Philofphil

Philosophy of Philosophy
1
I quote two reviews and the first chapter of Reschers work, because I wish
to comment on certain phrases. Phrases I do not consider to be relevant
to my own position, at this moment, I will remove.
I find certain more general statements of Rescher of interest, but when he
deviates into details, I often have no interest in them and find them
irrelevant, and boring because they are not to the point of metaphilosophy. I find it amazing that it is frequently stated that little is written
or done on philosophy of philosophy, because I have always seen this as
going hand in hand with doing philosophy. Philosophizing and reflecting on
philosophizing always appeared to me to be inseparable.
2
2006.07.16
Nicholas Rescher
Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on

Metaphilosophy
Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy, State
University of New York Press, 2006, 120pp., $40.00 (hbk), ISBN 0791467457.
Reviewed by Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales

The topic of this brief book by Nicholas Rescher is one to which, I suspect, many
philosophers accord insufficient attention -- namely, philosophical progress.
Note: I wrote on progress somewhere else by giving definitions of its synonyms and showing
that it is not relevant or meaningful to philosophy/
What is it? How achievable is it? Rescher is remarkably well-placed to report on far-flung
boundaries and buried details of philosophy's historical and conceptual domain; which is
what he does here, albeit somewhat gesturally. He identifies various features of how,
inevitably, philosophy proceeds; and he draws implications as to how philosophical claims
are therefore limited in what knowledge they can supply.
Note: Philosophical limits or limits on the discourse of philosophy, like all discourse are
obvious.
Here are some details of Rescher's thinking.
For him, philosophy is always a practice,
Note: if one takes the verb, yes
a back-and-forth of considered positions on fundamental questions. Always, that back-andforth is guided by methodological meta-principles
note: analysis required.
bearing upon "informative adequacy" (pp. 3-5), "rational cogency" (pp. 5-7),
note: cogent cogent

kjnt/
adjective
adjective: cogent
1. (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.
convincing, compelling, strong, forceful, powerful, potent, weighty, impactful,
effective;
valid, sound, plausible, telling;
synonyms: impressive, persuasive, eloquent, credible, influential;
conclusive, authoritative;
logical, reasoned, rational, reasonable, lucid, coherent, clear
"a cogent argument"
and "rational economy" (pp. 7-10).

Note: these three notions require analysis especially as he builds his argument for this book
on them. I do not think they are basic principles.
These are unavoidable for good philosophy. They do not "merely reflect the presumptions
and predilections of a place and time" (p. 11). This is due to "the purposive nature of
philosophy as the discipline it is":
Note: the purpose nature I suppose w ewill discover what it is as we read the book
the aim of the enterprise is to resolve in a convincing way our big questions regarding reality
and our place within it.
Note: really?
And [these principles'] requirements reflect conditions under which alone the aims of the
philosophical enterprise can be realized in an efficient and effective way.
Note: we will discover what he means by these conditions
It is this serviceability for the very goal structure of the enterprise that endows those
philosophical principles with their unconditional cogency. (ibid.)
Note: circular argument?
And how are those principles implemented within philosophy? Aporetically! Even individual
philosophers, it seems, incur this predicament: "generally the answers that people incline to
give to some questions are incompatible with those they incline to give to others" (p. 17). We
strike our toes on "cognitive dissonance" (ibid.), on "puzzlement and perplexity" (ibid.).
Aporiai arise. ("An aporia is a group of contentions that are individually plausible but
collectively inconsistent" (ibid.)) Socrates would be proud of his legacy.
Note: The Oxford English Dictionary includes two forms of the word: the adjective
"aporetic", which it defines as "to be at a loss", "impassable", and "inclined to doubt, or to
raise objections"; and the noun form "aporia", which it defines as the "state of the aporetic"
and "a perplexity or difficulty".
Aporia - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia
Examples abound, and Rescher mentions several -- starting with ones about virtue,
knowledge, meaning, explanation, and the problem of evil. How should a philosopher react to
these aporiai? Precisely as philosophers do react:
one can become a skeptic, and walk away from the entire issue, or else one can settle
down to the work of problem solving, trying to salvage what one can by way of cognitive
damage control . (p. 19)
There is a philosophically typical way of reacting.
Note: this is important in his argument the making of distinctions - to be analysed

We posit distinctions, talking of two senses of X, say. This should involve skill. We need to
avoid formal flaws of distinction (imprecision, nonexclusivity, or nonexhaustiveness, (p. 30))
and material flaws of distinction or application (vacuity, triviality, or pointlessness, pp. 30Note: important in his argument for the how of doing philosophy
1). If we do avoid such failings, there are two results (p. 24). (1) We retain whatever was
plausible in our concept of X (by adopting new concepts, of X1 and of X2). (2) We thereby
make philosophy more complicated. Is (2) a failing? Rescher does not seem to believe so.
If anything, we do not make our philosophical thinking complex enough:
the world's complexity is such that we are never able to achieve a perfect fit here, because the
world's phenomena are so complex and variegated that there will always be problem cases
that just do not fit smoothly into the concepts and patterns that characterize the general run of
things. And so, in their striving for maximum generality the generalizations of philosophy are
virtually always overgeneralizations involving a certain amount of oversimplification. (p. 36)
note: because the world is complex our dealing with and exploration of the world must be
complex? All socio-cultural practices, sciences, etc seriously do not proceed on this rule
We seek generality when theorizing about a domain;
Note: really?
yet always there is associated complexity which we have not represented accurately. We
must distinguish this from that, then this-this from that-this, and so on -- delving ever deeper
into the domain, perpetually describing new distinctions.
The result is not merely a series of distinctions, though. Rescher accords philosophy a
Hegelian nature (p. 39): even as there are distinctions, there is synthesis.
Note; this synthesis should be analysed

Distinctions preserve, even as they discard; and philosophy thrives:
Their grounding in aporetic conflicts provides philosophical controversies with a natural
structure that endows their problem areas with an organic unity. (p. 43)
Such "systemic interrelatedness" (p. 51) is vital, in Rescher's view. Would our explaining the
existence of individual parts of some philosophical whole thereby explain that philosophical
whole? No, because philosophical understanding is not merely aggregative; a philosophical
sense of a structured whole as such is needed.
Note: unfounded generalization

How does Rescher argue for this crucial thesis? He proceeds via key examples of what he
calls "constructivist metaphysics" (p. 54) -- logical atomism, process atomism, epistemic or
cognitive atomism (Carnap and the Vienna Circle), and action-theoretic atomism. Such
representative philosophical movements strive to resolve what is complex into what is
absolutely simple. But this always fails. First, there is no absolute simplicity: "There just may
not be an atomistic end of the line" (p. 61). Second, even comparative simplicity is not an
absolute phenomenon: there is only comparative simplicity in some respect. At best, we may
assess X as being simpler than Y in respect Z.
Those methodological claims by Rescher are intended to cohere with this fundamental
metaphysical one: "the universe is a cosmos -- an ordered structure" (p. 65). Correlatively, we
"must be holistic and systemic if we are to succeed in dealing adequately with the inherent
complexities of the issues" (p. 66). Again, therefore, we encounter the theme of inescapable
complexity; and again we struggle: being systemic has costs. A welcome epistemological
stance might have unwelcome ethical implications (pp. 67-8); a plausible thesis in semantics
could have awkward metaphysical reverberations (pp. 68-70); and the like. Rescher's earlier
theme of philosophy's aporetic nature thus returns:
the realm of truth is unified, and its components are interlinked.
Note: really?
Change your mind regarding one fact about the real, and you cannot leave all the rest
unaffected. To qualify as adequate, one's account of things must be a systemic whole whose
components are interrelated by relation of systemic interaction or feedback. In the final
analysis, philosophy is a system, because it is concerned to indicate, or at least to estimate,
the truth about things, and 'the truth about reality' is a system. (pp. 71-2)
No philosophical thesis is an island, entire unto itself. Always, what is at stake are
philosophical systems; and none are perfect. So much so, indeed, that:
In philosophy there is an ever-renewed need for further refinements and extensions.
Note: really?
We arrive at the fundamental law of philosophical development: Any given philosophical
position, at any particular stage in its development, will, if developed further, encounter
inconsistencies. (p. 81)
There is a profound motivational implication in this line of thought. The continually
increasing complexity
Note: The continually increasing complexity really?

in our philosophical efforts moves us "ever further from the simpler presystemic issues
note: presystemic issues?
that afford the starting point of our philosophical deliberations" (pp. 86-7). Philosophers
cease being able to communicate with non-philosophers about philosophy. We lose ourselves
in philosophical details.
Note: I agree about this losing in details

Indeed, those details become lost themselves, as the subject continues being developed (pp.
88-9). At best (if remembered at all), those various details will be just part of the subject's
history, as philosophy marches remorselessly onwards. The trek cannot stop with a
philosophically final word.
Having said that, perhaps there is a limit to how many new styles are available:
philosophizing is not a matter of transiently all-embracing styles but of ever-recurrent
doctrines.
Note: really?
Overall, what we have in philosophy is not the evolution of consensus but continuing
controversy. (pp. 89-90)
Note: ?
Details will change, although "The basic problems always remain in place,
Note: ?
firmly rooted in some fundamental element of the human condition." (p. 91)
note: ?
That "human condition" generates recurrent concerns -- and it suffers recurrent limitations.
Rescher ends with epistemological thoughts on the scope of philosophical knowledge. Are
there unknowable facts? At any time, yes. Are there unanswerable questions? At any moment,
yes.
Note: unanswerable questions? How do you know that? Contradictions. Know what you do
not know.
How many are there? We cannot know:

mapping the realm of what is knowable as such is something that inevitably is beyond our
powers. And for this reason any questions about the cognitive completeness of our present
knowledge are and will remain inexorably unresolvable. (p. 106)
Accordingly, Rescher offers this parting thought: "We simply cannot make a reliable
assessment of the extent of our ignorance." (p. 107)
So, there we have it: an overview (simultaneously analytic and synthetic) of some significant
characteristics of philosophical inquiry, with various of Rescher's own distinctive
philosophical themes on display -- the pragmatic evaluation of a process of dialectical
systematizing, adverting to fallibility, coherence, holism, and conceptual limitations.
Note: this sums up his position, his unquestioned assumptions, ideology
-- the pragmatic evaluation
of a process of dialectical systematizing
adverting to:
fallibility,
coherence,
holism,
and conceptual limitations
This is a slim book with an extensive vision. What lessons should we take from it?
Rescher is right about the prevailing presence of aporiai within philosophy as a whole: in
practice, philosophy is powered by such conflicts.
It is not clear, however, whether his observations accurately reflect all areas of philosophy at
all moments: is every philosopher perpetually mired in aporiai?
Note: important notion to him
The Oxford English Dictionary includes two forms of the word: the adjective
"aporetic", which it defines as "to be at a loss", "impassable", and "inclined to
doubt, or to raise objections"; and the noun form "aporia", which it defines as the
"state of the aporetic" and "a perplexity or difficulty".
Aporia - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia
Aporia (Ancient Greek: : "impasse, difficulty of passing, lack of resources,
puzzlement") denotes in philosophy a philosophical puzzle or state of puzzlement
and in rhetoric a rhetorically useful expression of doubt.
Maybe not -- although maybe he or she should be. This is a significant qualification:
insightful work can be needed if one is to discover an inconsistency constitutive of a given
apory.
Philosophical progress might be required even to develop the respective philosophical
positions sufficiently to enable them to clash with each other.
Moreover, suppose that the world ends just before some specific inconsistency, regarding a
particular topic T, was about to be noticed. In that event, must there have been no
philosophical progress regarding T? Surely not; in which case, philosophical progress is not
dependent upon the actual production of aporiai. At best, therefore, there is idealizing in this
aspect of Rescher's picture.
And even if, for argument's sake, we grant him that idealization, a problem remains. As we
saw, Rescher describes philosophy as reaching for distinctions in response to aporiai.
Note: his claim

