5 ms·

I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science

I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. I highly disagree with this. A statement made on the basis of logic or science has more weight then any sort of random speculation made in “aesthetics” yet philosophy places them on equal grounds. There is a clear error in hierarchy here similar to the phylum based nomenclature in biology.

routerl 6y ago
> Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretical approach. In the contemporary world, proper metaphysics (as described above) is mostly done by physicists themselves, occasionally in cooperation with philosophers. See [1] for a fairly recent example. Similarly, proper metamathematics is most often done by mathematicians, with occasional contributions from philosophers, e.g. [2]. Any time a physicist is writing about the fundamental methodology of the discipline, or about a topic that is not, for now, empirically testable, he is doing metaphysics, often with a hefty dose of mathematics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_Reality_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_on_teaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_...
- neonological 6y ago
  The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the arguments within their respective fields.
  - routerl 6y ago
    > you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally. You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism. When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.
    - neonological 6y ago
      > sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy. >... When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets. Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.
      - routerl 6y ago
        You're really just arguing against an imagined opponent, at this point. > Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. No it isn't. I'm talking about professional philosophers. > it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters. > When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. I don't care. Metaphysics is where "meta" comes from, and it has a specific meaning and interpretation, within professional philosophy. You are not referring to this specific meaning, and so I don't care what your thoughts are anymore. You're tilting at windmills my friend.
namero999 6y ago
Random speculations? Certain philosophies at least survived the test of time (we are talking about millennia) while we still have to see a scientific theory survive a handful of centuries... Of course I'm pushing back with my statement, but really claiming philosophy is "random speculations" sounds really uninformed and naive.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- neonological 6y ago
  That's the problem with philosophy. It's archaic. It doesn't self improve. Christianity and Muslims have been around almost as long as philosophy. It doesn't make their opposing views automatically valid nor does it eliminate the randomness of some arbitrary beliefs in each respective religion (why is jesus named jesus, for example).
  - namero999 6y ago
    Feel free to consciously ignore the developments of the last few thousands year, and to hold the immature view that religious myths have to be taken literally. This sounds like something my teenage nephew would say, so I have lost interest in arguing with you on these topics.
    - neonological 6y ago
      This is a personal attack which is against the rules here. I think you took my words as an attack because you’ve been personally invested in philosophy for so long defending it like a cultist who refuses to take reality at face value. Greek mythology and Chinese mythology and most mythology were invented in the past as literal explanations of reality. The penchant today to not take things literally is an excuse. Our understanding of reality has changed and the archaic explanations of of the past no longer work yet blind loyalty still binds you to religious explanations. This is why people twist the explanations and say to not take them literally. Were people in the past so stupid that they had to wrap every explanation in the symbolism of a fantastical myth? Doubtful. This is more likely the excuse made by someone who cannot reconcile rationality with there loyalty to a religion. I don’t think you actually lost interest. I think you just know you lost.

routerl 6y ago

> Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it. You've really totally misunderstood what they were describing. Metaphysics is "above" physics because it is about what the word "physics" even means. For example, Newton's first big intellectual accomplishment was to have a strongly opinionated metaphysics which supported his experimental and theoretical approach. In the contemporary world, proper metaphysics (as described above) is mostly done by physicists themselves, occasionally in cooperation with philosophers. See [1] for a fairly recent example. Similarly, proper metamathematics is most often done by mathematicians, with occasional contributions from philosophers, e.g. [2]. Any time a physicist is writing about the fundamental methodology of the discipline, or about a topic that is not, for now, empirically testable, he is doing metaphysics, often with a hefty dose of mathematics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_Reality_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singular_Universe_and_the_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_on_teaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofs_and_Refutations#Impact_...

neonological 6y ago
The problem here is you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Yeah I can meta the entire universe together if I wanted to. What’s the set of all things that can be talked about? Metaphysics and the Milesian school of thought are both elements in that set. There’s no point in this categorization however compelling you find the arguments within their respective fields.
- routerl 6y ago
  > you have the philosophy of animism sitting side by side with metaphysics as if there’s some meta category that encapsulates the two. Sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? > Yeah I can meta the entire universe together Metaphysics is very specifically about the underlying assumptions of physics. It always has been, even though the meaning of the word physics has changed wildly over time. The current meaning of "physics" dictates that it is a metaphysical question whether, for example, quantum theory or string theory are correct. This is metaphysical because it is about underlying assumptions which cannot yet be tested experimentally. You seem to be taking anyone who uses the word "metaphysics" as actually doing metaphysics, but no professional physicist or philosopher believes this. Some people may well call themselves "physicists" and then talk about ghosts, but it is nonetheless widely understood in the profession that physics is in no way about ghosts. This is similarly true of metaphysics and animism. When we speak of historical beliefs that are no longer current in civilization, then sure, animism might show up and be presented as "metaphysical", but so what? Newton was wrong about corpuscles being the fundamental unit of matter, but that doesn't mean he wasn't doing physics. It just means he was wrong about part of his system of thought, which is always to be expected when looking at past thinkers.
  - neonological 6y ago
    > sorry, what are you referring to? Where do these things sit side by side? Animism sits side by side with metaphysics under philosophy. >... When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. You can even metameta. I’m saying the legitimacy of talking about metaphysics is different from the legitimacy of say metatoilets. Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. This isn’t history class that I’m talking about here. If some scientist is wrong about something, that hypothesis is discarded from science. Animism has not been discarded... it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. This is the category error I’m talking about.
    - routerl 6y ago
      You're really just arguing against an imagined opponent, at this point. > Animism is a philosophy btw. And it’s still a philosophy to this very day. No it isn't. I'm talking about professional philosophers. > it is a school of thought discussed side by side with the philosophy of science. No it isn't. Not by anyone that matters. > When I say meta Without “physics” as a suffix I mean anything from metareligion to metagrassonyourlawn. I don't care. Metaphysics is where "meta" comes from, and it has a specific meaning and interpretation, within professional philosophy. You are not referring to this specific meaning, and so I don't care what your thoughts are anymore. You're tilting at windmills my friend.

namero999 6y ago

Random speculations? Certain philosophies at least survived the test of time (we are talking about millennia) while we still have to see a scientific theory survive a handful of centuries... Of course I'm pushing back with my statement, but really claiming philosophy is "random speculations" sounds really uninformed and naive.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
neonological 6y ago
That's the problem with philosophy. It's archaic. It doesn't self improve. Christianity and Muslims have been around almost as long as philosophy. It doesn't make their opposing views automatically valid nor does it eliminate the randomness of some arbitrary beliefs in each respective religion (why is jesus named jesus, for example).
- namero999 6y ago
  Feel free to consciously ignore the developments of the last few thousands year, and to hold the immature view that religious myths have to be taken literally. This sounds like something my teenage nephew would say, so I have lost interest in arguing with you on these topics.
  - neonological 6y ago
    This is a personal attack which is against the rules here. I think you took my words as an attack because you’ve been personally invested in philosophy for so long defending it like a cultist who refuses to take reality at face value. Greek mythology and Chinese mythology and most mythology were invented in the past as literal explanations of reality. The penchant today to not take things literally is an excuse. Our understanding of reality has changed and the archaic explanations of of the past no longer work yet blind loyalty still binds you to religious explanations. This is why people twist the explanations and say to not take them literally. Were people in the past so stupid that they had to wrap every explanation in the symbolism of a fantastical myth? Doubtful. This is more likely the excuse made by someone who cannot reconcile rationality with there loyalty to a religion. I don’t think you actually lost interest. I think you just know you lost.