3 ms·
>"Trying to define "life" is one of the central questions of the philosophy of biology." If this is true then "philosophy of biology" is a likely a total waste
by nonbel 9y ago
>"Trying to define "life" is one of the central questions of the philosophy of biology."
If this is true then "philosophy of biology" is a likely a total waste of time. It is obvious that life vs non-life is an artificial categorization that humans use because it is useful to them.
- skissane 9y agoYour response presumes a particular philosophical position. When you call life "an artificial categorization that humans use because it is useful to them", you are espousing the nominalist solution to the problem of the universals, and applying that to biology. Even while attacking the philosophy of biology you are actually engaging in it. Nominalism may be "obvious" to you, but it isn't obvious to everyone. Just because someone thinks something is "obvious" it does not automatically follow that it is true. Have you given serious thought to nominalism's alternatives, such as moderate realism (Aristotelian, Thomistic or Scotistic); or Platonism?
- nonbel 9y agoThere isn't any deeper philosophy behind what I said, it has nothing to do with how things "really are". Just go categorize some stuff and see what happens. Is a bottle cap a "coin"? In some cases, sure that could be. In others, not at all.
- ntumlin 9y agoMaybe a better way to phrase the question then would be “What is the most useful categorization of life and non-life?”
- nonbel 9y agoSure, then it will depend on what you want to use it for. Different definitions may be best for different projects.