Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Leontiskos]

In Aristotelian terms biology is the study of being qua living, and physics is the study of being qua material motion, and mathematics it the study of being qua number, etc. But of course metaphysics, or first philosophy, is not delimited, and is thus precisely the study of being qua being. I wonder, though, what the naysayers would say is the properly limited domain of philosophy?

Naysayers simply don't want to talk about it, and they don't read Continental philosophy, and by the time they even know it exists, save Kant, they have already spent their interests on analytic philosophy. Rorty was one of the few who knew both worlds.

With respect to the secular realm I agree, but I come from the Catholic world and in the Catholic world the analogue to analytic philosophy is Scholasticism, which is much older and much more robust than analytic philosophy. Further, the roots of Scholasticism go back to Aristotle's logic and natural science. So when you bring in the Platonists, the Neo-Platonists, the Aristotelians, the Augustinians, the Thomists, etc., you have thinkers up and down the ages who "knew both worlds." Meister Eckhart is of special note since he was very influential on Heidegger. There are also many contemporary religious thinkers who either grappled with or embraced various forms of phenomenology (e.g. "The Dangerous Alliances Between Catholicism and Phenomenology").

The same could be said, to a lesser degree, for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, for their Greek-speaking world retained the influence of Aristotle (along with Plato) unabated, unlike the Latin West. Yet in the East the Aristotelian logic and curiosity was less present, and thus you get less of an "analytic" focus.

[Atla]

In Aristotelian terms biology is the study of being qua living, and physics is the study of being qua material motion, and mathematics it the study of being qua number, etc. But of course metaphysics, or first philosophy, is not delimited, and is thus precisely the study of being qua being. I wonder, though, what the naysayers would say is the properly limited domain of philosophy?

Hello, I'm a naysayer about phenomenology. Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that phenomenologists confuse "being" with "being as a typical, neurotypical 45 years old Western male philosopher of above average intelligence".

Being is universal, it encompasses everything in every way, shape and form. Every kind of human mind, every kind of life, and the non-living world. Phenomenologists however seem to view being strictly through the mind, through the mental givens and happenings of the above mentioned type. Why is that such a big deal please?

[Leontiskos]

In Aristotelian terms biology is the study of being qua living, and physics is the study of being qua material motion, and mathematics it the study of being qua number, etc. But of course metaphysics, or first philosophy, is not delimited, and is thus precisely the study of being qua being. I wonder, though, what the naysayers would say is the properly limited domain of philosophy?

Hello, I'm a naysayer about phenomenology. Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me that phenomenologists confuse "being" with "being as a typical, neurotypical 45 years old Western male philosopher of above average intelligence".

Being is universal, it encompasses everything in every way, shape and form. Every kind of human mind, every kind of life, and the non-living world. Phenomenologists however seem to view being strictly through the mind, through the mental givens and happenings of the above mentioned type. Why is that such a big deal please?

I think that's just an effect of Heidegger, but he clearly distinguished between different kinds of "being". By "naysayers" I was referring to the OP rather than to phenomenology. It is quite possible to agree with the OP but disagree with phenomenology.

[Atla]

I think that's just an effect of Heidegger, but he clearly distinguished between different kinds of "being". By "naysayers" I was referring to the OP rather than to phenomenology. It is quite possible to agree with the OP but disagree with phenomenology.

I thought the OP was already about phenomenology, maybe I misunderstood. Yes science is just abstracting from the world, and has no business telling us what the world "is", so far so good, no disagreement there. Granted, even though this is a pretty obvious insight, often scientists and science-followers already don't make it this far.

So instead we should take a step back, and take in the world as a whole as it is directly experienced, and THEN say what the world "is", right? Indeed this is the more fundamental approach, and it is also underpinning the scientific view. So this must be the real deal.

My issue is that no, ultimately this also isn't the real deal, as nothing is. The world has no such "givenness", what we experience is mostly just the "givenness" of our own individual human mind. For example the world isn't brimming with meaning, our minds are, the qualia of meaning may objectively exist and it may be abundant in the human mind, yet that has no real implications for the rest of the world. Same goes for any other "givenness". So we still can't tell what the world "is", because it really isn't anything. We are fooling ourselves if we continue to believe that there really is a philosophical bedrock we can dig down to. And because of that, the hegemony of science isn't that absurd, we can treat the world any way we want.

[Leontiskos]

I thought the OP was already about phenomenology, maybe I misunderstood.

I suppose the first paragraph has a phenomenological color. I was thinking more of the second paragraph of the OP.

So instead we should take a step back, and take in the world as a whole as it is directly experienced, and THEN say what the world "is", right? Indeed this is the more fundamental approach, and it is also underpinning the scientific view. So this must be the real deal.