From a particular aporetic concept X will emerge two new concepts, X1 and X2, with each of
these having some plausibility -- some apparent likelihood of becoming part of an improved
philosophical system. But can plausibility be sliced too finely -- 'divided' too many times?
For Rescher, philosophy's underlying aim is to answer basic questions. We might describe
these as having a philosophically undivided (because fundamental) significance for us
Note: no, the same questions asked by different philosophers are NOT the same. Because of
their different assumptions and other transcendentals.
. Correlatively, if we could answer those questions correctly, our answers would have a
similarly undivided (because fundamental) philosophical plausibility -- in the sense of
accurately reporting something of ultimate philosophical significance. These would be 'large'
truths.
Note: the ideal
Yet the more we divide our philosophical concepts, the greater the risk of travelling further
away from continuing to engage with the fundamental or undividedly significant questions;
and the further we stray from providing philosophical answers with fundamental or undivided
plausibility. This raises the possibility of there being less and less such plausibility in our
philosophical thinking, as the answers -- the distinctions -- become ever finer-grained. It is
not that the answers will thereby be false, or even that they are increasingly likely to be false.
The failing is that they will report ever 'smaller' truths. More and more, we will be
uncovering only truths that matter less and less, philosophically speaking (insofar as the
philosophical truths that matter most are the 'large' ones). Philosophical plausibility as such
could thereby be lessened: truths might emerge without still being so philosophical.
Note: I wrote about this as the discourse loses many domains with a minute area remaining
for philosophy.
We would care less and less about any such answers; and therein lies a danger even for
philosophy's continued existence. Rescher treats philosophy as an organic entity, a living
thing. He dismisses the possibility, whenever the idea arises (such as when skepticism is
mentioned), of humans not continuing to philosophize.
Note: analyse this and why or why not?

Yet why should that possibility be treated cavalierly? If the philosophical answers we find
ourselves deriving are less and less worth caring about, so too are the associated
questions (those that have generated the answers, and those generated by the answers). Is
there an absolute "human condition" that includes a drive to philosophize? Although
Rescher talks of a human condition, seemingly embodying that urge, I did not notice any
argument supporting such talk.
Note: Sartre? Continental philosophies? Sociology and culture studies?

Maybe it was only due to a psychological quirk, a lucky historical accident, that people ever
began philosophizing. If we do philosophy badly, or in ways that matter less and less to
more and more of us, why shouldn't people quite appropriately turn away from it? (Maybe
those who do not turn away would stay from weakness, not strength. Could philosophical
urges ever become akin to a nervous mental tic?) Once again, Rescher's approach seems to
involve a substantial element of idealization.
Note: I wrote on this concerning creative-thinking original philosophers

I expect that the book's parting thought is correct -- that we cannot know exactly how
ignorant we are in general, and that this is so even if we can have knowledge. Still, I
would have liked to see Rescher discuss this more fully. For example, he might have
considered whether any knowledge we do have is weakened in quality by our not knowing
how much of the world it reveals. After all, this latter lack of meta-knowledge is our not
knowing what systemic role, within all of the knowledge that in principle could be attained
about the world, is played by the knowledge we do have. In this sense, we do not know how
systemically -- thus, how fully or deeply -- we know even whatever we do know.
Not only that; if we cannot know exactly how ignorant we are, should Rescher be so
confident that our philosophical thinking is never sufficiently complex? We would also
not know exactly how knowledgeable we are; maybe we are more knowledgeable than we
believe. The fact that our philosophical thinking may continually become more complex,
for instance, is hardly conclusive evidence that it ought to do so. Rescher owes us a more
complex argument here.
Nonetheless, his book has many pleasing features. It is clearly written, and it addresses
metaphilosophical questions that many philosophers shirk. These questions bear even upon
the point of doing philosophy. Is the book therefore a significant contribution to philosophy?
In one sense, yes -- because it is imaginative and bold. In another sense, no -- because its
brevity sacrifices many needed details and because the examples provided will not surprise
professional philosophers. In another sense, though, the book could be useful: I can easily
imagine setting parts of it for students who ask about philosophical method and philosophy's
epistemic prospects.
But the book does have a relevant problem, one that was easily avoidable. If ever a book
seems not to have been copyedited and proof-read, it is this one. Typographical errors
abound, including many glaring mistakes. I do not recall more of them, ever, in a serious
philosophy book: approximately every second page contains one. Almost inexplicably, too,
some entire passages appear twice within the book. A short paragraph from p. 31 recurs on p.
35; p. 78 repeats material from pp. 38-9; pp. 79-80 reprise, with a few trivial changes, a
passage from p. 39 (oddly, the later appearance corrects a substantive typographical mistake
from the earlier one); much of p. 80 all-but-repeats some of pp. 37-8; and a paragraph on p.
40 occurs again, with minimal alteration, on p. 81. That is not all: p. 103 quotes a lengthy
passage from Peirce (referencing it cursorily in n. 10, on p. 113) which also appears in n.6
(appearing on p. 113); pp. 104-5 feature a passage used at pp. 97-8; this is followed
immediately, on p. 105, by a few sentences from p. 99.
I do not know what to make of all of that, other than to be perplexed.
Let's not end this review on that odd note; here is my more satisfied reaction. All
philosophers can learn from Rescher's vast body of work, the grand sweep of his
philosophical experience and vision -- characteristics that also animate this book. For anyone
who wishes to think philosophically about philosophy as a whole, Rescher's book is a useful
and engaging place to begin. There is metaphilosophical wisdom in it.
Summary
A study in philosophical methodology aimed at providing a clear view of the scope and limits
of philosophical inquiry.
While the pursuit of philosophy of studiesof science, of art, of politicshas blossomed,
the philosophy of philosophy remains a comparatively neglected domain.
Note: this always surprises me, I mentioned why before
In this book, Nicholas Rescher fills this gap by offering a study in methodology aimed at
providing a clear view of the scope and limits of philosophical inquiry.
Note: imporatant issues stressed by me as well
He argues that philosophys inability to resolve all of the problems of the field does not
preclude the prospect of achieving a satisfactory resolution of many or even most of them.
Note: irrelevant
the text is very accessible and the pithy nature of the controversial claims allows readers
ample room to explore their own metaphilosophical convictions. Philosophy in Review
Disgruntlement with the endemic disagreements among philosophers down through the
centuries has led to intermittent hope that some gifted metaphilosopher might create a
perennial philosophy. Nicholas Rescher has a more modest, but still worthwhile, goal in
mindto trace the development of certain perennial issues in the history of philosophy and
examine the principles and methods that have led to progress on these issues. Short of final
solutions, he shows that many refinements have been successful and the insolubilia of old
have become less vexing. Howard P. Kainz, author of G. W. F. Hegel: The Philosophical
System
Reschers book goes where philosophy rarely goes, offering a clear-eyed examination of the
purposes, principles, and prospects of philosophizing itself. This is metaphilosophy at its very
best, reflecting both the breadth of knowledge and the depth of insight of one of our very best
philosophers. Patrick Grim, author of The Incomplete Universe: Totality, Knowledge, and
Truth
Nicholas Rescher is University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. He is
the author of more than one hundred books, including Epistemology: An Introduction to the
Theory of Knowledge; Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy;
Predicting the Future: An Introduction to the Theory of Forecasting; Process Metaphysics:
An Introduction to Process Philosophy; and Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to
the Theory of Knowledge; all published by SUNY Press. Among his many achievements, he
is former president of the American Philosophical Association and recipient of the Alexander
von Humboldt Prize for Humanistic Scholarship.
Table of Contents
Preface
1. Philosophical Principles
Philosophical Principles
Principles of Informative Adequacy
Probative Principles of Rational Cogency
Principles of Rational Economy
Issues of Validation
Dealing with Objections
Chapter 1
Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself. Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field
in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects. And in addressing the issues that arise here, there is no better place to begin than by
considering the rules and principles of procedure that provide the guidelines for cultivating this historic realm of rational deliberation.
Note: investigates the transendentals of philosophy/izing
For Plato, principles were the root source (
archai
) of being or of
knowledge.
1
For Aristotle, they were the first cause of being, of becoming, or of being known (
hothen h
e
estin h
e
gignetai h
e
gign
o
sketai
).
2
And much the same conception is at issue with Thomas Aquinas, for
whom a principle (
principium
) was something primary in the being of a
thing, or in its becoming, or in knowledge of it (
quod est primum aut in
esse rei . . . aut in fieri rei, . . . aut in rei cognitione
)
.
3
As standard philosophical usage has evolved in the light of these ideas, a principle is
viewed as something basic
as a
fundamentum
(Latin) or
arch
e
(Greek).
In particular, a proposition that is a principle either admits no proof (is
axiomatic) or does not need proof (is obvious and self-evident). Moreover, it must be abstract by way of applying to a broad range of cases.
Thus, all concerned seem agreed that principles are fundamental generalities governing our understanding of the modus operandi of some
knowledge-accessible domain.
Note: conceptual analysis of the word principle
Against this background, a specifically
philosophical principle
, in the
sense of the term that is to be at issue here, is a general instruction for
cogent philosophizing, a maxim that lays down a methodological rule
for philosophical practice. It is not a philosophical thesis or doctrine
that purports to answer to some substantive philosophical question. Instead, it is a rule of procedure that specifies a modus operandi, a way of
proceeding in the course of philosophizing. A methodological principle
of this sort is thus to philosophy what a maxim like always keep your
promises is to morality. It represents a guideline to be followed if error
is to be avoided. Such methodological principles are general rules of
procedure, framed in terms of maxims that prescribe the appropriate-
ness or inappropriateness of different ways of proceeding in philosophizing.

4
In matters of philosophy, after all, understanding clearly

hinges not simply on the instruction of theses and doctrines, but on
grasping the underlying principles within whose frame of reference such
substantive dealings are articulated in the first place.
To be sure,
within
philosophy one also encounters a profusion of
principles. In ethics, there is the principle of utility, which holds that
the rightness of an action lies in its capacity to conduce to the greatest
good of the greatest number; in natural philosophy, we have the principle of causality, which holds that every event has a cause; and in epistemology, we have the principle of truth, which holds that only what
is true can be said to be known to someone:
Note: more conceptual analysis
(
x
)
Kxp
p
. But such
principles are principles
IN
philosophy, not principles

OF
philosophy
note: show the difference
that is, they are not procedural principles of philosophizing of the sort
that concern us here.
5
What argues for principles? What is their justifactory rationale?

