platoprime t1_itvh4ki wrote
Reply to comment by SecretHeat in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
Except there is plenty of philosophy that can be applied and tested. It's incorrect to think speculation and unverifiability are inherent to philosophy. Philosophy originally included the investigation of the natural world.
It seems to me the only reason to separate speculative philosophy from the rest and gatekeep it as the only "true philosophy" is to retain the pretense of authority on things like metaphysics compared to physicists who are also capable of engaging in philosophy.
SecretHeat t1_itvj258 wrote
Sure there are philosophical sub fields—probably most notably analytic philosophies of cognition and perception—that are amenable to science, and often the philosophers working in these fields are in dialogue with scientists. But this is pretty far from being representative of the field as a whole.
As far as I’m concerned physicists are as welcome to the party as anyone else but you’re just not going to be settling via the scientific method whether Nietzsche’s account of ressentiment or Schopenhauer’s account of willing are accurate takes on the world anytime soon.
platoprime t1_itvjf19 wrote
So you think the scientific method is the only way to verify truth?
SecretHeat t1_itvl3sy wrote
It depends on what your criteria for ‘truth’ are, which I think is exactly what we’ve been debating here. What degree of uncertainty are you comfortable with? To call a statement ‘true’ does it have to be testable? Repeatable? Is a strong argument good enough?
I think a great deal of philosophy tends to allow for more leeway here than standard scientific practice, and you seem to have stricter criteria than the average philosopher. Personally I think propositions arrived at via the scientific method are probably the ideal form for truth but that for certain questions this isn’t always a possible method of investigation—or not possible at this moment in history. To me, that doesn’t make the ‘speculative’ answers any less interesting or valuable, at least as possibilities, but yeah they could be wrong
platoprime t1_itvn6fb wrote
>stricter criteria than the average philosopher.
Perhaps the opposite. I don't consider subjective contradictions between perspectives to be the same as a paradox or untruth.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments