with the disdain with whic some neuroscientists view some philosophers of mind. They've debated some completely ridiculous theories of mind in order to rationalize human importance. These consciousness debates are following the arc of vitalism, which the science of biology eventually simply replaced, and I expect these neuroscientists see it as a waste of time for similar reasons. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...
- md224 10y ago

yk 10y ago

To some extend the difference between a science of X and philosophy of X is, that scientists try to answer the question and philosophers try to understand the question. For example, "How does a particle move under constant force." A physicist is content with just describing the movement of the particle, a philosopher will start thinking about questions like, "What is a force?" and "What is a particle?" and go on to question if these are in some sense necessary categories etc.