Note: important notion for meta-philosophy/izing
Clearly it isor ought to bethe factor of functional efficacy. After all,
philosophizing is a purposive enterprise.
Note: really? And why?
It has an aim or mission: to
enable us to orient ourselves in thought and action,

note: really?
enabling us to get a
clearer understanding of the big issues of our place and our prospects in
a complex world that is not of our own making.
And the validation of a
philosophical principle must in the final analysis rest on its promise and
performance in fostering this enterprise.
Note: really?
Will all philosophers agree with regard to principles? Of course
not! After all, there is, it would seem, very little that
all
philosophers
agree on.
6
All that can be said in this regard is (1) that what puts a
principle on the agenda is the preachingand, even more importantly,
the practiceof prominent philosophers and (2) that when a philosopher explicitly espouses such a principle, he will generally offer (or at
least
have
) plausible reasons for doing so. To be sure, difficulties sometimes arise. Thus, for example, the tendency of C. S. Peirces sensible
principle that the aim of rational inquiry is to settle opinion among
2
Philosophical Dialectics
intelligent interagents seems to be flaunted by the Socrates of Platos

writings, who often seeks to destabilize opinion in the initial stages of
a dialogue to unsettle judgment into a condition of perplexity or aporia.
The creation of a state of ignorance and uncertainty is thus seen as a
desirable goalin seeming conflict with various familiar philosophical
principles. But of course Socratic practice makes it all too clear that this
is only the starting point for an honest and open-minded inquiry,
whose ultimate goal is to erect a new structure of understanding on the
reviews of prior misconceptions.
Note: really? Perhaps justto dissolve misunderstandings? Not to create truths?
Be this as it may, procedural principles are in the end validated
through the consideration of this utility and efficacy on the particular
domain at practice that is at issue. Basically they are of three kinds: principles of informative adequacy to facilitate understanding,
principles ofrational cogency to assure convincing argumentation, and
principles of
rational economy to avert needless labor in production and avoidable

difficulty in consumption.
Note: again here he is distracted these distinctions are not that relevant
Principles of Informative Adequacy

The principles arising under this rubric address the problem of providing adequate information
of facilitating the business of understanding and enabling us to get a secure cognitive grip on the issues at hand.
#1
NEVER BAR THE PATH OF INQUIRY
(C. S. Peirce). Peirce envisioned for this principle a correlative range of application that turns on
the following line of thought: Never adopt a methodological stance that
would systematically prevent the discovery of something that could turn
out to be true. What can and should prevent ones acceptance of a certain factual claim is the discovery of its falsity through the ascertainment
of some other factual claim that is incompatible with it. But only facts
should be able to block the route to the serious consideration of a factual
thesis, and never purely methodological/procedural general principles.
For one thing, radical skepticism
Never accept anything

would fall immediate victim to this principle. For if we adopt this line of
radical skepticism, all progress is blocked from the very outset. Again, if
one systematically refused to give credence to reasoning by analogy, then
any prospect of discovery of facts about other minds would be precluded:
even if it were the case that other people have mental lives akin to our
own, we could never warrant a belief in this circumstance if we could not
3
2. Aporetic Method in Philosophy

Consistency and Apories
Some Sample Apories
On Appraising Apories
Enter Distinctions
Apory Resolution as Cost-Benefit Analysis
3. On Distinctions in Philosophy
What Distinctions Are

How Distinctions Fail
Misassimilation
Historical Background
The Role of Distinctions in Philosophy
Philosophical Apories
Tie Issues Together
Note: here he discusses the necessity or essentials of apories and distinctions!

4. Respect Neglect and Misassimilation as Fallacies of Philosophical Distinctions
Respect Neglect
Simplicity
Fallacy
Note: here he discusses fallacies when making distinctions
5. Systemic Interconnectedness and Explanatory Holism in Philosophy

The Problem
Summative Features
Fallacies of Composition and Division
Is Existence Mereologically Summative? NoA Whole is More Than Its Parts
The Analytical/Constructionist Program
Instances of the Implementation of the Constructionist Program
Problem Number One: The Fallacy of Termination Presumption
Problem Number Two: The Disintegration of Simplicity and the Fallacy of Respect Neglect
Perspectival Dissonance and Nonamalgamation
Cognition Is Not Summative
Review
Externalities and Negative Side Effects
Systematic Interconnectedness as a Consequence of Aporetic Complexity
Note: his notions and belief, opinion of holism of philosophy and fallacies concerning this or
failing to see and accept this principle(?)
6. The Structure of Philosophical Dialectic
Philosophical Aporetics
The Role of Distinctions
The Structure of Dialectic

Developmental Dialectics
The Burden of History
The Structure of Philosophical History
7. Ignorance and Cognitive Horizons
Ignorance
Intractable Questions about the Cognitive Future and Surd Generalities
Insolubilia Then and Now
Cognitive Limits
Identifying Insolubilia
Relating Knowledge to Ignorance
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Examples of philosophizing, where I explain something to nonphilosophers.

How can one be convinced of any religious or spiritual standpoint since science is
based on (non-empirical) philosophical ideas?
I have to clarify: 1) I am not asking for proof of a religion 2) I am not asking about how the
scientific method works. I am, however, asking how we are sure about the foundation of
science.
what are the foundationS of science? Do scientists worry about this question? It appears to be
more philosophical and theories about sciences.
How can we be sure about the foundations of science?
I suggest we cannot be sure - truth - we must ask about the meaningfulness of the
foundationS, not the truth. To assess that we will then use philosophical standards for
meaning, arguments, coherence, etc. Philosophical questions and problems.
But saying this I do not accept this statement by you: SINCE scienceS is based on (nonempirical) philosophical ideas.
I have a problem with your word since as you must be sure of the truth of your statement to
be able to say since. this following truth is based on (non-empirical) philosophical
ideas..
According to philosophical theories of and reflections one,ABOUT sciences - the foundations
of science are stated in a philosophical ways. BUT does that makes the foundations
philosophical (non-empirical?). The foundations of sciences could be said to be empirical - it
is possible to make out an argument for that. ALSO there are schools of philosophy that are
empirical! Philosophy is not necessarily or only non-empirical.
-Anyway these are merely philosophical arguments and ideas AND,
I wonder how many scientists and science students are concerned about such philosophical
questions and philosophical talk ABOUT their science?
The first part of your question, again asks something else. How can one be convinced of any
religious or spiritual standpoint SINCE science is based on..
The first part of your sentence or question has nothing to do with the second part - the since
science etc
Even if you analyze and obtain greater clarity about scienceS and their foundations - that will
not simply give an answer to be convinced or not about some religious and spiritual
standpoint. The two parts of your sentences - as they now stand - are unrelated. You would
first have to analyze the foundations of science and then establish some kind of argument to
base religions/spiritual standpoint on (or connect religious and spiritual standpoints - HOW
someone develop and come to accept them) sciences and their foundations.
Foundations of Science
The official Journal of the Association for Foundations of Science, Language and
Cognition is interested in: Foundations of Science focuses on significant methodological
and philosophical topics concerning the structure and the growth of science.
The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, Science and
Method : Henri Poincar : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Then above deals with:The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of
Science, Science and Method
The Foundation of Science Is Absolute Truth
The Foundation of Science Is Absolute Truth
Evidence for Creation Evidence for Truth Natural Laws
icr.org
Next
Scientific knowledge is not a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of

explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In
addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models
reality.
As our technical ability to observe reality improves, we are able to increase the quality and
quantity of our observations. Better-observed data challenge our explanations, some of which
will no longer fit the observed facts. New theories are then formed and either verified or
falsified.
While our scientific knowledge changes rapidly, the absolute reality that is being
modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality against
which theories can be verified.
Evidence for Creation Evidence for Truth Natural Laws Next
Related Articles
The Evidence of Nothing
Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method
What Are They Afraid Of?
Can Research Be Done from a Creation Base?
Do Creationists Believe In Natural Law?
Inspired Guesses, Creative Imagination, and Science
Does Science Conflict with the Bible?
Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins Instruction in Public Education
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the

foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions
of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific
theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with
metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores
the relationship between science and truth.
There is no consensus among philosophers about many of the central problems concerned
with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about
unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to
these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems
that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers of science
also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.
The branches of science (also referred to as "sciences", "scientific fields", or "scientific

disciplines") are commonly divided into three major groups:
Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including

fundamental forces and biological life)
Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a

priori, as opposed to factual, methodology)
Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies.[citation

needed]
Natural and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge must be
based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers
working under the same conditions.
[1]
Natural, social, and formal science make up the fundamental sciences, which form the basis
of interdisciplinary and applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. Specialized
scientific disciplines that exist in multiple categories may include parts of other scientific
disciplines but often possess their own terminologies and expertises
read this article to make sense of this Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
1.1 Defining science
1.2 Scientific explanation
1.3 Justifying science
1.4 Observation inseparable from theory
1.5 The purpose of science
1.6 Values and science
Current approaches
3.1 Axiomatic assumptions
3.2 Coherentism
3.3 Anything goes
3.4 Sociology of scientific knowledge
3.5 Continental philosophy
there is not just ONE philosophy of science general but -
Philosophy of particular sciences
5.1 Philosophy of statistics
5.2 Philosophy of mathematics
5.3 Philosophy of physics
5.4 Philosophy of chemistry
5.5 Philosophy of biology
5.6 Philosophy of medicine
5.7 Philosophy of psychology
5.8 Philosophy of psychiatry
5.9 Philosophy of economics
5.10 Philosophy of social science
note that the FOUNDATIONS of Sciences are PHILOSOPHICAL questions - meta-questions

