“Knowledge lovers”: Part 2 of this twilight
Posted by: adonis49 on: April 21, 2021
Twilight of “Knowledge lovers”, Part 2
Posted on January 28, 2010
- In: Book Review | engineering/research/experiments | Essays | philosophy | religion/history
- In part 1, I exposed the theme that philosophy was the super-structure of the dominant class in any period of what is now called “Class Ideology”, and that the economical aspect was not included in the philosophical system of reasoning. (Just Not to open the eyes of the educated on the basic aspect of their conditions?)
Man has been asking questions; he has been cultivating doubts.
Every question generated many non-answered questions. Every man is a philosopher once he starts jotting down coherent questions and then realizes that his “universe” is based on doubts.
Most of his questions have no satisfactory resolutions to constitute a perceived “structured comprehensive world” in his brain.
A philosopher sets out to devise a set of structural questions that he thinks are “logically deductive” in nature (it means that it would not be feasible to answer a previous question before resolving several basic questions).
Thus, philosophers have been driven to accept a few fundamental “given” solutions, or “elemental facts,” or principles just to get going in their projects of building structured understanding of man and the universe.
Since Antiquity, philosophy (love of knowledge) was a catch-all term to represent all aspects of knowledge, including metaphysical concepts.
Since sciences were barely founded on facts or empirical experiments (not appreciated within the dominant classes), except during the Islamic Golden Age (9th to 12th century), and after the “what is not measured should be measured” by Galileo in the 17th century, philosophers fundamentally based their structure on abstract premises and deductive logic.
This makes sense: Once knowledge is firmly grounded on empirical facts (assuming the design of the experiment is valid) then philosophy should take secondary place in rational societies.
Sure, the name and meaning of philosophy was lost in the absurd long gestation toward the advance of knowledge.
The mathematician Descartes was the first European who tried to delimit boundaries between sciences and philosophy: Descartes differentiated between invariant primal impressions and secondary perceived variables. It was the period when sciences got ascendance over abstract philosophical structures.
Before the 16th century, Europe’s philosophical systems were towing sciences (principally natural sciences).
Descartes influence stems from differentiating between forms of realities/ “substances”. The first kind of substance is the mind which cannot be subdivided. Examples of such substances are the notions of time, space, and mass with which quantitative properties of an object can be measured.
The second kind of substance or “extensions to the matter” represents the qualitative properties of an object such as color, smell, taste, and the like.
Descartes division in forms and reality is being validated in equations: the right hand side and left hand side in any equation must be compatible with the same dimensions of time, space, and mass (what is known as compatibility in units of measurement). By the way, Descartes was a lousy philosopher but first-rate mathematician.
There are attempts at “refreshing” interest in philosophy by giving new names and labels to ancient philosophical schools and beginning with the prefix “neo-something”. For example, we hear about neo-empiricism, neo-Marxism, neo-Darwinism, neo-materialism, neo-existentialism, analytical philosophy and so forth.
All these new lines of current philosophical structures have historical roots that reach to antiquity and pre-Socratic philosophers.
The new “refreshed” lines of thinking apply current scientific fields (such as anthropology, ethnology, archaeology, or sociology) to ancient philosophical systems to validate their contentions.
For example, current nuclear physicists are fundamentally pre-Socratic in their quest for the elemental matters; they want to be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of “what is matter?” This problem is thus a vital part of their “life’s philosophy”, the “essence” or an answer to the question “what is my nature”?
I conjecture that most universities have branches called “philosophy” or something related to logical processes: students need topics to write thesis and dissertations.
Sciences have taken over: they can extend answers to “what can be answered”.
Sciences are far more efficient than philosophy: faulty answers go unnoticed very effectively.
There are very few practiced scientists, but every man think he is a philosopher: man can feel what’s wrong with a philosophical system, but he refrains to claim knowledge in sciences.
Adonis Diaries 
Leave a Reply