Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Death & Rebirth of Philosophy
0 views
Skip to first unread message
cybrwurm
Jan 1, 2004, 3:17:37 AM1/1/04
to
+
/ Subject > Death & Rebirth of Philosophy /
/ Newsgroup > alt.philosophy / 01 January 2004 /
.
"The past is never definitively fixed except
when it has no future." -- Raymond Aron
.
Once upon a time, very long ago, philosophy was thought to be
the queen of the sciences. But then theology came along and
claimed the top spot for itself, relegating philosophy to a
merely supportive role: the 'handmaid of theology'. Now one may
consider such a forced servitude to be contrary to the nature
of philosophy, and perhaps even an abomination, but for many
centuries it was the only way to keep philosophy alive.
.
Nor was it entirely barren, for the works of Plato and Aristotle
forced theologians to generate some original thinking of their
own. This tradition doubtless reached a peak with Thomas Aquinas
who built his all-inclusive system on the sure foundation of 'The
Philosopher' (ie. Aristotle). After that there seemed little left
for philosophy to do; yet this was not a flaw within philosophy
herself, but rather the inevitable result of the condition of
slavery imposed upon Her.
.
Thus nothing more could be done as long as She was wrapped
up in theological chains. And so more centuries passed by as the
world slowly changed and gradually emerged from out of a static
and timeless dream. And when the time was ripe, a man stepped
forth to break the chains that had held philosophy down for so
long. It was Descartes and his program of radical doubt that
eventually led to the liberation of philosophy. But there was
nowhere for Her to go except back to Her ancient role as the
queen of the sciences.
.
But soon Her children, now drunk with freedom, and intoxicated
by their own growing power, became unruly and rebellious. The
sciences declared that they had no need of their Mother. Thus
the Queen was dethroned and promptly decapitated. The sciences
took away from Her all that once belonged exclusively within
her hands. Politics, economics, sociology, psychology, etc etc,
all came of age, and declared their autonomy and independence.
"What need have we of you, Old Woman?", they asked; and not
in a kindly way.
.
And they dared even to laugh upon Her, for now She held
an almost empty bag in Her weak and feeble hands. Logic,
epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and precious little else
were all that remained of philosophy. And these subjects were
of no interest to anyone, surely. Thus the cost of Her freedom
seemed absurdly high. Theology and Science both went their
separate ways, and had no use for Philosophy whatsoever.
And so it was, even unto this very day!
.
But wait! This is not the end of the story of philosophy,
because this is not the whole story. For behind the scenes of
this sad spectacle of philosophy's public ridicule and ruin,
another smaller story was quietly playing out, unnoticed by all
but a few hardy and tenacious souls. It took place within the
story of the development of History.
.
Now the story of History is even longer than that of Philosophy,
and it too suffered through many and various growing pains over
the centuries. When philosophy was infected by the lethal virus
of positivism and empiricism, History was similarly affected.
Some historians, in their zeal, even dared to declare that
History itself was a science; but the futility of this idea
eventually became apparent to those few philosophers and
historians who rigorously thought the matter through.
.
All this criticism-of-history raised a serious question: What
is History? Is it Art? Is it Science? Is it both, or neither?
Or is it something else again? In the opening decades of the
twentieth century an Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce
proposed that History should be placed under the category of
Art, for it is more similar to art than it is to science. For
example, science deals with universals, whereas art and history
deal with particulars. And since history does make use of science
as well, it is both art and science at the same time. But even
more important than this is Croce's strange assertion than
philosophy and history are one.
.
It would appear, then, that History is the new queen of
humankind's intellectual enterprise, inasmuch as art, science,
and philosophy are all contained (as it were) within her far-
reaching grasp. But what does it mean to say that philosophy
and history are one? Basically it means that philosophy is the
method of history, whereas art and science are its necessary
tools and prerequisites. But again, what does it mean to say
that philosophy is the method of history?
.
Think of it this way. Philosophy consists of five essential
pillars upon which everything else is built. These pillars are
logic, reasoning, judgment, imagination, and interpretation. The
important thing to note about these is that in practice these
five things are not separate and distinct elements, nor do they
follow one after another in an orderly sequence, but they are
always thoroughly mixed together. Rational thinking involves
logic and judgment, valid interpretation requires good judgment
and sound reasoning, and so forth.