ABOUT sciences, theories and ideas ABOUT science.
What are some Aristotelian views of the world? What are some examples?
Written 5h ago
Search Results
Some Main Points of Aristotle's Thought - Saint Anselm College
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/d...
Some Main Points of Aristotle's Thought ... How, for example, can a white object be said to
participate in or copy the form of whiteness? ... The only link between the realm of forms and
the material world, then, breaks down. ... He still had to address the problem of reconciling
the objective and subjective views of the world.
Platonic vs. Aristotelian World Views | The Eternal Universe
The Eternal Universeplatonic-vs-aristotelian-world-views.html
Mar 17, 2010 - An Aristotelian world view fundamentally assumes that all knowledge
comes ... So in some cases it may even be advantageous to use an algebra based approach ...
Well to answer those questions let me give a few examples.
On a basic level a Platonic world view carries with it a fundamental distrust of the material
(observable) world. An Aristotelian world view fundamentally assumes that all knowledge
comes from the observable world (universe). Note that these ideas are not opposite nor are
they even mutually exclusive. But they are two approaches to the same thing, how we know
and interact with the world.
Aristotle's Concept of Matter and Form - Scandalon
Index of /philosophyaristotle_matter_form.htm
Aristotle was interested in the material world which he saw about him. He was ... However,
unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed that the form of an object was not some kind of
abstract ideal. ... Let us look at the example of a table. ... The fourth, final cause is the most
important, and which in Aristotle's view gives the best ...
Aristotles Concept of Matter and Form
Aristotle was interested in the material world which he saw about him. He was interested in
the nature of things and their substance. However, Aristotle was still interested in questions
such as what is it about a table that gives it its tableness? However, unlike his teacher Plato,
Aristotle believed that the form of an object was not some kind of abstract ideal. He believed
that the form of an object was contained within the object itself. To put it another way, its
form was within the structure itself. This meant that the form of an object could be perceived
using ones senses.
Aristotle uses the word substance in many ways which often makes it difficult to grasp his
concept. Let us look at the example of a table. The substance of a table is the wood and the
nails and the glue. However, the form of the table is that it has four legsetc.
To confuse things further, Aristotle also used the word matter to mean the stuff of which
something was made. A chairs matter is wood! Its form is the structure of the chair itself
i.e. that particular chair NOT some abstract universal.
This allowed Aristotle to also wondered whether it was possible that something could have
matter but no form. He concluded that there could be prime matter or stuff that has no
particular form and not arranged in any particular structure. Likewise, Aristotle wondered
whether something could have form and structure without having matter. He proposed that
something that has form and structure without matter is God.
Aristotles Four Causes
Aristotle wanted to ask what causes something to be what it is, to have the characteristics
that it has, or to change in the way that it does? This sort of questioning is often found in
small children. Sometimes they go through a phase of asking why? about anything and
everything. Perhaps small children are the best philosophers!
For each answer they are given, they want to know the reason for this answer, and the cause
of something can be traced back, showing not just one reason but a whole chain, going from
the immediate to a final because it just is, or because I say so or because its just made
that way. Someone once commented that this is the reason we send children to school to
make them stop asking annoying questions. By the time children enter into the sixth form
they think they know it all and have definitely stopped asking questions.
Aristotle thought about this; he concluded that the explanation of things could be seen in the
four different ways, at four different levels: the four causes. Causes is the best translation
we have of the word he used aition (Gk - aition - meaning cause or fault) , which is a
responsible, explanatory factor.
Aristotles four causes can be summarised:
1. Material cause what is something made of?
2. Efficient cause what brings something about?
3. Formal cause what characteristics does an object have?
4. Final cause what is the reason for somethings existence?
For Aristotle the essence of an object was not just its material component parts, or its
particular shape or characteristics; it also had a purpose, a function to perform.
When Aristotle looked at the world about him he not only asked questions such as what is
such and such made of, or how can it be classified but also what is its purpose.
The fourth, final cause is the most important, and which in Aristotles view gives the best
explanation of an object. The final end, or purpose, or teleology of a thing, when realised,
gives that thing its full perfection and reality.
When something is doing what it was meant to do, or has developed into whatever it was
supposed to develop into, it has achieved goodness. The purpose of an object, for Aristotle, is
part if the object itself, and not something which we might choose to impose on it it is
intrinsic.
All the different elements of nature have a purpose, according to Aristotle, and nothing is
superfluous. We might not know what a slug is for but nevertheless it still has its own
intrinsic purpose. But that is not all; the universe as a whole has a purpose too.
Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
For example, in his work in ethics and politics, Aristotle identifies the highest good ... him to
Athens, the intellectual center of the world, to complete his education. ... Some may have
been done at the time of Aristotle's successor Theophrastus. ... assumed that Aristotle's
writings presented a systematic account of his views.
What are philosophy courses good for?
Written 7h ago
everything and nothing, depends on the individual it did it cause I love certain feilds of the subjects
it is said it teaches people how to think more clearly,
Check what university philosophy departments say about that!
Communication skills, critical reasoning skills, and general problem-solving skills are all
enhanced by work in philosophy. They are also essential to many other disciplines and
projects. In addition, philosophy helps students develop sound methods of research and
analysis.
Why Study Philosophy? | Department of Philosophy
philosophy.http://ubc.ca/undergraduate/why-study-philosophy/
Feedback
About this result
https://philosophy.http://cas2.lehigh.edu/content/why-study-philosophy
The study of philosophy can be truly enriching an highly gratifying, and it is excellent
preparation for lifelong learning and en enhanced intellectual, political, and social existence.
It can help you to live better by helping you to understand yourself as a thinking, acting
being.
Fascinating subject matter Wide variety of interesting ... Skill development
Why Study Philosophy? | Harvard University Department of Philosophy
philosophy.Faculty of Arts & Scienceswhy-study-philosophy
So the main reason to study philosophy is that you find intrinsic value in reflection and
contemplation. Nevertheless, many undergraduates who are otherwise drawn to philosophy
worry that a philosophy degree is a path to poverty. ... In short, philosophy gives you skills
that you can apply to any line of work.
philosophy.http://ubc.ca/undergraduate/why-study-philosophy/
There are two main reasons people study philosophy. The first is simple curiosity. This is as
true for the most advanced graduate student pursuing highly ...
Why Study Philosophy? - Sites - Google
Google Siteswhystudyphilosophy/
Valuable Skills. Leave your preconceptions at the door! Philosophy delivers highly
marketable, highly transferable skills. If your ideal career requires thinking, ...
Philosophy What's the Use?
Almost every article that appears in The Stone provokes some comments from readers
challenging the very idea that philosophy has anything relevant to say to non-philosophers.
There are, in particular, complaints that philosophy is an irrelevant ivory-tower exercise,
useless to any except those interested in logic-chopping for its own sake.
There is an important conception of philosophy that falls to this criticism. Associated
especially with earlier modern philosophers, particularly Ren Descartes, this conception sees
philosophy as the essential foundation of the beliefs that guide our everyday life. For
example, I act as though there is a material world and other people who experience it as I do.
But how do I know that any of this is true? Couldnt I just be dreaming of a world outside my
thoughts? And, since (at best) I see only other human bodies, what reason do I have to think
that there are any minds connected to those bodies? To answer these questions, it would seem
that I need rigorous philosophical arguments for my existence and the existence of other
thinking humans.
Of course, I dont actually need any such arguments, if only because I have no practical
alternative to believing that I and other people exist. As soon as we stop thinking weird
philosophical thoughts, we immediately go back to believing what skeptical arguments seem

to call into question. And rightly so, since, as David Hume pointed out, we are human beings
before we are philosophers.
But what Hume and, by our day, virtually all philosophers are rejecting is only what Im
calling the foundationalist conception of philosophy. Rejecting foundationalism means
accepting that we have every right to hold basic beliefs that are not legitimated by
philosophical reflection. More recently, philosophers as different as Richard Rorty and Alvin
Plantinga have cogently argued that such basic beliefs include not only the Humean beliefs
that no one can do without, but also substantive beliefs on controversial questions of ethics,
politics and religion. Rorty, for example, maintained that the basic principles of liberal
democracy require no philosophical grounding (the priority of democracy over
philosophy).
If you think that the only possible use of philosophy would be to provide a foundation for
beliefs that need no foundation, then the conclusion that philosophy is of little importance for
everyday life follows immediately. But there are other ways that philosophy can be of
practical significance.
Even though basic beliefs on ethics, politics and religion do not require prior philosophical
justification, they do need what we might call intellectual maintenance, which itself
typically involves philosophical thinking. Religious believers, for example, are frequently
troubled by the existence of horrendous evils in a world they hold was created by an all-good
God. Some of their trouble may be emotional, requiring pastoral guidance. But religious
commitment need not exclude a commitment to coherent thought. For instance, often enough
believers want to know if their belief in God makes sense given the reality of evil. The
philosophy of religion is full of discussions relevant to this question. Similarly, you may be
an atheist because you think all arguments for Gods existence are obviously fallacious. But if
you encounter, say, a sophisticated version of the cosmological argument, or the design
argument from fine-tuning, you may well need a clever philosopher to see if theres anything
wrong with it.
Related
More From The Stone
Read previous contributions to this series.
In addition to defending our basic beliefs against objections, we frequently need to clarify
what our basic beliefs mean or logically entail. So, if I say I would never kill an innocent
person, does that mean that I wouldnt order the bombing of an enemy position if it might kill
some civilians? Does a commitment to democratic elections require one to accept a fair
election that puts an anti-democratic party into power? Answering such questions requires
careful conceptual distinctions, for example, between direct and indirect results of actions, or
between a morality of intrinsically wrong actions and a morality of consequences. Such
distinctions are major philosophical topics, of course, and most non-philosophers wont be in
a position to enter into high-level philosophical discussions. But there are both non-
philosophers who are quite capable of following such discussions and philosophers who enter
public debates about relevant topics.
The perennial objection to any appeal to philosophy is that philosophers themselves disagree
among themselves about everything, so that there is no body of philosophical knowledge on
which non-philosophers can rely. Its true that philosophers do not agree on answers to the
big questions like Gods existence, free will, the nature of moral obligation and so on. But
they do agree about many logical interconnections and conceptual distinctions that are
essential for thinking clearly about the big questions. Some examples: thinking about God
and evil requires the key distinction between evil that is gratuitous (not necessary for some
greater good) and evil that is not gratuitous; thinking about free will requires the distinction
between a choices being caused and its being compelled; and thinking about morality
requires the distinction between an action that is intrinsically wrong (regardless of its
consequences) and one that is wrong simply because of its consequences. Such distinctions
arise from philosophical thinking, and philosophers know a great deal about how to
understand and employ them. In this important sense, there is body of philosophical
knowledge on which non-philosophers can and should rely.
Which is the most important philosophical book to read?
Written Fri
ha ha , I laughed loud when I read this. I did not laugh at you, only because it is so complex.
It depends if: you study philosophy? What year you are in? Which country you are in?
In Europe it will probably be Continental philosophy, in the UK and USA it will probably be
something analytical.
It depends how much you already know? And what the aim of your reading is.
If it is general reading - find a book that will not bore you but interest you in the subjects.
Read a general article, then you choose the area , topic and books related to that for example
branches By Branch / Doctrine
by historical periods The Basics of Philosophy
by movements By Movement / School
by philosophers By Individual Philosopher
ABOVE I assumed you spoke about Western philosophy, for philosophy from other culturs
and continents see here The Basics of Philosophy
philosophybasics.com
General Philosophy - Wikipedia read this and youll see what you are interested in and click
on those hyperlinks.
There is not ONE essential book, it depends on the period, type or school or the branch
(metaphysics, ontology, epistemology , ethics) etc youre interested in.
When you decided on that - feel free to ask again.
You can check one of my sites here - lots to read - something might interest you?
Philosophy Philosophizing
Ulrich
Why is something what it is?
Written Fri
Anaxagoras (c. 500428 B.C.E.)
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae was an important Presocratic natural philosopher and scientist

who lived and taught in Athens for approximately thirty years.
Why is Something What It Is?
If, according to Anaxagoras, everything contains a portion of everything, then what makes
something (rice, for instance) what it is? Anaxagoras does not provide a clear response to this
question, but an answer is alluded to in his claim that each single thing is and was most
plainly those things of which it contains most. (frag. 12) Presumably, this can be taken to
mean that each constituent of matter also has a part of matter that is predominant in it.
Commentators from Aristotle onward have struggled to make sense of this notion, but it is
perhaps Guthries interpretation that is most helpful: Everything contains a portion of
everything else, and a large piece of something contains as many portions as a small piece of
it, though they differ in size; but every substance does not contain all the infinite number of
substances in equal proportions (291). As such, a substance like rice, while containing
everything, contains a higher proportion of white, hardness, etc. than a substance like wood.
Simply stated, rice contains more stuff that makes it rice than wood or any other substance.
Presumably, rice also contains higher proportions of flesh and hair than wood does. This
would explain why, from Anaxagoras perspective, an animal can become nourished by rice
by not by wood.
Anaxagoras theory of nature is quite innovative and complex, but unfortunately his
fragments do not provide us with very many details as to how things work on a micro level.
He does, however, provide us with a macro level explanation for the origins of the world as
we experience it. It is to his cosmogony that we now turn our attention.
Guthrie, W.K.C. A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1965. perhaps Guthries interpretation that is most helpful: Everything contains a
portion of everything else, and a large piece of something contains as many portions as a
small piece of it, though they differ in size; but every substance does not contain all the
infinite number of substances in equal proportions (291).
Personally I thought of the problem of identity. Many different types of identity are
identified. See bottom of the Wikipedia article.
In philosophy, identity, from Latin: identitas ("sameness"), is the relation each thing bears
just to itself.
Identity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIdentity_(philosophy)
Metaphysicians, and sometimes philosophers of language and mind, ask other questions:
What does it mean for an object to be the same as itself?
If x and y are identical (are the same thing), must they always be
identical? Are they necessarily identical?
What does it mean for an object to be the same, if it changes over time?
(Is applet the same as applet+1?)
If an object's parts are entirely replaced over time, as in the Ship of

Theseus example, in what way is it the same?
------------------------------
Where do mistakes comes from?

