The scientist seeks the HOW whereas the (realist) philosopher seeks the WHY. Never will the scientist find the whys, only the hows of the whys. One discovery leads to another discovery, which leads to other discoveries, and again to more discoveries. Nothing to write home about because matter is fundamentally undetermined (from the point of view of finality) and says nothing about quality. Quality is simply beyond its' reach. Science studies matter and quantity, enlarging only what it knows, thus quantity, never quality, and the end focusses on quality. One can only measure the effects of quality.
As you leave a comment, please read profile.
As you leave a comment, please read profile.
Posts
I enjoyed reading this. Good points! Makes one think more...
ReplyDeletehola Liz,
ReplyDeleteInterrogation is the wind that blows into the sails... lol
The Count has never thought like this. You make a very good and over-looked point. One can only measure quality. Yes. This must be why they rejected the donation of the Count's brain over at the University of
ReplyDeleteMedical Toxology and Taxidermy. I jest, but this is a good observation. My best Count Sneaky
THE count is running behind. He should have done this before, but he just gave you a link on his blog.Your current as well, of course, as all your posts have given the old Count much to think about. My best Count Sneaky
ReplyDeleteSomeone said that since philosophy pursues questions rather than answers, the responsibility of philosophy is not so much to answer our questions as to question given answers. Psychology resists the whys and prefers to focus on how and what. Theology seems to deal primarily with who. And then there is journalism which pursues what, when, where, who, and how.
ReplyDeleteAll these questions are driving me crazy.
@Count Sneaky,
ReplyDeleteMuch appreciate the noble sponsorship! Glad this has stretched the neuron.
@Sharley,
Those are excellent points, and your conslusion made me chuckle. One caveat, if the starting point of philosophy is internal experience, one rejects reality a priori, which often leads to consider it as contingent (which is the mathematical approach). Glad you dropped in!
A good journalist will ask Who, what, when, where, why and how?
ReplyDeleteWould it not bode well if we all did the same?
Philosophy, first philosophy - metaphysics, is ontology. It asks the question, What exists? I take it that you believe that (Aristotelian) substance exists. Substance, in the physical world, comprises matter and Form. Thus it is neither particular nor universal, (I think you wrote) concrete or abstract, but somehow "beyond" both. The main "job" of substance is to ground the identity of the object. Especially, to ground its identity through time or change. Thus, it also grounds the existence of the object even while no one is looking at it or is in any way aware of it. Indeed, no one may ever have been aware of it. It still exists as matter and Form in itself. It is of Being. Consciousness contributes nothing to its existence as matter and Form. Thus we avoid Idealism. Objects are! Man is irrelevant. That is very hard for man to accept.
ReplyDeletethis I love
ReplyDelete@angela,
ReplyDeleteThat could lead to an excess supply of journalists ;-)
@Gary,
Thanks for your insights. "Substance comprises matter and form (what is it?)" This is first substance - the subject. In the order of being, Substance (or ousia) is the first principle following the form of what is. What unites the subject (Gary) and form/universal (man) is the first principle in the order of being: substance, which would be your soul (which is neither concrete nor abstract).
As for ontology, in short, it is typically being in the mind, not being (as being).
Whoa, your words sure do make one think. Now I have a headache, lol.
ReplyDeleteThis is good stuff. Super, in fact, and I absolutely love reading it. Keep it up!
I feel the sensation of my brain tying itself into a knot. Thank you for that!
ReplyDeleteIm not a brainiac...your post made me think! wow! anyway nice blog.
ReplyDeletePlease permit me to make a modification to the above. Subject and Form are united by the Nexus "is". Gary is a man. The resulting complex is a fact. "The world is all that is the case (ie. all the facts)". That is the first line of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. The second line is "The world consists of facts, not of things." Another quote is from Aristotle – "The mind is one; the world is many." Therefore, let us say that the complex that is fact is gathered up in one thought. I know that [Gary is a man]. That phrase between the brackets is one thing, a thought. What I have done is divide the unity that you call substance into fact and thought. While the fact is a complex, the thought is simple. The thought is "of" the fact; it lies intimately with it. That "of", that intimacy, is a whole other story, a magnificent unity in itself that boggles the mind. The mind boggles itself. Being is a fantastic piece of engineering. We are that. And the thought of Being is intimate with Being. Thought escapes itself instantly in Being. The mind is not in the mind, but elsewhere.