My issue is that no, ultimately this also isn't the real deal, as nothing is. The world has no such "givenness", what we experience is mostly just the "givenness" of our own individual human mind. For example the world isn't brimming with meaning, our minds are, the qualia of meaning may objectively exist and it may be abundant in the human mind, yet that has no real implications for the rest of the world. Same goes for any other "givenness". So we still can't tell what the world "is", because it really isn't anything. We are fooling ourselves if we continue to believe that there really is a philosophical bedrock we can dig down to. And because of that, the hegemony of science isn't that absurd, we can treat the world any way we want.

If you want to take an anti-realist skeptical view of the world, how then could this support the hegemony of science? It seems to me that the hegemony of science really is incompatible with such a skeptical view.

[Atla]

If you want to take an anti-realist skeptical view of the world, how then could this support the hegemony of science? It seems to me that the hegemony of science really is incompatible with such a skeptical view.

Isn't phenomenology also incompatible with anti-realist skepticism then, just less so? But you'll have to define what you mean by anti-realist skepticism, to be honest I've found both realism and anti-realism to be problematic, and also there seem to be like a dozen definitions for them.

[Leontiskos]

If you want to take an anti-realist skeptical view of the world, how then could this support the hegemony of science? It seems to me that the hegemony of science really is incompatible with such a skeptical view.

Isn't phenomenology also incompatible with anti-realist skepticism then, just less so?

Yes, probably, but there are very many different phenomenological schools that seem to hold different degrees of realism.

But you'll have to define what you mean by anti-realist skepticism, to be honest I've found both realism and anti-realism to be problematic, and also there seem to be like a dozen definitions for them.

You seemed to be saying that we only really experience our own minds, not an external world, which is an anti-realist view. By 'skepticism' I mean that you take a skeptical stance towards the ability to truly know the external world, beyond the human mind.

[Atla]

You seemed to be saying that we only really experience our own minds, not an external world, which is an anti-realist view. By 'skepticism' I mean that you take a skeptical stance towards the ability to truly know the external world, beyond the human mind.

Yes human consciousness is probably representational, all we can experience are our own minds, and we infer an outside world from this experience. But we can never really tell what it's "actually like out there", or whether there is even an "out there".

If that's what you meant, then I don't see how this is incompatible with science, as this is pretty much the current scientific view. That there is a "model" of the world in our head, and that's what we experience. Few take naive realism seriously anymore.

[Leontiskos]

You seemed to be saying that we only really experience our own minds, not an external world, which is an anti-realist view. By 'skepticism' I mean that you take a skeptical stance towards the ability to truly know the external world, beyond the human mind.

Yes human consciousness is probably representational, all we can experience are our own minds, and we infer an outside world from this experience. But we can never really tell what it's "actually like out there", or whether there is even an "out there".

If that's what you meant, then I don't see how this is incompatible with science, as this is pretty much the current scientific view. That there is a "model" of the world in our head, and that's what we experience. Few take naive realism seriously anymore.

I suppose the simple answer is that science studies the world, not phenomena of the human mind. So if you don't admit a world beyond the confines of the mind, you can't do science.

[Atla]

You seemed to be saying that we only really experience our own minds, not an external world, which is an anti-realist view. By 'skepticism' I mean that you take a skeptical stance towards the ability to truly know the external world, beyond the human mind.

Yes human consciousness is probably representational, all we can experience are our own minds, and we infer an outside world from this experience. But we can never really tell what it's "actually like out there", or whether there is even an "out there".

If that's what you meant, then I don't see how this is incompatible with science, as this is pretty much the current scientific view. That there is a "model" of the world in our head, and that's what we experience. Few take naive realism seriously anymore.

I suppose the simple answer is that science studies the world, not phenomena of the human mind. So if you don't admit a world beyond the confines of the mind, you can't do science.

You can't really do anything if you don't assume a world beyond the confines of the mind. You can't even have concepts like beyond, confines and mind.

[Sy Borg]

You seemed to be saying that we only really experience our own minds, not an external world, which is an anti-realist view. By 'skepticism' I mean that you take a skeptical stance towards the ability to truly know the external world, beyond the human mind.

Yes human consciousness is probably representational, all we can experience are our own minds, and we infer an outside world from this experience. But we can never really tell what it's "actually like out there", or whether there is even an "out there".

If that's what you meant, then I don't see how this is incompatible with science, as this is pretty much the current scientific view. That there is a "model" of the world in our head, and that's what we experience. Few take naive realism seriously anymore.

I suppose the simple answer is that science studies the world, not phenomena of the human mind. So if you don't admit a world beyond the confines of the mind, you can't do science.

