3 ms·

How is natural philosophy different from moral philosophy? I'm sure that comes across as a dumb question, but, modernity - technology. The irony of mathematic

How is natural philosophy different from moral philosophy? I'm sure that comes across as a dumb question, but, modernity - technology. The irony of mathematics being naturally built in, reinforced into all of us, over and over. Computer science. From wikipedia: > From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the term "natural philosophy" was the common term used to describe the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1] Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867). > "systematic study of nature" And what do we do? What is nature to study? What is life to study? Our own puzzled face, staring back at us.

dekhn 8y ago
Might want to put down the bong and do some real studying.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  Might want to develop some sensitivity and awareness to never being able to tell the difference between too much studying or not enough studying. "Real studying". Figure out what it means when you don't have anyone to design tests to check your own knowledge for you. Bongs. Is it fun to insult people for thinking? Real studying only means something when you have a teacher and an educational institution. Real world is much harder. You can watch your own understanding loop around itself hundreds of thousands of times. And still not know, do I know anything at all? How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. 1 time? 2 times, perhaps once indirectly? 3? Infinite? How many ways can a truth be conveyed, and how many ways can you be made to interpret it so you know the difference between being entrusted with an awareness, or whether you've been manipulated into accepting it. Socrates, aka "I know that I know nothing", had 3 books written about him. Aristophanes, The Clouds - he was a bumbling fool. Ever think about why he appeared that way to different sets of people?
  - dekhn 8y ago
    I repeat my suggestion that you put down the bong. You're not making a coherent argument.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      You don't need drugs to have an independent understanding that seems to be nonsensical to others. Just think a lot, mostly alone, think about what everyone says, think about everything you can read and find anywhere, and try to grasp some crystal clear understanding, but by the time you think you have it - gone - trying to explain the process to someone. Actual studying. I'd say it's next to impossible to have a complete understanding about anything. You can always think you have the full understanding, but that's just very specific to whatever test or goal post designed for you, or you design for yourself. Bertrand Russell wrote 370 pages of a book to prove 1 + 1 = 2. Is that coherent enough?
      - dekhn 8y ago
        I literally cannot understand the point you are making. Are you referring to relativism vs. objectivsm? Or, that people can have the understanding of a concept, but lose it in trying to explain it? I'm really trying in good faith you get you to make what I consider a coherent response. Personally, I've studied rhetoric, logic, philosophy (the moral kind), and science (the natural philosophy kind). I have a subtle enough knowledge of all of these to understand and appreciate nearly all points of view and have intelligent discussions with a wide range of people on a wide range of topics. But, so far, nothing you said seems to contradict my statement that the P in PhD refers (with the exception of people getting PhDs in philosophy departments) to natural philosophy, which is to say, the quantitative, experiment and hypothesis based approach to understanding how the universe works, as opposed to moral philosophy, which is a primarily logic-oriented approach to abstract and concrete problems experienced by humans. That those two intersect to some degree, and that some people who obtain PhDs in quantitative fields do spend some time being introspective about moral philosophy, but it's not commonly required in the form of coursework or research. Perhaps the closest relationship between moral philsophy and natural (which is what we now call "science') is math, and it's still very much an undecided problem as to whether math and science are the same thing (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htm... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... being the two most interesting statements on that problem) and whether the logic employed by philosphers is the same thing as mathematical logic. There is some useful prior writing on this, for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ Ultimately though I just can't see what point you're making. I think you're saying all knowledge is relative, and even scientific/natural philosophy is identical to moral philosophy, rather than "all students of the natural sciences should also take classes in philosophy to develop a more intuitive understanding of epistemeology"
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dekhn 8y ago

Might want to put down the bong and do some real studying.

s-shellfish 8y ago
Might want to develop some sensitivity and awareness to never being able to tell the difference between too much studying or not enough studying. "Real studying". Figure out what it means when you don't have anyone to design tests to check your own knowledge for you. Bongs. Is it fun to insult people for thinking? Real studying only means something when you have a teacher and an educational institution. Real world is much harder. You can watch your own understanding loop around itself hundreds of thousands of times. And still not know, do I know anything at all? How many times do you have to observe something before you accept it as fact. 1 time? 2 times, perhaps once indirectly? 3? Infinite? How many ways can a truth be conveyed, and how many ways can you be made to interpret it so you know the difference between being entrusted with an awareness, or whether you've been manipulated into accepting it. Socrates, aka "I know that I know nothing", had 3 books written about him. Aristophanes, The Clouds - he was a bumbling fool. Ever think about why he appeared that way to different sets of people?
- dekhn 8y ago
  I repeat my suggestion that you put down the bong. You're not making a coherent argument.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    You don't need drugs to have an independent understanding that seems to be nonsensical to others. Just think a lot, mostly alone, think about what everyone says, think about everything you can read and find anywhere, and try to grasp some crystal clear understanding, but by the time you think you have it - gone - trying to explain the process to someone. Actual studying. I'd say it's next to impossible to have a complete understanding about anything. You can always think you have the full understanding, but that's just very specific to whatever test or goal post designed for you, or you design for yourself. Bertrand Russell wrote 370 pages of a book to prove 1 + 1 = 2. Is that coherent enough?
    - dekhn 8y ago
      I literally cannot understand the point you are making. Are you referring to relativism vs. objectivsm? Or, that people can have the understanding of a concept, but lose it in trying to explain it? I'm really trying in good faith you get you to make what I consider a coherent response. Personally, I've studied rhetoric, logic, philosophy (the moral kind), and science (the natural philosophy kind). I have a subtle enough knowledge of all of these to understand and appreciate nearly all points of view and have intelligent discussions with a wide range of people on a wide range of topics. But, so far, nothing you said seems to contradict my statement that the P in PhD refers (with the exception of people getting PhDs in philosophy departments) to natural philosophy, which is to say, the quantitative, experiment and hypothesis based approach to understanding how the universe works, as opposed to moral philosophy, which is a primarily logic-oriented approach to abstract and concrete problems experienced by humans. That those two intersect to some degree, and that some people who obtain PhDs in quantitative fields do spend some time being introspective about moral philosophy, but it's not commonly required in the form of coursework or research. Perhaps the closest relationship between moral philsophy and natural (which is what we now call "science') is math, and it's still very much an undecided problem as to whether math and science are the same thing (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htm... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... being the two most interesting statements on that problem) and whether the logic employed by philosphers is the same thing as mathematical logic. There is some useful prior writing on this, for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/ Ultimately though I just can't see what point you're making. I think you're saying all knowledge is relative, and even scientific/natural philosophy is identical to moral philosophy, rather than "all students of the natural sciences should also take classes in philosophy to develop a more intuitive understanding of epistemeology"
dang 8y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html