4 ms·
Because fundamentally, every single premise established in Philosophy is rejectable, and in practice, every premise is routinely rejected. Unlike physics, where
by dmreedy 9y ago
Because fundamentally, every single premise established in Philosophy is rejectable, and in practice, every premise is routinely rejected. Unlike physics, where there is one tower and it is built high by many hands, in Philosophy, there are many towers and many builders, all having made very little progress on what are incredibly hard problems. There are too many different schools and too few means of empirical refutation to achieve the kind of unity you're looking for, unfortunately.
Sometimes, however, they do borrow eachother's tools at least.
- unhammer 9y ago> every single premise established in Philosophy is rejectable until it's not, at which point it moves out of the domain of Philosophy and into physics, math, psychology, what have you.
- msla 9y agoRight. What we now call science was once subsumed under "Natural Philosophy", and, as an example, "atomism", or the idea that matter is made of atoms acting under the influence of natural laws, was once a philosophical position, such that different philosophers disagreed on its validity. (No, the "philosophical atoms" of Democritus weren't atoms as we now know them. For one thing, the word "atom" means "uncuttable", as Democritus imagined atoms to be the indivisible units of matter, and, more importantly, he had no larger experimental and explanatory framework to slot his ideas into, so he couldn't come up with ideas like molecules and chemistry that, to us, follow quite naturally from the notion matter is made of atoms.)