Essentially, what is the mechanism behind error?
Written Fri
Human error means that something has been done that was "not intended by the actor; not
desired by a set of rules or an external observer; or that led the task or system outside its
acceptable limits".
5 Must-Read Books on the Psychology of Being Wrong
[1]
In short, it is a deviation from intention, expectation or desirability.
[1]
Logically, human actions can fail to achieve their goal in two different ways: the actions can
go as planned, but the plan can be inadequate (leading to mistakes); or, the plan can be
satisfactory, but the performance can be deficient (leading to slips and lapses).
However, a mere failure is not an error if there had been no plan to accomplish something in
particular.
[1]Senders, J.W. and Moray, N.P. (1991) Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p.25. ISBN 0-89859-598-3.
The cognitive study of human error is a very active research field, including work related to
limits of memory and attention and also to decision making strategies such as the availability
heuristic and other cognitive biases. Such heuristics and biases are strategies that are useful
and often correct, but can lead to systematic patterns of error.
Misunderstandings as a topic in human communication have been studied in conversation
analysis, such as the examination of violations of the cooperative principle and Gricean
maxims.
Organizational studies of error or dysfunction have included studies of safety culture. One
technique for analyzing complex systems failure that incorporates organizational analysis is
Management Oversight Risk Tree Analysis (MORT)
There are many ways to categorize human error.
exogenous versus endogenous (i.e., originating outside versus inside the

individual)
situation assessment versus response planning and related distinctions in

errors in problem detection (also see signal detection theory) errors in
problem diagnosis (also see problem solving) errors in action planning and
execution[(for example: slips or errors of execution versus mistakes or
errors of intention
By level of analysis; for example, perceptual (e.g., optical illusions

wikipedia.org
) versus cognitive versus communication versus organizational.
--------------------------------------------------------
What is the opposite of philosophy, and in what ways can a principled case for it
be made?
Non-philosophy - Wikipedia?
Laruelle argues that all forms of philosophy (from ancient philosophy to analytic philosophy
to deconstruction
wikipedia.org
and so on) are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind
to this decision. The 'decision' that Laruelle is concerned with here is the
dialectical splitting of the world in order to grasp the world philosophically.
Examples from the history of philosophy include Immanuel Kant's distinction
between the synthesis of manifold impressions and the faculties of the
understanding; Martin Heidegger's split between the ontic and the ontological;
and Jacques Derrida's notion of diffrance/presence. The reason Laruelle finds
this decision interesting and problematic is because the decision itself cannot be
grasped (philosophically grasped, that is) without introducing some further
scission.
Principles of Non-Philosophy
----------------------------------------------
What did Nietzsche mean by; "The good has always been the beginning of the
end."?
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Page 230; last sentence- 26.
Ulrich Balbian, published (17

books)https://sites.google.com/site/philosophyphilosophizing/home
Written Tue
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein
Buch fr Alle und Keinen, also translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra) is a philosophical
novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, composed in four parts between 1883 and
1885 and published between 1883 and 1891.
[1]
Much of the work deals with ideas such as the "eternal recurrence of the same", the parable
on the "death of God", and the "prophecy" of the bermensch,
The book chronicles the fictitious travels and speeches of Zarathustra. Zarathustra's namesake
was the founder of Zoroastrianism, usually known in English as Zoroaster (Avestan:
Zarautra). Nietzsche is clearly portraying a "new" or "different" Zarathustra, one who turns
traditional morality on its head. He goes on to characterize "what the name of Zarathustra
means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist:"
For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite
of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the
machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force,
cause, and end in itself, is his work
The true enemy - those who think they are good and the just as the enemy of the future of
humanity. Shatter and kill them. Zarathustra then commands his disciples to shatter the
tablets (the 2 tablets of the laws, 10 commandments of Moses) and then the good and just
themselves.
Zarathustra, who was the first to grasp that the optimist is just as decadent as the pessimist,
and perhaps more
Alluding again to Moses's new commandments, Nietzsche has Zarathustra single out
especially ...
Above the CONTEXT to read this: The goodthey have always been the beginning of the
end. 27 ...
The good they have always been the beginning of the end.
Study Guide for Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/zarathustra.html
What does virtue ethics contribute to ethical theory that other thories do not
provide?

Written Tue
Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of
the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences
of particular actions.
Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Update Your Linkethics-virtue/
Jul 18, 2003 - Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It
may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in
contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which
emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).
Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's
character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves
(Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).
There are three main strands of Virtue Ethics:
Virtue Ethics, essentially Eudaimonism, was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in
the Ancient and Medieval periods. It suffered something of an eclipse during the Early
Modern period, although it is still one of the three dominant approaches to normative
Ethics (the others being Deontology and Consequentialism).
The term "virtue ethics" is a relatively recent one, essentially coined during the 20th
Century revival of the theory, and it originally defined itself by calling for a change from the
then dominant normative theories of Deontology and Consequentialism.
By Branch / Doctrine
What is understanding without words?
Just like wifi does any connectivity exist between all of us?

Written Mon
Between people, if they share certain things (culture, similar background,emotions, etc). You,
your close friends, peers and your pet and children dont need words in many situations.Yes,
body language as well.
Visual arts, common signs, signals (road signs).
Studies are done in linguistics, psychology etc on this - Pictures in sentences: understanding
without words.
1k Views Answer requested by Jakob Jrgensen

Comment1
Share
View 3 Other Answers to this Question
Read
Answer
1
Notifications
Ulrich
Ulrich, add details about what you know.
Knows About
What topics do you know about?
Fine Art
Google Ulrich de Balbian for MANY pages with my work
Edit Bio
Answers13
Metaphilosophy
several articles, books see Philosophica Papers, Academia.Edu
Edit Bio
Answers1
Artwork
professional artist, former prof,more than 1500 articles, Google my name
Edit Bio
Answers8
Philosophy
published (17 books)https://sites.google.com/site/ph...
Edit Bio
Answers17
Astrophysics
Edit Bio
Answers3
Logic (science)
Edit Bio
Mathema
Edit Bio
Metaphysics
Edit Bio
Doctor Of Philosophy in Social Science

Edit Bio
Philosophy of Mind
Edit Bio
Employment
Where have you worked?
Education
Where have you studied?
Location
Where have you lived?
Ulrich Balbian
Add Profile Bio
Write a description about yourself
Twitter
Feeds
Answers52
Questions0
Posts0
All Activity
Followers 5
Following 0
Edits70
52 AnswersMost Recent / 30-Day Views

Is logic real? Does what Athene is saying now make sense?

Written 4h ago
love it Steve Barker Why people cant seem to get this is beyond me. I can sum it ALL up in
one sentence. All people who pontificate on logic are liars. I pontificate on logic .
ha ha
Comment
Share
Does the brain decide based on what is on the outside or imagination?
Ulrich Balbian Edit Bio

Written 4h ago
ha ha you ask for a simple answer to a question that occupied philosophers for many
centuries
and probably will as long as there are human beings
Comment
Share
How do I find meaning in everyday life?

Written 4h ago
explore what you really must do

have a lover
kids
charity
cats
paint
... (more)
Comment
Share
Is it wrong to constructively but candidly criticize someone when they are more
experienced or talented than you in that field (eg drawing/painting)?

Written 4h ago
yes, be more humble even if you are more developed - it shows your greatness as a person
Comment
Share
Can you reprogram your brain to change your native language?

Written 4h ago
yes, Ive done it several times

as I moved from one country to another
Comment
Share
Is it normal to feel lonely when with lover?

Written 4h ago
yes,
introverts and really creative people feel that most of the time
except when theyre involved in their creative activities = their real passions=lovers
like philosophos - love of sophos/wisdom is one of mine
Comment
Share
How do I clear out more space for drawing in my schedule?
Written 4h ago
do it, the drawing

everything else must comes second
I write and paint daily from 4 am until midnight, and Im older than your granddads father
Comment
Share
If you could save just one person in the world, Who is that person?

Written 4h ago
my 3 dogs,
a friends 2 dogs and their 2 puppies, I take care of
my 1 cat
I do feed many homeless, give all my money to many people but personally i think most people are beyond saving!! just a play on words.
...
(more)
Comments3
Share
What is theory of mind?

Written 4h ago
TWO meanings - philosophical or naive/folk psychology (something like mind reading )

Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental statesbeliefs,
intents, desires, prete...
(more)
Comment
Share
What is the difference between stippling and pointillism?
Ulrich Balbian, Google Ulrich de Balbian for MANY pages with my work
Written 4h ago
I also wondered about the so-called difference - to me they appear to be doing the same thing.
The new hat lol, stippling appears to be one color. (Really ? I would ask).
Search Results
pointillism
...
(more)
Comment
Share
Why do the concept artworks always look better than the actual products?
Ulrich Balbian, professional artist, former prof,more than 1500 articles, Google
my name
Written 4h ago
Do they always and really look better? Those are your attitudes and value judgements.
Others will disagree. Do they ALWAYS look better? some might, some might not.
But if one can turn your questi...
(more)
Comment
Share
How can one be convinced of any religious or spiritual standpoint since science is
based on (non-empirical) philosophical ideas?

Written 4h ago
what are the foundationS of science? Do scientists worry about this question? It appears to be
more philosophical and theories about sciences.
How can we be sure about the foundations of science?
I...
(more)
Comment
Share
What are some Aristotelian views of the world? What are some examples?

Written 5h ago
Search Results
Some Main Points of Aristotle's Thought - Saint Anselm College
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/d...
Some Main Points of Aristotle's Thought ... How, for example, can a white object be sa...
(more)
Comment
Share
What are some examples of advection?

Written 5h ago
The properties of that substance are carried with it. Generally the majority of the advected
substance is a fluid. The properties that are carried with the advected substance are conserved
properti...
(more)
Comment
Share
How can you think counterintuitively, always positive thoughts when our brains
are programmed to think realistically?

Written 7h ago
Do we think realistically? and which studies do you base that assessment, opinion?
Comment
Share
What are philosophy courses good for?
Written 7h ago
everything and nothing, depends on the individual it did it cause I love certain fields of the subjects
it is said it teaches people how to think more clearly,
Check what university philosophy depar...
(more)
Comment
Share
Is there anything that could survive going through a black hole and come out
intact?

Written 7h ago
Is it possible to go inside a black hole and survive? | - About Space

https://www.spaceanswers.com/......black-hole-and-survive/
Dec 16, 2014 - Black holes, whether they have the mass of one star or ...
(more)
Comment
Share
How would you define life in ten words or less?

Written 7h ago
the lives of my cats and dogs are always relaxed, peaceful

or do you take it as meaning human life only?
the tree in my garden spends its life just being alive
how long is the shelf life of that cheese?
Comment
Share
Is it possible for 2 logical individuals to reach different conclusions based on the
same set of facts?

Written 7h ago
yes
Comment
Share
Is it possible to construct a sentence in the English language that begins with "I
is", rather than only I am?

Written 7h ago
I is that really your dogs name?

I I I I is what he sings in that song
Comment
Share
Is it possible to work while pursuing a PhD in astrophysics?

Written 7h ago
depends on the individual, for some work alone already is too difficult,
for others doing a PhD is impossible
others can do both
Comment
Share
Where can I post my paintings for the world?
my name
Written 7h ago
MANY places Google for it

eg Saatchi online
Ulrich de Balbian | Saatchi Art

Artwork: Buy Original Art Online, Paintings & More | Saatchi Artulrichdebalbian
View Ulrich de Balbian's Profile on Saatchi A...
(more)
Comment
Share
What is the essential to start in the business of buying and selling art
"paintings"?
my name
Written 7h ago
Google for this join groups such as art marketing on Linkedin,

many other such groups, even just on Linkedin below
Artwork: Buy Original Art Online, Paintings & More | Saatchi Art
https://www.saatchiart.com/
...
(more)
Comment
Share
What are some examples of kinetic energy?