You can't really do anything if you don't assume a world beyond the confines of the mind. You can't even have concepts like beyond, confines and mind.

Agreed. While consciousness is the only truly certain truth in our lives, the contents of the mind are based on real phenomena, even if perceived with bias.

Rather than being surrounded by no world or one world, we appear to reside within many, many potential worlds, with each world rendered from the incomprehensible maelstrom of physical reality* by different sensory apparatus. In a sense, we do not live in the same world as ants or mice, for example, despite being embedded in the same physical schema.

From this perspective, idealism, phenomenology and modern science can work in tandem rather in opposition. Existentialist ideas too can be thought of in terms of cause and effect, antecedent and result, extending back in evolutionary history to the birth of the will with the first sense/response reflexes. Even religious texts can be seen as the ancients no doubt intended - metaphorically - without conflicting with modern science.

I see no reason (outside of history) why these disciplines need be in competition, other than the pragmatic economic decisions to silo, rather than connect, different disciplines. So I see less of an absurd hegemony of science than shallow criticisms of ancient ideas by, admittedly, a fair proportion of science buffs. I put such secular hostility towards spiritual ideas down to resentment against the presumed and unearned authority of religions in the past, and their interference with policy-making today, the schisms widened by a rise in fundamentalism/Biblical literalism.

Of course, if you are talking about where the grant money goes, it should be said that some areas of science are not well patronised. Biologists, for example, frequently have to struggle for funding while nuclear physics, space exploration, weapons development, neuroscience and AI are far better supported. The "hegemony" is perhaps less science's per se, than certain tranches.

Interesting and informative discussion BTW. Thanks.


* Without filtering by the brain, reality would be perceived as blinding and deafening chaos.

[Leontiskos]

I suppose the simple answer is that science studies the world, not phenomena of the human mind. So if you don't admit a world beyond the confines of the mind, you can't do science.

You can't really do anything if you don't assume a world beyond the confines of the mind. You can't even have concepts like beyond, confines and mind.

I agree, but since you say above that "we can't tell what the world is because it really isn't anything," it seems that "[you] can't really do anything." That is, you are failing to make this crucial "assumption."

In any case, science studies the world, not phenomena of the mind. If you think we only have access to the phenomena of the human mind, and have no access to the external world, then you cannot do science. Whether you can do anything at all is beside my point.

[Atla]

I agree, but since you say above that "we can't tell what the world is because it really isn't anything," it seems that "[you] can't really do anything." That is, you are failing to make this crucial "assumption."

I meant that the world isn't really "anything", there is no "isness", so ultimately we can treat the world any way we want. "Isness" is a way of thinking, and philosophy can move beyond it, it can go deeper than phenomenology.

Treating the world any way we want, of course also includes the option of "not doing anything", but what would be the point of that, should we lay down and die? Instead what we can do is agree on how to treat the world, which "isness" to buy into.

Science says that the "givenness" of the world "IS" matter, protons, electrons, energy etc., but that's ultimately just a treatment of the world.

Phenomenology says that no-no, the real "givenness" of the world is more fundamental, it "IS" being as such as such, meaning, value, sensation etc.

But ultimately that's also just a treatment of the world, so phenomenology and science arent't all that dissimilar in this sense, and the hegemony of science isn't all that absurd. Plus science attempts to look at the whole world, while phenomenology seems to misattribute human mental things to the world. I think it's important to make the assumption that human consciousness is representational, so the phenomena are just the phenomena of the representational human mind, as far as I know Kant didn't want to make this assumption, but he should have.

In any case, science studies the world, not phenomena of the mind. If you think we only have access to the phenomena of the human mind, and have no access to the external world, then you cannot do science. Whether you can do anything at all is beside my point.

I don't understand this argument, the phenomena of the mind seem to represent the outside world very accurately, unless someone has severe conditions such as schizophrenia. Technically everyone is limited to their own minds, and everyone is assuming a shared outside world, and this works.

[Leontiskos]

I agree, but since you say above that "we can't tell what the world is because it really isn't anything," it seems that "[you] can't really do anything." That is, you are failing to make this crucial "assumption."

I meant that the world isn't really "anything", there is no "isness", so ultimately we can treat the world any way we want. "Isness" is a way of thinking, and philosophy can move beyond it, it can go deeper than phenomenology.

Treating the world any way we want, of course also includes the option of "not doing anything", but what would be the point of that, should we lay down and die? Instead what we can do is agree on how to treat the world, which "isness" to buy into.

Science says that the "givenness" of the world "IS" matter, protons, electrons, energy etc., but that's ultimately just a treatment of the world.

