Philosophy: Philosophy:Science ; ...
Is anyone having standardized test flashbacks?
Remember those questions:
Music:Note ; Literature: ...
Anyone, anyone? Anyone who said "word" gets a gold star!
And the answer to the titular question?
I say it's "Judaism:Christianity".
Christianity is a cult of Judaism, or a theological and philosophical child and purported successor. Christianity replaces Judaism as a new paradigm, but Judaism is valuable for historical and educational purposes. Modern Judaism is obsolete, and is sort of an unfortable embarrassment - they've heard the news, but they just haven't gotten it. (That was my understanding as a fundamentalist Christian.)
Science is the daughter of Philosophy; originally one of Philosophy's aspects, it's matured into its own discrete field of study that is often at odds with the Philosopher's approach.
Science attempts to understand, categorize, and possibly manipulate the material world, including our own selves. Philosophy questions whether this material world and our own selves exist, undermining Science's legitimacy.
What are the implications of this? I dunno. Just thought I'd point out the comparison.
posted by Wray Davis @ 9:09 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Undermining science's legitimacy? Hmm somehow I don't think I agree with that statement, but the reason why is just beyond me for the moment...maybe because science deals with the physical...whether we can see it or not and philosophy deals with ideas... but I don't think they are any less real or that the ideas undermine the physical... does that make sense?
I see what you mean, but existential philosophy, especially, I think is in direct competition with science for legitimacy. Basically, it demands that we pay more attention to one of the two of them and regard the other as a diversion. Either everything really does exist as we can measure it and interact with it, and trying to determine if we can prove that it exists is a pedantic exercise conducted in the footprints of where academia has already trodden. Or it is a legitimate question, and we're spending far too many resources and good minds studying what we're not even sure is reality anyway, and we should probably get that fundamental question resolved first.
In a different track, metaphysics tries to absolutely determine the nature of things which we can't see or feel or measure by logic alone - acheiving a certainty that science boasts of, but without the rigor, the proof, or the data collection. Of course, both science and philosophy have flip-flopped uncounted times even on the most critical assumptions, but I suppose science would argue that it was based on new data, not a change in the weather (unless they were studying weather).
Post a Comment
<< Home