Written 7h ago
All moving things have kinetic energy. It is energy possessed by an object due to its motion
or movement. These include very large things, like planets, and very small ones, like atoms.
The heavier...
(more)
Comment
Share
How new or old is the art trend of painting with toothpaste?
my name
Written 7h ago
since toothpaste was created previous toothpaste or prior toothpaste were also used
Early toothpastes
The Greeks, and then the Romans, improved the recipes for toothpaste by adding abrasives
such a...
(more)
Comment
Share
If I started a painting and left it for a few months half-done, can I continue
working on it now?
my name
Written 7h ago
no, not noticeable
and it does not matter if noticeable

Comment
Share
What is a molecular dipole moment?

Written 7h ago
in INORGANIC CHEMISTRY -Dipole moment ( ) is the measure of net molecular

polarity, which is the magnitude of the charge Q at either end of the molecular dipole times
the distance r between the c...
(more)
Comment
Share
Which is the most important philosophical book to read?

Written Fri
ha ha , I laughed loud when I read this. I did not laugh at you, only because it is so complex.
It depends if: you study philosophy? What year you are in? Which country you are in?
In Europe it will...
(more)
Comment1
Share
Why is something what it is?

Written Fri
Anaxagoras (c. 500428 B.C.E.)

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae was an important Presocratic natural philosopher and scientist
who lived and taught in Athens for approximately thirty years.
Why is Something What It Is?
...
(more)
Comment
Share
Which is a website where I can learn Astrophysics,Cosmology,etc?

Written Fri
start off wikipedia (see their links, etc) see wikipedia astrophysics and portal:cosmology.
General articles (many links at bottom) then you will see the areas you are interested in,
okay?
Astrophys...
(more)
Comment
Share
Where do mistakes comes from?

Written Fri
Human error means that something has been done that was "not intended by the actor; not
desired by a set of rules or an external observer; or that led the task or system outside its
acceptable limits".
...
(more)
Comment
Share
Do you know this artist? I found this while cleaning and wondering if it was worth
anything.
Written Fri
no, sorry
Comment
Share
What is the opposite of philosophy, and in what ways can a principled case for it
be made?

Written Fri
Non-philosophy - Wikipedia?
Laruelle argues that all forms of philosophy (from ancient philosophy to analytic philosophy
to deconstruction and so on) are structured around a prior decision, and rema...
(more)
Comment
Share
How can I find German majoring in philosophy?

Written Tue
It is unclear what you mean? Do you wish to major in philosophy using the German
language? Or do you wish to major in German and philosophy?
Do you want to study at a university? Which country?
Comment1
Share
Was socrates' speech powerful?

Written Tue
Yes, but do you mean his speech at his trial?

Top 10 Greatest Speeches - TIME
Commentary on the Apology of Socrates
If you meant something else, an apology and please specify what you meant, thanks ulrich
Comment
Share
What did Nietzsche mean by; "The good has always been the beginning of the
end."?

Written Tue
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein
Buch fr Alle und Keinen, also translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra) is a philosophical
novel by German philosopher ...
(more)
Comment1
Share
What does virtue ethics contribute to ethical theory that other thories do not
provide?

Written Tue
Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of
the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences
of par...
(more)
Comment1
Share
Where can I find artists that are willing to work for a price? (New artists that
wouldn't ask for a lot of money)
Written Tue
join linkedin. I have about 16,000 artist contacts there, some people have 200,ooo contacts
Comment
Share
I'm a self taught artist of five years. I'm still in high school however, so what can I
do to become a better artist?
Written Tue
good answer from Sofia Wilson A big factor in your answer is what type or artist are you or
what kind would you like to be? Also I think it is important to keep in mind you have a lot of
time to th...
(more)
Comment1
Share
How do I learn to make art?
Written Tue
why do you want to do it?

visual arts? performance arts? music?
just do it and youll see if you must do it
Comment
Share
Why did some artists purposely draw/paint with inaccurate anatomy?
Written Tue
is part of their style or they develop other things, very post-modern, unbalanced not
symmetrical, not harmonious
Comment
Share
What is the best way to store unmounted oil paintings on paper or canvas?
my name
Written Tue
perhaps standing up is professional, but flr lack of space lie flat

Comment
Share
Does it matter how much water you use for acrylic painting washes?

Written Tue
depends on what you want to do, and the result - try more and more or less and less water to
find your way
Comment
Share
Can I mix medium for oil paints with acrylics?

Written Tue
yes depends what you want to do and the result you seek - best just try a small area
Comment
Share
Can I create art out of used maxi pads?
my name
Written Tue
yes, probably done by someone, especially feminist artists

Comment
Share
What is understanding without words?

Written Mon
Between people, if they share certain things (culture, similar background,emotions, etc). You,
your close friends, peers and your pet and children dont need words in many situations.Yes,
body language as well.
Visual arts, common signs, signals (road signs).
Studies are done in linguistics, psychology etc on this - Pictures in sentences: understanding
without words.
How does interactionism influence individual behavior? What are some examples
of this?

Written Nov 19
It is unclear if you ask about philosophical or sociological usage?

In philosophy - the theory that there are two entities, mind and body, each of which can have
an effect on the other; matter and mind being distinct and independent, they exert causal
effects on one another.
In sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that derives social processes (such as
conflict, cooperation, identity formation) from human interaction;In sociology, the
interactionist perspective is the theory that people develop their beliefs, identities and values
according to individual and small group .
Interactionism in sociology is a theoretical perspective in which society is thought to be a

product of the everyday social interactions among millions of people. Instead of looking at a
social system on a larger scale, such as the entire population of a country or third world
countries, interactionism focuses on smaller-scale social interactions, such as the interactions
between individuals or small social groups. George Herbert Mead, Max Weber, and Herbert
Blumer have all made several contributions to the interactionism theory.
Interactionism in sociology focuses on the way that we act, or make conscious choices
regarding our behavior that proceed from how we interpret situations. In other words, humans
are not simply reacting to social stimuli: we are social actors and must adjust our behavior
based on the actions of other social actors.
Interactionism in sociology examines how different social actors make sense of or interpret
the behavior of those around us. This information can be used to understand the social
construction of the world, which is focused on not only the meanings that we give to
behavior, but also how we interpret the meanings of behavior.
For example, suppose that we were driving along a road when a truck speeds by us going 20
miles per hour over the speed limit. We would interpret that behavior as being wrong and
illegal since the car was breaking the speed limit. Now let's say that we heard a siren and saw
that the truck was actually a red fire truck going to put out a fire. Then we would interpret
this behavior as acceptable given the fact that the fire truck has a good reason for breaking
the speed limit.
Interactionism is also concerned with the social context in which our interactions take place.
The social context not only plays an important role in the way in which we interpret others'
behavior but also how we choose to behave ourselves at any given moment.
What is uniformitarianism's principle?

Written Nov 19
Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate
in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in
the universe.
It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the
constancy of causal structure throughout space-time,
but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws.
Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method,
uniformitarianism has been a key first principle of virtually all fields of science.
In geology, uniformitarianism has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the
key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates, though many modern geologists no
longer hold to a strict gradualism.
Coined by William Whewell, it was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism
by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the Scottish geologist
James Hutton. Hutton's work was later refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles
Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.
Why is Arasp Kazemian against psychology as a philosopher?
Arasp Kazemian who is apparently a Persian philosopher believes that psychology is not a
real science. Is philosophy against psychology or psychology is not really a science?

Written Nov 21
Because he has an ideological (Islamic religious) notion of psychology, western philosophy

and sciences. In the western tradition he is not considered a philosopher. Western philosophy
is not against psychology, physics, etc. It is not the place of philosophy to make such value
judgements about other discourses.
What is theory of mind?
Written 4h ago
TWO meanings - philosophical or naive/folk psychology (something like mind reading )

intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.to oneself and others and to understand that
others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
Theory of mind - Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaTheory_of_mind

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Theory of Mind
Theory of Mind is the branch of cognitive science that investigates how we ascribe mental
states to other persons and how we use the states to explain and predict the actions of those
other persons. More accurately, it is the branch that investigates mindreading or mentalizing
or mentalistic abilities. These skills are shared by almost all human beings beyond early
childhood. They are used to treat other agents as the bearers of unobservable psychological
states and processes, and to anticipate and explain the agents behavior in terms of such states
and processes. These mentalistic abilities are also called folk psychology by philosophers,
and nave psychology and intuitive psychology by cognitive scientists.
It is important to note that Theory of Mind is not an appropriate term to characterize this
research area (and neither to denote our mentalistic abilities) since it seems to assume right
from the start the validity of a specific account of the nature and development of
mindreading, that is, the view that it depends on the deployment of a theory of the mental
realm, analogous to the theories of the physical world (nave physics). But this view
known as theory-theoryis only one of the accounts offered to explain our mentalistic
abilities. In contrast, theorists of mental simulation have suggested that what lies at the root
of mindreading is not any sort of folk-psychological conceptual scheme, but rather a kind of
mental modeling in which the simulator uses her own mind as an analog model of the mind
of the simulated agent.
Both theory-theory and simulation-theory are actually families of theories. Some theorytheorists maintain that our nave theory of mind is the product of the scientific-like exercise
of a domain-general theorizing capacity. Other theory-theorists defend a quite different
hypothesis, according to which mindreading rests on the maturation of a mental organ
dedicated to the domain of psychology. Simulation-theory also shows different facets.
According to the moderate version of simulationism, mental concepts are not completely
excluded from simulation. Simulation can be seen as a process through which we first
generate and self-attribute pretend mental states that are intended to correspond to those of
the simulated agent, and then project them onto the target. By contrast, the radical version
of simulationism rejects the primacy of first-person mindreading and contends that we
imaginatively transform ourselves into the simulated agent, interpreting the targets behavior
without using any kind of mental concept, not even ones referring to ourselves.
Finally, the claimcommon to both theorists of theory and theorists of simulationthat
mindreading plays a primary role in human social understanding was challenged in the early
21
st
century, mainly by phenomenology-oriented philosophers and cognitive scientists.
Table of Contents
1. Theory-Theory The Child-Scientist Theory The Modularist Theory-Theory
First-Person Mindreading and Theory-Theory
2. Simulation-Theory Simulation with and without Introspection Simulation in
Low-Level Mindreading
3. Social Cognition without Mindreading
4. References and Further Reading Suggested Further Reading References
.
-Theory of mind - Wikipedia
intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.to oneself and others and to understand that
others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.
[1]
Deficits can occur in people with autism spectrum disorders, schizophrenia, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder,
[2]
as well as alcoholics who have suffered brain damage due to alcohol's neurotoxicity.
[3]
Although philosophical approaches to this exist, the theory of mind as such is distinct from
the philosophy of mind.
Contents
1 Definition
2 Philosophical and psychological roots
3 Development 3.1 Language
4 Empirical investigation 4.1 False-belief task 4.2 Unexpected contents 4.3

Other tasks 4.4 Early precursors
5 Deficits 5.1 Autism 5.2 Schizophrenia 5.3 Alcohol use disorders 5.4
Depression and dysphoria 5.5 Specific language impairment
6 Brain mechanisms 6.1 In typically developing humans 6.2 In autism 6.3

In schizophrenia
7 Practical validity
8 Non-human
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 External links
Are epistemology and metaphysics in any sense complete? Can we know

anything for certain?

Written just now
no they are not.