ReplyDelete@Misstfied,
ReplyDeleteSorry about the headache, but glad you're enjoying. :D
@Analuz
It actually sounds more complicated than it is. Sure, you can't pick it up in one day.
@Gary,
Thakns for that, will get back to you tommorrow (late here)
This was an answer to someone who contested this how/why division.
ReplyDelete"Not true, at least not always. If you look hard enough there is an answer to be found in science. Not only that, there are even sciences such as physiology have formed around the question why."
Harvey
"Why" can have different meanings: the first, satisfies itself with a technical answer, but there is a second more metaphysical WHY : what is the radical reason it is so? Why are the physical laws so?
This second WHY does not appear immediately, but you need only start with a simple question and ask yourself why for each answer for physics to arrive to a dead end, at the threshold of metaphysics.
In the last analysis, physics only describes the world...
@Gary,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. The difficulty for me is I do not do a comparative philosophy, which was to some extent also the case of Avatar (with the moderns at least). However, I did notice in conversations between "realist" philosophers and others that there was often a question of equivocity (are we speaking of the same thing?)... not saying this is the case here.
Very briefly, on nexus - from Avatar... "Some have even qualified the verb to be as a nexus, a way of exacting vengeance, for since it is out of the reach of logic (note: logic deals with unversals or nouns) and has no signification, it was told: "you can be a nexus, instead of twiddling your thumbs!". :)
Sorry if it's short,I'm dealing with time constraints. I'll see if I can come up with something more for you, in the near future. Cheers.
Nicely articulated. Sometimes philosophy frustrates me, it feels like a waste of time. This helps give me perspective; taking the time to ponder the whys has a wonderful affect on the soul. By the way I see you are getting mad comments. I'm so excited I can say I knew you when you were a nobody : D
ReplyDeleteJK mon ami
Internsante, mi amigo
ReplyDelete@3L,
ReplyDeleteBig lol! Actually, this is something my friend Avatar would insist on. If you are going to have an artistic approach in philosophy (ie. in art the idea of an artist is a principle) you may as well just do art! :)
@Kenny,
Gracias! :)
Sorry, I think I have completely misunderstood what is going on at this website. It was that discussion about White and Whiteness that fooled me. I will quietly tiptoe away.
ReplyDelete@Gary,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand. What is this about being fooled? Your comments are much appreciated, but since I have a full time job I don't necessarily have the time to delve into them fully (I don't have years of philosophy behind me either). I have seen very intelligent so called Aristolians (in fact logicians) balk at this question of being which is beyond logic, in fact balk at metaphyics... one does not enter metaphysics so easily, it can take years. Again, your comment was much appreciated, and if you have anything further to add, please be my guest ;)
I aimlessly walk around in the Hotel California that is the Internet, as do so many others, and I think that I might join in the conversations I see going on here and there in the steamy rooms. It's usually a mistake. Before I came here, back before the Internet existed, I found my ideas out on the vast and empty rock-and-roll prairie. Nights alone in the hard analysis that is love's loss and a lover's jealousy. I have become too hard and inhuman for the gentle youth now engaging each other is a common search for who they are. I learned philosophical analysis and cutting logic. The personal was nowhere in sight. I engage only the One and Being's subtlety. The Friends that are Facebook do not see my face; I have no face. I want hard analysis in the rarified Forms of that hated Platonic Heaven. Its intense beauty cuts me. The god there ravishes me. He never sits with the gentle folk on the Internet, the gentle lovers, the sensible young people of today. The prairie wind undid me. My joining in the conversations was a misunderstanding on my part.
ReplyDeleteOur friend Gary should consider what a brilliant philosopher, Bertrand Russell once said: "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." How morose is our young friend Gary. He is smitten with profound melacholia. May we be granted one more quote?
ReplyDeleteThis is from Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf: "Seriousness, young man is an accident of time...in eternity there is no time, you see. Eternity is a mere moment, just long enough for a joke." The Count would suggest to him that we exist only in relation to each other...not to ideas, priciples, first causes,etc., etc. If you don't know yourself(That ancient idea again!) you have no basis to proceed. Because you exist, I exist. You and I can hold respectful conversations with each other and all those other humans out there to whom we are in no way superior. And this is Gary's loss not yours. My best Count Sneaky
Ah, the soporific heraldry in the blooms of misprision.
ReplyDeleteAh! The Count does tend to drone on and put one to sleep. My best to Gary. Count Sneaky
ReplyDeleteIt's been many years since I have been referred to as "our young friend Gary". How delightful! Thank you, Count.
ReplyDelete