Head_case
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Posts
- 606
- Likes
- 14
Quote:
The problem with the philosophical foundation of biology, is that it still trades on speculative thought, and propositions evolutionary theory as a science. Are you satisfied with the method of scientific induction, based on premises, which require extensive (and atheoretical extrapolation), in order to 'make the theory' work? Empirical foundations for observational data like natural selection are valid; however interpreting sense-data (observed) into a speculative framework like evolutionary theory, is not science per se. Philosophically speaking, there are too many contentions in the false premises of evolutionary theory to make it satisfying as an example to affirm this point. I would prefer you choose Alexander Fleming's petri dish trials with the fungus from which Penicillin was derived. The empirical foundations for his sense-data observations, are eminently ...empirical. This kind of modern empirical science I can recognise with no difficulty. However hybridising [speculative thought on a theory of origin] with modern science, is a different enterprise altogether.
Quote:
Do I have to spit it out....?
Quote:
What else is there? The danger of presupposing a logical system of knowing, extends to a systematic worldview with completeness as its ultimate goal. This kind of epistemology is irrelevant when we deal with existential themes: thought is not Being: knowing is not Being: there can be no 'existential system of Being' - this is a rubbish premise in itself. 'Being' risks being rubbished in the tradition of analytical philosophy. This is why, it is safer for monists to use obsessional defences and cling onto methodology, rather than move beyond their zones of knowing, into the mystery of Being.
In general, continental philosophers accede to the impossiblity of knowing Being and are more humble for it [rather than reducing 'Being' to some impoverished concept or 'thought']. They refuse to accept the reduction of Being into either polar theory of monism [idealism vs materialism]: the discourse and language of the continental philosopher shifts, precisely because a logical system of knowing, which extends its knowing to a systematised Weltanschauung, aims for completeness as its project: this would swallow Being. That is - Being is reduced to bite sized chunks of not-being anymore. Whereas there can be a logical system of epistemology [knowing/thought]; thought is not existence; existence is not thought, and anyone who claims this to be, is as schizoid as Descartes, failing to recognise the fullness of life, of which 'thought' is a part of.
I've written this twice, so that it's easier to get around listening to a head case
No existential system of philosophy is possible: the terminology of the reductionists is useless when dealing with the philosophy of Being: all you can do, is dance around Being, or retreat back into the philosophy of non-being.
Anyway - do tell us which particular continental philosophers you are referring to
Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. My point is that epistemologists are right to spend lots of time on method, even if they shouldn't spend all their time worrying about it. Analogously, philosophers of biology are right to spend lots of time on evolution, even if they shouldn't spend all their time worry about it. |
The problem with the philosophical foundation of biology, is that it still trades on speculative thought, and propositions evolutionary theory as a science. Are you satisfied with the method of scientific induction, based on premises, which require extensive (and atheoretical extrapolation), in order to 'make the theory' work? Empirical foundations for observational data like natural selection are valid; however interpreting sense-data (observed) into a speculative framework like evolutionary theory, is not science per se. Philosophically speaking, there are too many contentions in the false premises of evolutionary theory to make it satisfying as an example to affirm this point. I would prefer you choose Alexander Fleming's petri dish trials with the fungus from which Penicillin was derived. The empirical foundations for his sense-data observations, are eminently ...empirical. This kind of modern empirical science I can recognise with no difficulty. However hybridising [speculative thought on a theory of origin] with modern science, is a different enterprise altogether.
Quote:
2. Don't you mean split rather than spilt? |
Do I have to spit it out....?
Quote:
3. The dancing is enjoyable; this is the thing about continental philosophers I love the most. My friends in that tradition take it all much less seriously, it's more fun. But then, of course, as was pointed out, there are a whole lot of dogmatic continentals too. |
What else is there? The danger of presupposing a logical system of knowing, extends to a systematic worldview with completeness as its ultimate goal. This kind of epistemology is irrelevant when we deal with existential themes: thought is not Being: knowing is not Being: there can be no 'existential system of Being' - this is a rubbish premise in itself. 'Being' risks being rubbished in the tradition of analytical philosophy. This is why, it is safer for monists to use obsessional defences and cling onto methodology, rather than move beyond their zones of knowing, into the mystery of Being.
In general, continental philosophers accede to the impossiblity of knowing Being and are more humble for it [rather than reducing 'Being' to some impoverished concept or 'thought']. They refuse to accept the reduction of Being into either polar theory of monism [idealism vs materialism]: the discourse and language of the continental philosopher shifts, precisely because a logical system of knowing, which extends its knowing to a systematised Weltanschauung, aims for completeness as its project: this would swallow Being. That is - Being is reduced to bite sized chunks of not-being anymore. Whereas there can be a logical system of epistemology [knowing/thought]; thought is not existence; existence is not thought, and anyone who claims this to be, is as schizoid as Descartes, failing to recognise the fullness of life, of which 'thought' is a part of.
I've written this twice, so that it's easier to get around listening to a head case
No existential system of philosophy is possible: the terminology of the reductionists is useless when dealing with the philosophy of Being: all you can do, is dance around Being, or retreat back into the philosophy of non-being.
Anyway - do tell us which particular continental philosophers you are referring to