There are many schools and questions they concentrate on. One could perhaps suggest that
the (questions and their implications) answers give by each school is complete.
But new original- and creative-thinking philosophers always produce new (or orignal ways of
expressing old questions) questions (problems) concerning these two fields in philosophy.
They might also deal with some minute aspect of these fields no one else did or an original
approach to or perspective on new and existing problems.
Can we know anything for certain?

Yes
no
maybe
Very complex questions touching on many areas of epistemology.
| Creation Education Center
Can we know anything for certain ?
Hot Questions - Stack Exchange

_
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of
the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Join them; it only takes a
minute:
Sign up
Lengthy discussion on your question here:
Is it possible to know anything with certainty?
PLEASE the discussion there - dealing with many sides of this question.
5 down vote favorite
I have been thinking about objectivism vs relativism recently.
It is easy to prove by contradiction that there exist objective truths. However, is it possible to
know anything?
If you assume a human makes errors in logical deduction 5% of the time, then it seems to
follow that it is impossible for a human to know anything (eg how to know 1+1=2). In which
case it seems that the answer to my question is unknown. This is confusing to me, any
thoughts?
How can I start learning metaphysics?
I've started to read Michael Loux's Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction.
But I've found it very dense - I guess it's mostly because I have no background in
philosophy, I've even searched for the meaning of some of the words, but I fear
the definition I built is too poor and I'll need to know a little more to do it. What
would you recommend me to get started at metaphysics? I'm open to books,
video lectures, etc.

Written 2m ago
See these general introductions. Wikipedia has hyper links to the terms.
See this site first
http://www.philosophybasics.com/general.htmlBy Branch / Doctrine

Metaphysics - Wikipedia
They also have lists of more advanced resources.
You might well become passionate about one of the topics they mention here
Central questions
1.1 Being and ontology
1.2 Identity and change
1.3 Causality and time
1.4 Necessity and possibility
1.5 Cosmology and cosmogony
1.6 Mind and matter
1.7 Determinism and free will
1.8 Religion and spirituality
2 Metaphysics in science
3 Rejections of metaphysics
4 History and schools of metaphysics
4.1 Pre-history
4.2 Bronze age
4.3 Pre-Socratic Greece
4.4 Ancient China
4.5 Socrates and Plato
4.6 Aristotle
4.7 Classical India 4.7.1 Skhya 4.7.2 Vednta
4.8 Islamic metaphysics
4.9 Scholasticism and the Middle Ages
4.10 Rationalism and Continental Rationalism
4.11 British empiricism
4.12 Kant
4.13 Kantians
4.14 Early analytical philosophy and positivism
4.15 Continental philosophy
4.16 Process metaphysics
4.17 Later analytical philosophy
5 Etymology
6 See also
7 References
8 Bibliography
9 Further reading
10 External links
It is all about passion! They you will now stop exploring this or any other area of existence,
martial art, painting, cycling, psychics, whatever.
Added to the above look at these encyclopedias - they will also define issues, question, terms
in metaphysics. Just like wikipedia.
Place metaphysics in the larger context of philosophy - it is only one field or area of
philosophy./
Philosophy Pages
Branches of Philosophy
Introduction to Philosophy/The Branches of Philosophy
Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Metaphysics
Search
If god exists then why doesnt he answer when we speak to him?
Written just now
You asked 2 questions.

The non-answering part. He might not use words? He could respond in many ways, through
circumstances you find yourself in, through other people, etc. This is merely to broaden your
notion of answer. Some people think loved who passed on answer them in their dreams?
Does s/he exist? All the common place man on the street questions have been dealt with by
philosophers in - the existence of God. Examples of them hereExistence of God - Wikipedia
Arguments for the Existence of God
The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God
gizmodo.com
Remember Hinduism has 3 million plus gods, Buddhism sort of does not have any (later
developments in Tibet etc do have many gods and deities), etc. There are many other notions
of god/s and deities than the one of Christianity and Judaism. Even in the Judaic-Christian
Old Testaments there are many gods. The Judaic-Christian notion of God developed from
those deities and from surrounding cultures.
How important is it for an artist to have his paintings recognized and appreciated
by others?
What do you mean by others. Some artists or their work are not appreciated by their friends,
siblings, neighbours etc. Where to find sufficiently educated, open-minded individuals who
could make serious judgements of your work?? Art schools, other students, might help. Art
movements, see below. Otherwise and individual can be and can feel very much on his own.
It depends on the type of art, eg performance art, paintings, sculptors, installations, new
media, etc. It is no use showing your work to those who are not interested in that genre.
BUT in the end one does not produce art because others like it - like Damien Hirst, Jeff
Koons etc are paid millions for their sharks in tanks, Tracy Ermins unmade bed etc. Those
things are mere gimmicks, hyped by art media and billionaire art collectors.
You can show your work on Linkedin to other artists. Some places online eg Saatchionline
will give and opinion.
Buy it seems to me in the end one is alone, especially if one does not merely produce nice
recognizable faces, forms, dogs, figures, animals, landscapes - figurative art.
van Gogh was not appreciate in his life time,like many artists whose styles and explorations
were ahead of their time, even Picasso, Kandinsky etc starved. Kandinskys child died of
mal-nutrition as he could not feed him, etc etc.
Some artists consider the opinion of others to be essential, that is why many artists worked in
groups eg the American Expressionists , Impressionists etc.
Art Movements
Impressionism.
Post Impressionism.
Cubism.
Fauvism.
Expressionism.
Dadaism.
Surrealism.
Pop Art.
Art Movements - artists, styles, techniques, ideas

List of art movements - Wikipedia
Can I find the meaning of life through the study of art?
as Mark Werner says: you assume life has ONE?? meaning a? meaning. Many little meanings
for you and different ones for others perhaps? A number of good artists, passionate about art,
committed suicide - like professionals ion other fields.
Painting and thinking philosophically are essential to me, they do make my life meaningful,
but I wont project my passions on others.
Can the mind control the brain?
I present these questions that were put to me and my responses for a number of reasons. I
wish to show that dealing with them in a meaningful manner does not lie within the scope of
one particular discipline, but that they can be dealt with in an intelligent manner. When it is
necessary I mention that they way the question was put to me was not clear and meaningful.
It is therefore best that the question be re-phrased so as to make more sense. To be able to do
this one often has to assist the questioner to clarify what he really attempted to say.
I then indicate if the notions that are used to express the question might not be clear, for
example they could mean different things, as in this case mind.
I then present ways in which those notions were dealt with, often as presented by Wikipedia
and encyclopaedias as they present these things in a simple manner that is accessible to most
people.
With this knowledge or information the individual can re-phrase his question in a more
meaningful manner, that is if the question has not already been dissolved by showing how the
notions used to present the question have been explored, by the discipline of philosophy
and/or other disciplines.
I hope that my presentation in each case is fairly simple and when necessary employs very
clear, straight thinking without fallacies and with sound arguments.
The way I deal with the question might resemble the way/method many questions or
problems are dealt with in many disciplines, including philosophy. Is it the subject-matter or
contents of a question that makes it philosophical, psychological, etc? Or is it the method or
the way one deals with the question that makes it philosophical, psychological, etc? Or a
combination of both?
I ask this question for the sake of mentioning meta-philosophy. I wish to state that often when
we do philosophy, ask a philosophically-relevant question, or deal with a question in such a
way (what way is that? Metaphysical? Ontological? Epistemological? Or which filed/s?)
that it becomes or as if it is philosophically relevant
We are doing philosophy
And frequently this is accompanied by doing meta-philosophy (when and because we ask
questions about our dealing with a question philosophically).
This is the real point of why I post these questions and my dealings with them: I wish to
reveal some things abouit how a question is, or can become, or can dealt with in such a way
so that it is or becomes philosophical(ly relevant), and how often meta-philosophical
questions, queries and problems are involved in this first-order doing of philosophy or
philosophical dealings.
What and how is philosophy or the doing of philosophy, philosophizing?
And what or how is meta-philosophy/izing or the doing of meta-philosophy/zing.
And notice how the two are frequently interrelated, when one dos the one, the other (the
meta-reflections) are involved, with the aim of and the reason to: assist in the first order
doing of philosophy.
To respond to the question in this case: Can the mind control the brain?
First of all - mind is an umbrella-word that can mean many things and there is no agreed
definition of it.
The mind is a set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking,
judgement, and memory.
[3]
[4]
The mind is the faculty of a human being's reasoning and thoughts. It holds the power of
imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and
emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions.
There is no universally agreed definition of what a mind is and what its distinguishing
properties are, although there is a lengthy tradition of inquiries in philosophy, religion,
psychology, and cognitive science. The main open question regarding the nature of the mind
is mindbody problem, which investigates the relation of the mind to the physical brain and
nervous system. Prescientific viewpoints included dualism and idealism,
[5]
which considered the mind somehow separate from physical existence, while modern views
center around physicalism and functionalism, which hold that the mind is roughly identical
with the brain or reducible to physical phenomena such as neuronal activity.
[6]
Another question concerns which types of beings are capable of having minds, for example
whether mind is exclusive to humans, possessed also by some or all animals, by all living
things, whether it is a strictly definable characteristic at all, or whether mind can also be a
property of some types of man-made machines.
Whatever its nature, it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have
subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment, to perceive and respond to
stimuli with some kind of agency, and to have consciousness, including thinking and feeling.
[3]
[7]
The concept of mind is understood in many different ways by many different cultural and
religious traditions. Some see mind as a property exclusive to humans whereas others ascribe
properties of mind to non-living entities (e.g. panpsychism and animism), to animals and to
deities. Some of the earliest recorded speculations linked mind (sometimes described as
identical with soul or spirit) to theories concerning both life after death, and cosmological and
natural order, for example in the doctrines of Zoroaster, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, and
other ancient Greek, Indian and, later, Islamic and medieval European philosophers.
Oliver Elbs, Neuro-Esthetics: Mapological foundations and applications (Map 2003),
(Munich 2005)
Descartes, R. (1641) Meditations on First Philosophy, in The Philosophical Writings of Ren
Descartes, trans. by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff and D. Murdoch, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984, vol. 2, pp. 1-62.
Dictionary.com - The world's favorite online dictionary!, "mind": "1. (in a human or other
conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills,
perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. 2. Psychology. the totality of
conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities. 3. intellect or understanding, as
distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence."
Google definition, "mind": "The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the
world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness." [1]
Redding, Paul, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), forthcoming. "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel". See section "2.1 Background:
"Idealism" as understood in the German tradition".
Smart, J. J. C., "The Mind/Brain Identity Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), [2]
Relation of the mind to the brain -
Understanding the relationship between the brain and the mind mindbody problem
is one of the central issues in the history of philosophy is a challenging problem both
philosophically and scientifically.
[17]
There are three major philosophical schools of thought concerning the answer: dualism,
materialism, and idealism. Dualism holds that the mind exists independently of the
brain;
[18]
materialism holds that mental phenomena are identical to neuronal phenomena;
[19]
and idealism holds that only mental phenomena exist.
Patricia Smith Churchland, Neurophilosophy: toward a unified science of the mind-brain,
MIT Press, 1989
Hart, W. D. (1997): Dualism, pp. 265-7 in S. Guttenplan (ed.), A Companion to the
Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell
A.R. Lacey, A Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996
[19]
In animals, the brain, or encephalon (Greek for "in the head"), is the control center of the
central nervous system, responsible for thought. In most animals, the brain is located in the
head, protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing,
equilibrioception, taste and olfaction. While all vertebrates have a brain, most invertebrates
have either a centralized brain or collections of individual ganglia. Primitive animals such as
sponges do not have a brain at all. Brains can be extremely complex. For example, the human
brain contains around 86 billion neurons, each linked to as many as 10,000 others.
[15]
[16]
Understanding the relationship between the brain and the mind mindbody problem is one
of the central issues in the history of philosophy is a challenging problem both
philosophically (philosophically see below) and scientifically*.(Mind - Wikipedia
scientifically Mind - Wikipedia Mind - Wikipedia Scientific study Neuroscience Cognitive
Science Psychology )
[17]
Mind - Wikipedia
There are three major philosophical schools of thought concerning the answer: dualism,
materialism, and idealism. Dualism holds that the mind exists independently of the brain;
[18]
materialism holds that mental phenomena are identical to neuronal phenomena;
[19]
and idealism holds that only mental phenomena exist.
[19]
Through most of history many philosophers found it inconceivable that cognition could be
implemented by a physical substance such as brain tissue (that is neurons and synapses).
[20]
Descartes, who thought extensively about mind-brain relationships, found it possible to
explain reflexes and other simple behaviors in mechanistic terms, although he did not believe
that complex thought, and language in particular, could be explained by reference to the
physical brain alone.
[21]
The most straightforward scientific evidence of a strong relationship between the physical
brain matter and the mind is the impact physical alterations to the brain have on the mind,
such as with traumatic brain injury and psychoactive drug use.
[22]
Philosopher Patricia Churchland notes that this drug-mind interaction indicates an intimate
connection between the brain and the mind.
[23]
In addition to the philosophical questions, the relationship between mind and brain involves a
number of scientific questions, including understanding the relationship between mental
activity and brain activity, the exact mechanisms by which drugs influence cognition, and the
neural correlates of consciousness.
Theoretical approaches to explain how mind emerges from the brain include connectionism,
computationalism and Bayesian brain.
Using an ancient model of the mind known as the Five-Aggregate Model, the mind can be
understood as sense impressions and mental phenomena that are continuously changing.
[24]
Considering this model, it is possible to understand that it is the mind (i.e., constantly
changing sense impressions and mental phenomena) that experiences/analyzes all external
phenomena in the world as well as all internal phenomena (such as the body anatomy, the
circulatory system, the nervous system and even the organ brain). When considering this, two
levels of analyses need to be recognized: (i) analyses conducted from a third-person
perspective on how the brain works, and (ii) analyzing the moment-to-moment manifestation
of an individuals mind-stream (analyses conducted from a first-person perspective).
Considering the latter, the manifestation of the mind-stream is described as happening in
every person all the time, even in a scientist who analyses various phenomena in the world,
including analyzing and hypothesizing about the organ brain.
[24]
*Neuroscience
See also: Cognitive neuroscience and Thought identification
Neuroscience studies the nervous system, the physical basis of the mind. At the systems level,
neuroscientists investigate how biological neural networks form and physiologically interact
to produce mental functions and content such as reflexes, multisensory integration, motor
coordination, circadian rhythms, emotional responses, learning, and memory. At a larger
scale, efforts in computational neuroscience have developed large-scale models that simulate
simple, functioning brains.[59] As of 2012, such models include the thalamus, basal ganglia,
prefrontal cortex, motor cortex, and occipital cortex, and consequentially simulated brains
can learn, respond to visual stimuli, coordinate motor responses, form short-term memories,
and learn to respond to patterns. Currently, researchers aim to program the hippocampus and
limbic system, hypothetically imbuing the simulated mind with long-term memory and crude
emotions.[60]
By contrast, affective neuroscience studies the neural mechanisms of personality, emotion,
and mood primarily through experimental tasks.
Cognitive Science
See also: Cognitive Science
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2013)
Cognitive science examines the mental functions that give rise to information processing,
termed cognition. These include perception, attention, working memory, long-term memory,
producing and understanding language, learning, reasoning, problem solving, and decision
making. Cognitive science seeks to understand thinking "in terms of representational
structures in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures".[61]
Psychology
See also: Neuropsychology and Unconscious mind
Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior, mental functioning, and experience. As
both an academic and applied discipline, Psychology involves the scientific study of mental
processes such as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, as well as environmental
influences, such as social and cultural influences, and interpersonal relationships, in order to
devise theories of human behavior. Psychological patterns can be understood as low cost
ways of information processing.[62] Psychology also refers to the application of such
knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily
lives and the treatment of mental health problems.
Psychology differs from the other social sciences (e.g. anthropology, economics, political
science, and sociology) due to its focus on experimentation at the scale of the individual, or
individuals in small groups as opposed to large groups, institutions or societies. Historically,
psychology differed from biology and neuroscience in that it was primarily concerned with
mind rather than brain. Modern psychological science incorporates physiological and
neurological processes into its conceptions of perception, cognition, behaviour, and mental
disorders.
Whishaw, Bryan Kolb, Ian Q. (2010). An Introduction to Brain and Behavior (3rd ed.). New
York: Worth Publishers. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-7167-7691-8. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
Sherwood, Lauralee (2011). Fundamentals of Human Physiology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-8400-6225-3. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
Patricia Smith Churchland, Neurophilosophy: toward a unified science of the mind-brain,
MIT Press, 1989
Hart, W. D. (1997): Dualism, pp. 265-7 in S. Guttenplan (ed.), A Companion to the
Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell
A.R. Lacey, A Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996
Neurophilosophy, Ch. 6
Descartes, Description of the human body
Boake and Diller, 2005
Neurophilosophy, Ch. 8
Karunamuni N.D. (May 2015). "The Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind" (PDF). SAGE open.
5 (2). doi:10.1177/2158244015583860.
What is the method of philosophizing?

