Freigemachten
2nd September 2007, 11:07
I've been considering the nature of philosophy lately and what it means. What I'm coming to is that one starts with a premise, from that premise, one then argues logically and reasonably until an end assumption is made. This is true of the Marxist philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. As an example, the Greek philosophers took as a premise, all things are made of fundamental parts. From there it was reasoned out that there were elements in nature which made up all things, e.g. fire, air, earth, etc, it logically followed that people were made of all of these things, then come about religious ideas that agree with this, simply because it follows in a somewhat logical sense.
My problem with philosophy comes in this; what is the process for the validation of the premise? Yes, it can be logically reached as reasonable, but as has been demonstrated to me recently (in so much detail and such convoluted logic, I couldn't wish to repeat it) with the right assumed premise, people can fly without mechanical aid and we will all live forever. I can come to nothing but the fact that philosophy and reason are not enough.
What are the potential alternatives? In this same demonstration of the failure of logic, other means of obtaining knowledge were demonstrated. Some are immediately dismisable, such as "authority" which is knowing things simply because others have said it is known, or by "tenacity" which is knowing something simply because it has always been known (gravity, existence and such). Clearly, inadequate. Next comes what is refered to as 'Commonsense' but is really only empiricism, observation. Using the senses to obtain knowledge. However, as is demonstrated by illusionists, the senses can be tricked.
What are we left with?
Simply put, we are left with science. Back in the day, philosophers were the scientists of their time, though instead of experimenting, they followed logic and reason. As experimentation began to disprove logic and reason, as well as tenacity and authority, it became more widely accepted. My point essentially is that logic and philosophy have any place in logical society because they have been replaced with actual science.
My problem with philosophy comes in this; what is the process for the validation of the premise? Yes, it can be logically reached as reasonable, but as has been demonstrated to me recently (in so much detail and such convoluted logic, I couldn't wish to repeat it) with the right assumed premise, people can fly without mechanical aid and we will all live forever. I can come to nothing but the fact that philosophy and reason are not enough.
What are the potential alternatives? In this same demonstration of the failure of logic, other means of obtaining knowledge were demonstrated. Some are immediately dismisable, such as "authority" which is knowing things simply because others have said it is known, or by "tenacity" which is knowing something simply because it has always been known (gravity, existence and such). Clearly, inadequate. Next comes what is refered to as 'Commonsense' but is really only empiricism, observation. Using the senses to obtain knowledge. However, as is demonstrated by illusionists, the senses can be tricked.
What are we left with?
Simply put, we are left with science. Back in the day, philosophers were the scientists of their time, though instead of experimenting, they followed logic and reason. As experimentation began to disprove logic and reason, as well as tenacity and authority, it became more widely accepted. My point essentially is that logic and philosophy have any place in logical society because they have been replaced with actual science.