.
Now art and science are also built upon these same foundations,
to be sure, but not in quite the same way as history, and not to
the same degree. Thus science is mainly concerned with the facts,
and a proper understanding of these facts, but for history the
facts alone are not nearly enough. For without the mind of the
historian to illuminate them, the facts are dead and empty, and
incapable of rendering historical knowledge.
.
Philosophy, therefore, is NOT dead, but has found new life in
the embrace of history, just as history has found its freedom
from the shackles of science by standing upon philosophy. This
is why Croce could say that history should be written only by
philosophers, and philosophy only by historians!
.
- one who proclaims the necessity of both - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. "History is a dialogue between the past and the present in
which the present takes and keeps the initiative." -- R. Aron
x
/ Subject > Death & Rebirth of Philosophy /
/ Newsgroup > alt.philosophy / 01 January 2004 /
.
"The past is never definitively fixed except
when it has no future." -- Raymond Aron
.
Once upon a time, very long ago, philosophy was thought to be
the queen of the sciences. But then theology came along and
claimed the top spot for itself, relegating philosophy to a
merely supportive role: the 'handmaid of theology'. Now one may
consider such a forced servitude to be contrary to the nature
of philosophy, and perhaps even an abomination, but for many
centuries it was the only way to keep philosophy alive.
.
Nor was it entirely barren, for the works of Plato and Aristotle
forced theologians to generate some original thinking of their
own. This tradition doubtless reached a peak with Thomas Aquinas
who built his all-inclusive system on the sure foundation of 'The
Philosopher' (ie. Aristotle). After that there seemed little left
for philosophy to do; yet this was not a flaw within philosophy
herself, but rather the inevitable result of the condition of
slavery imposed upon Her.
.
Thus nothing more could be done as long as She was wrapped
up in theological chains. And so more centuries passed by as the
world slowly changed and gradually emerged from out of a static
and timeless dream. And when the time was ripe, a man stepped
forth to break the chains that had held philosophy down for so
long. It was Descartes and his program of radical doubt that
eventually led to the liberation of philosophy. But there was
nowhere for Her to go except back to Her ancient role as the
queen of the sciences.
.
But soon Her children, now drunk with freedom, and intoxicated
by their own growing power, became unruly and rebellious. The
sciences declared that they had no need of their Mother. Thus
the Queen was dethroned and promptly decapitated. The sciences
took away from Her all that once belonged exclusively within
her hands. Politics, economics, sociology, psychology, etc etc,
all came of age, and declared their autonomy and independence.
"What need have we of you, Old Woman?", they asked; and not
in a kindly way.
.
And they dared even to laugh upon Her, for now She held
an almost empty bag in Her weak and feeble hands. Logic,
epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and precious little else
were all that remained of philosophy. And these subjects were
of no interest to anyone, surely. Thus the cost of Her freedom
seemed absurdly high. Theology and Science both went their
separate ways, and had no use for Philosophy whatsoever.
And so it was, even unto this very day!
.
But wait! This is not the end of the story of philosophy,
because this is not the whole story. For behind the scenes of
this sad spectacle of philosophy's public ridicule and ruin,
another smaller story was quietly playing out, unnoticed by all
but a few hardy and tenacious souls. It took place within the
story of the development of History.
.
Now the story of History is even longer than that of Philosophy,
and it too suffered through many and various growing pains over
the centuries. When philosophy was infected by the lethal virus
of positivism and empiricism, History was similarly affected.
Some historians, in their zeal, even dared to declare that
History itself was a science; but the futility of this idea
eventually became apparent to those few philosophers and
historians who rigorously thought the matter through.
.
All this criticism-of-history raised a serious question: What
is History? Is it Art? Is it Science? Is it both, or neither?
Or is it something else again? In the opening decades of the
twentieth century an Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce
proposed that History should be placed under the category of
Art, for it is more similar to art than it is to science. For
example, science deals with universals, whereas art and history
deal with particulars. And since history does make use of science
as well, it is both art and science at the same time. But even
more important than this is Croce's strange assertion than
philosophy and history are one.
