ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Andrew M. Bailey15d ago
You understand philosophy a lot better when you see it as The Inter-discipline. Why is philosophy so hard? Because it has no defined techniques, problems, established knowledge base, or ends. Why does philosophy sit so uneasily within the humanities? Because it extends far beyond them. Philosophy lives in the cracks.
💬 9 replies

Replies (9)

Andrew M. Bailey15d ago
And now a picky point: the right way to read the diagram is not as a strict Venn, according to which every part of physics etc, is also a part of philosophy. Rather, philosophy overlaps all the (blue) bits between the disciplines, and the white borders around each discipline.
0000 sats
a source familiar with the matter15d ago
I don't agree. I think Western intellectuals were unwilling to accept simple an obvious truths and wanted something more "profound". There's a real objective world outside my mind, which I can learn about through observation and experimentation. There's no need to complicate with a bunch of bullshit.
0000 sats
Neal15d ago
and you are a subject in that objective world. wrestling with that necessary relation is not “bullshit” even though it’s inherently messy to operate in “either or’s” is logically incoherent in technical terms, and retarded in rhetorical terms
0000 sats
a source familiar with the matter14d ago
What's messy about it? I think mostly people who are unwilling to deal with reality claim it's messy, it's complicated, you can't use "either/or" logic etc etc
0000 sats
Andrew M. Bailey15d ago
Which Western intellectuals do you have in mind? The ones I find most insightful would agree with you that there’s an objective world, knowable, etc.
0000 sats
Neal13d ago
seeming paradoxes about necessary relations.
0000 sats
a source familiar with the matter13d ago
Virtually all of them but with special attention to Plato, Kant, and by extension virtually all modern Western philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-id… > In the first edition (A) of the Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1781, Kant argues for a surprising set of claims about space, time, and objects: > Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings. > The objects we intuit in space and time are appearances, not objects that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves). This is also true of the mental states we intuit in introspection; in “inner sense” (introspective awareness of my inner states) I intuit only how I appear to myself, not how I am “in myself”.
0000 sats
Andrew M. Bailey13d ago
I think Kant was out to lunch on that. So do lots of intellectuals I know, and read, and find most insightful. You might want to expand your reading habits, if it feels to you like “virtually all modern Western philosophy” follows Kant in this respect!
0000 sats
a source familiar with the matter12d ago
Thanks for the recommendations
0000 sats