Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HegelBitch t1_j3y87c2 wrote

Reply to comment by Light01 in Philosophy has never been the detached pursuit of truth. It’s always been deeply invested in its own cultural perspective. by IAI_Admin

Saying that humans are not able to pursue something disinterestedly is also an unfounded presupposition. I assume that with “disinterested” you mean “without particular interest”. So your presupposition is that humans always pursue something for their own particular reasons. This presupposes an idea of man that is not so obvious as you might think. The whole philosophical and religious tradition up until the 19th century thought man was special, in that man alone was able to have contact and insight in the infinite/the objective order (compared to other animals). This insight in the objective/infinite is meant when it is said man can pursue truth in a disinterested way. I just want to point to the fact that your position is not so obvious as you make it sound - rather, it is steeped in contemporary ideas about humanity and really not very critical at all.

13

Luklear t1_j408dfc wrote

But if man were not interested in said insight why did he pursue it? The discussion here is whether or not the categorization makes sense, not whether it was used in the past. To me, to pursue something implies an interest, it’s tautology. But I guess we just have a semantic disagreement.

2

Light01 t1_j3z9f4m wrote

And this is why knowledge and ideas are something that goes with the flow of time, what I just said earlier would've killed me 3 centuries ago, but there were men at the time who would consequentially build these ideas, people who left us something else than scholastic and nominalism, not entirely sure what you mean by critical in this context, as a mere foreigner, but if you're saying that it is not the preferred theory amongst the population is absolutely unquestionable, but the literature on the question is not that simple, since it was indeed an importance subject of phenomenology, which is certainly modern, but not contemporary.

I kindly disagree with the statement that the paradigm's order we go after because we were blessed with reason is something we don't follow for our own personal gain, therefore, if it could be said to be objective, we do not have a grasp on it. Aristotle's dialectic has a great example for it with the paint as a false representation of the truth (not going through the whole experimentation, because it's long), meaning that what we find and think of objective is a possible fallacy, and we have no possibility to acknowledge it besides theorizing it, there's a complete and vast differential between what we see, and what's to be seen, and that is not a recent thought, Spinoza talked a lot about it in his Ethics around his idea of god.

(And please, refrain from making assumptions of what I believe or state as evident, since neither I or you knows a pinch of what is obviously accurate in this world, in this particular matter)

1