.
It would appear, then, that History is the new queen of
humankind's intellectual enterprise, inasmuch as art, science,
and philosophy are all contained (as it were) within her far-
reaching grasp. But what does it mean to say that philosophy
and history are one? Basically it means that philosophy is the
method of history, whereas art and science are its necessary
tools and prerequisites. But again, what does it mean to say
that philosophy is the method of history?
.
Think of it this way. Philosophy consists of five essential
pillars upon which everything else is built. These pillars are
logic, reasoning, judgment, imagination, and interpretation. The
important thing to note about these is that in practice these
five things are not separate and distinct elements, nor do they
follow one after another in an orderly sequence, but they are
always thoroughly mixed together. Rational thinking involves
logic and judgment, valid interpretation requires good judgment
and sound reasoning, and so forth.
.
Now art and science are also built upon these same foundations,
to be sure, but not in quite the same way as history, and not to
the same degree. Thus science is mainly concerned with the facts,
and a proper understanding of these facts, but for history the
facts alone are not nearly enough. For without the mind of the
historian to illuminate them, the facts are dead and empty, and
incapable of rendering historical knowledge.
.
Philosophy, therefore, is NOT dead, but has found new life in
the embrace of history, just as history has found its freedom
from the shackles of science by standing upon philosophy. This
is why Croce could say that history should be written only by
philosophers, and philosophy only by historians!
.
- one who proclaims the necessity of both - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. "History is a dialogue between the past and the present in
which the present takes and keeps the initiative." -- R. Aron
x
Sir Frederick
Jan 1, 2004, 4:25:54 AM1/1/04
to
History in the form of anthropology, I agree. Another
valid present source of philosophy is neuroscience. Consider
"neuroanthropology".
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"Time travel is not only enjoyed by the Scottish nation.
May I bring to the attention of the world that we (the Swansea
Valley Welsh) quite often address tasks "Now, in a minute"
or "I'll do that tomorrow now". Case proven."
-- Stuart Martinson, Swansea, UK
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
John Jones
Jan 1, 2004, 5:02:15 PM1/1/04
to
Thats too long.
Summarise it.
Now
JJ
"cybrwurm" <cybr...@995.ca> wrote in message
news:vv7m09m...@corp.supernews.com...
Summarise it.
Now
JJ
"cybrwurm" <cybr...@995.ca> wrote in message
news:vv7m09m...@corp.supernews.com...
Sir Frederick
Jan 1, 2004, 5:30:51 PM1/1/04
to
John Jones wrote:
>
> Thats too long.
> Summarise it.
> Now
> JJ
How about : "Tomorrow, now.">
> Thats too long.
> Summarise it.
> Now
> JJ
Or : "Yesterday, now."
Or, do you mean : "Now, now."?
humanist
Jan 5, 2004, 5:46:28 AM1/5/04
to
start of summary
history is supreme because it is "comprehensive"
since it includes everything we know about ourselves and our world
the past is not fixed [to imperfect animals like us]
end
history is supreme because it is "comprehensive"
since it includes everything we know about ourselves and our world
the past is not fixed [to imperfect animals like us]
end
I disagree with the definition of philosophy contained (missing
keyword "perceive")
It also seems counter-intuitive to consider the supremacy of history for
"forward-looking" animals like us. As goal-driven humans, we seem to
value the future more than the past. "history supreme" forgets what we
are and what we do. (As sir frederick says - anthropoly yes)
In article <bt25d6$dp2$1...@titan.btinternet.com>, john.j...@tesco.net
says...
cybrwurm
Jan 6, 2004, 3:48:26 AM1/6/04
to
.
>> On Jan1 John Jones sayeth: Thats too long.
>> Summarise it. Now. -- JJ
.
cybrwurm replies: Hi, JJ. Believe it or not, that IS the
summarized version! The UNsummarized version runs to some 22
and a half pages. So count your blessings instead of offering
us unjustified criticisms. I printed out the above posting,
and it fits nicely on just TWO pages. Hardly enough to cause
anyone a strain on the brain. However, if I inadvertently
caused you to sprain your noodle, I sincerely apologize,
as I would never want to be accused of causing anyone any
unnecessary thinking. :D
.