Phenomenology says that no-no, the real "givenness" of the world is more fundamental, it "IS" being as such as such, meaning, value, sensation etc.

But ultimately that's also just a treatment of the world, so phenomenology and science arent't all that dissimilar in this sense, and the hegemony of science isn't all that absurd. Plus science attempts to look at the whole world, while phenomenology seems to misattribute human mental things to the world. I think it's important to make the assumption that human consciousness is representational, so the phenomena are just the phenomena of the representational human mind, as far as I know Kant didn't want to make this assumption, but he should have.

Let me offer a couple of points (there was a third but I lost my post and then forgot the third):

1. You seem to have moved from a rather strong anti-realism to a rather strong realism in the matter of a few posts. For example, above you claimed:

"The world has no such "givenness", what we experience is mostly just the "givenness" of our own individual human mind. For example the world isn't brimming with meaning, our minds are, the qualia of meaning may objectively exist and it may be abundant in the human mind, yet that has no real implications for the rest of the world."

This is much different from what you say now. You went from claiming that the phenomena of the mind "has no real implications for the rest of the world" to saying that "the phenomena of the mind seem to represent the outside world very accurately." Of course insofar as you abandon and move away from that earlier anti-realism, you will be able to undertake the sort of inquiry that presupposes some form of realism, e.g. science.

2. Science does not say that the givenness of the world is matter, protons, etc. Science rather says that the givenness of the world includes matter, protons, etc. If you are an anti-realist with respect to matter you can't do science, because science really does presuppose matter. It could be called a "treatment" of the world, but it is also an interpretation of the world that the scientist must in reality affirm. The hegemony of science is absurd because science has no basis for excluding things outside of its domain of inquiry.

In any case, science studies the world, not phenomena of the mind. If you think we only have access to the phenomena of the human mind, and have no access to the external world, then you cannot do science. Whether you can do anything at all is beside my point.

I don't understand this argument, the phenomena of the mind seem to represent the outside world very accurately, unless someone has severe conditions such as schizophrenia. Technically everyone is limited to their own minds, and everyone is assuming a shared outside world, and this works.

As far as I am concerned, if you think you can reliably and accurately infer an outside reality from the phenomena you experience, then you are committed to some form of indirect or mediated realism, which is the most common kind. Science surely does presuppose such a thing.

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor1 wrote
Where is your hegemony of science please?

My complaint is that no science can provide an explanatory basis for things in general, but people think like this all the time. They think the world is what science says it is and beyond this, there is only what the pending "paradigmatic scientific revolutions" will eventually yield.

Please cite!
Your comments are hoplessly subjective and generalised.

This kind of thinking doesn't even provide the proper starting place for a true explanatory basis of the world.

Each and every discipline claims to have explanatory value and all disciplines provide exaplanations within the framework and using the parameters of their discipline.
This is true of eveything from religion to astronomy. But I have to tell you that the only place I have witnessed doubt about the value of that explanation is from scientists, many of whom know that what they are doing is desfriptive. And no one does a better job of making accurate and valid descriptions of the world, since it is science that makes these things their aim.
But NO where do I see science in any form of hegemony. Maybe you live on another planet.

One has to ignore what science says, that is, suspend this (epoche) and look to what science presupposes in order to get to a foundation. And what one finds in this approach is that all things properly analyzed presuppose something they are not; they are endlessly deferential. I say cat and you ask me what this is, and I have other ideas int he waiting, and for those I have other ideas, and this never stops. foundations all are deferential, so there are no foundations. Science's world of empirical concepts are the same.

This oes not make any sense. "Once has to..." why??

The only true foundation is the endless deferential nature of all knowledge claims, and instead of substance or materiality, we have no archemedian point to "leverage" meaning.

Interestingly poetic, but useless.

The advantage this brings to the understanding is it undoes this blind confidence in scientific thinking at the foundational level (certainly not regarding how to send people to Mars or make a better cell phone). the upshot is the encouragement of an all inclusiveness of ontological priorities: there is no longer any privilege given to traditional ontologies, keeping in mind that privileging of this kind forces interpretations of our affairs to be "of" or "issue from" the privileged idea. The mysteries and the affectivity and all the things that human experience IS, are restored to a nonreductive place.

Claims without basis. Solutions without problems.
It seems to me that you are getting to show your hand here. My thought it that you resent science for its undoubable success, but would rather the world constucted differently and so you invent claims about science holding hegemony, which sadly it does not.
The appearance of science and its undoubted sucesses in the face of more wishy washy disciplines such as the humanities and soft sciences may look like hegemony but its just because science is effective whilst history and religion are simply not useful.