>>> wurm previously say: P.S. "History is a dialogue between
>>> the past and the present in which the present takes and
>>> keeps the initiative." -- R. Aron
.
> On Jan1 Sir Frederick wrote: History in the form of
> anthropology, I agree.
.
Aron means History in general, I'm sure. Why you should
single out anthropology for special treatment, I'm NOT sure.
.
> Another valid present source of philosophy is neuroscience.
> Consider "neuroanthropology". -- Best, Frederick M. McNeill
.
To me these statements fairly reek of nonsense. But I under-
stand why you make them. You, Sir Frederick, are an idolater.
You worship the false-god called Science. You suppose (wrongly)
that Science can explain anything and everything!
.
Now I know that nothing I can say will ever convince you of the
grievous error of your ways (as you have thoroughly soaked your
soul in it, as it were), BUT I do hope that the following quote
will at least cause some head-scratching among those others who
are living in bondage under the false philosophies of positivism
and empiricism (and all their bastard offspring):
.
"Scientistic imperialism presupposes that, as scientists go
on discovering increasingly general laws, it should one day be
possible to construct so rich and complete a system of concepts
that all reality could be deduced from it. But those who hold
this view forget that a concept is by nature selective, and that
the sum total of concepts - in other words, of selections - can
never equal the sum total of reality. The infinite is not an
accumulation of finite things, to say nothing of the fact that
generalization cannot recapture the particular, having ignored
it in the course of its operations." -- from 'The Sociology of
Max Weber' by Julien Freund, p.43
.
Philosophy is *logically* prior to History, but in practice
History is prior to both Philosophy AND Science. Thus the
scientist builds upon the previous efforts of his predecessors
every bit as much as the philosopher does. Without History
knowledge in general would be impossible! :O
.
- the almost semi-infamous one - cybrwurm ;>
x
>> On Jan1 John Jones sayeth: Thats too long.
>> Summarise it. Now. -- JJ
.
cybrwurm replies: Hi, JJ. Believe it or not, that IS the
summarized version! The UNsummarized version runs to some 22
and a half pages. So count your blessings instead of offering
us unjustified criticisms. I printed out the above posting,
and it fits nicely on just TWO pages. Hardly enough to cause
anyone a strain on the brain. However, if I inadvertently
caused you to sprain your noodle, I sincerely apologize,
as I would never want to be accused of causing anyone any
unnecessary thinking. :D
.
>>> wurm previously say: P.S. "History is a dialogue between
>>> the past and the present in which the present takes and
>>> keeps the initiative." -- R. Aron
> On Jan1 Sir Frederick wrote: History in the form of
> anthropology, I agree.
.
Aron means History in general, I'm sure. Why you should
single out anthropology for special treatment, I'm NOT sure.
.
> Another valid present source of philosophy is neuroscience.
.
To me these statements fairly reek of nonsense. But I under-
stand why you make them. You, Sir Frederick, are an idolater.
You worship the false-god called Science. You suppose (wrongly)
that Science can explain anything and everything!
.
Now I know that nothing I can say will ever convince you of the
grievous error of your ways (as you have thoroughly soaked your
soul in it, as it were), BUT I do hope that the following quote
will at least cause some head-scratching among those others who
are living in bondage under the false philosophies of positivism
and empiricism (and all their bastard offspring):
.
"Scientistic imperialism presupposes that, as scientists go
on discovering increasingly general laws, it should one day be
possible to construct so rich and complete a system of concepts
that all reality could be deduced from it. But those who hold
this view forget that a concept is by nature selective, and that
the sum total of concepts - in other words, of selections - can
never equal the sum total of reality. The infinite is not an
accumulation of finite things, to say nothing of the fact that
generalization cannot recapture the particular, having ignored
it in the course of its operations." -- from 'The Sociology of
Max Weber' by Julien Freund, p.43
.
Philosophy is *logically* prior to History, but in practice
History is prior to both Philosophy AND Science. Thus the
scientist builds upon the previous efforts of his predecessors
every bit as much as the philosopher does. Without History
knowledge in general would be impossible! :O
.
- the almost semi-infamous one - cybrwurm ;>
x
0 new messages