Written just now
Philosophical method (or philosophical methodology) is the study of how to do

philosophy. A common view among philosophers is that philosophy is distinguished by the
ways that philosophers follow in addressing philosophical questions.
Philosophical methodology - Wikipedia
Philosophical methodology - Wikipedia
Methodology process
Systematic philosophy is a generic term that applies to philosophical methods and approaches
that attempt to provide a framework in reason that can explain all questions and problems
related to human life. Examples of systematic philosophers include Plato, Aristotle,
Descartes, Spinoza, and Hegel. In many ways, any attempts to formulate a philosophical
method that provides the ultimate constituents of reality, a metaphysics, can be considered
systematic philosophy. In modern philosophy the reaction to systematic philosophy began
with Kierkegaard and continued in various forms through analytic philosophy, existentialism,
hermeneutics, and deconstructionism.
[1]
Some common features of the methods that philosophers follow (and discuss when discussing
philosophical method) include:
Methodic doubt - a systematic process of being skeptical about (or

doubting) the truth of one's beliefs.
Plato said that "philosophy begins in wonder", a view which is echoed by

Aristotle: "It was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to
philosophize and still leads them. Philosophizing may begin with some
simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize
may arise from suspicion, for example that we do not fully understand,
and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
Argument - provide an argument or several arguments supporting the

solution.
Dialectic - present the solution and arguments for criticism by other

philosophers, and help them judge their own
Methodology process
1.1 Doubt and the sense of wonder
Plato said that "philosophy begins in wonder", a view which is echoed by

Aristotle: "It was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to
philosophize and still leads them." Philosophizing may begin with some
simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize
may arise from suspicion, for example that we do not fully understand,
and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
1.2 Formulate questions and problems
Another element of philosophical method is to formulate questions to be answered or

problems to be solved. The working assumption is that the more clearly the question
or problem is stated, the easier it is to identify critical issues.
A relatively small number of major philosophers prefer not to be quick, but to spend
more time trying to get extremely clear on what the problem is all about.
1.3 Enunciate a solution
Another approach is to enunciate a theory, or to offer a definition or analysis, which

constitutes an attempt to solve a philosophical problem. Sometimes a philosophical
theory by itself can be stated quite briefly. All the supporting philosophical text is
offered by way of hedging, explanation, and argument.
Not all proposed solutions to philosophical problems consist of definitions or

generalizations. Sometimes what is called for is a certain sort of explanation not a
causal explanation, but an explanation for example of how two different views, which
seem to be contrary to one another, can be held at the same time, consistently. One
can call this a philosophical explanation.
1.4 Justify the solution
A argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion), it is said or implied,

follows from the others (the premises). One might think of arguments as bundles of
reasons often not just a list, but logically interconnected statements followed by
the claim they are reasons for. The reasons are the premises, the claim they support is
the conclusion; together they make an argument.
Philosophical arguments and justifications are another important part of philosophical

method. It is rare to find a philosopher, particularly in the Western philosophical
tradition, who lacks many arguments. Philosophers are, or at least are expected to be,
very good at giving arguments. They constantly demand and offer arguments for
different claims they make. This therefore indicates that philosophy is a quest for
arguments.
A good argument a clear, organized, and sound statement of reasons may

ultimately cure the original doubts that motivated us to take up philosophy. If one is
willing to be satisfied without any good supporting reasons, then a Western
philosophical approach may not be what one actually requires
1.5 Philosophical criticism
In philosophy, which concerns the most fundamental aspects of the universe, the
experts all disagree. It follows that another element of philosophical method, common
in the work of nearly all philosophers, is philosophical criticism. It is this that makes
much philosophizing a social endeavor.
Philosophers offer definitions and explanations in solution to problems; they argue for
those solutions; and then other philosophers provide counter arguments, expecting to
eventually come up with better solutions. This exchange and resulting revision of
views is called dialectic. Dialectic (in one sense of this history-laden word) is simply
philosophical conversation amongst people who do not always agree with each other
about everything.
One can do this sort of harsh criticism on one's own, but others can help greatly, if
important assumptions are shared with the person offering the criticisms. Others are
able to think of criticisms from another perspective.
Some philosophers and ordinary people dive right in and start trying to solve the
problem. They immediately start giving arguments, pro and con, on different sides of
the issue. Doing philosophy is different from this. It is about questioning assumptions,
digging for deeper understanding. Doing philosophy is about the journey, the process,
as much as it is about the destination, the conclusion. Its method differs from other
disciplines, in which the experts can agree about most of the fundamentals.
1.6 Motivation Passion/passionate about thinking philosophical (love of

wisdom, insights, understanding, not mere factual knowledge or
information)
Method in philosophy is in some sense rooted in motivation, only by

understanding why people take up philosophy can one properly
understand what philosophy is.
Method in philosophy is in some sense rooted in motivation, only by understanding why

people take up philosophy can one properly understand what philosophy is. People often find
themselves believing things that they do not understand. For example, about God,
themselves, the natural world, human society, morality and human productions. Often, people
fail to understand what it is they believe, and fail to understand the reasons they believe in
what they do. Some people have questions about the meaning of their beliefs and questions
about the justification (or rationality) of their beliefs. A lack of these things shows a lack of
understanding, and some dislike not having this understanding.
These questions about are only the tip of the philosophical iceberg. There are many other
things about this universe about which people are also fundamentally ignorant. Philosophers
are in the business of investigating all sorts of those areas of ignorance.
A bewilderingly huge number of basic concepts are poorly understood. For example:
What does it mean to say that one thing causes another?
What is rationality? What are space and time?
What is beauty, and if it is in the eye of the beholder, then what is it that is
being said to be in the eye of the beholder?
One might also consider some of the many questions about justification. Human lives are
deeply informed with many basic assumptions. Different assumptions, would lead to different
ways of living.
For straight thinking see this free download of Thoulesss book

http://neglectedbooks.com/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking.pdf
http://philpapers.org/browse/philosophical-methods
Argument* (454)
Conceptual Analysis (261)
Computational Philosophy (22)
Experimental Philosophy* (1,146 | 1)
Formal Philosophy (12)
Intuition* (555 | 168)
Methodology in Metaphysics* (197)
Linguistic Analysis in Philosophy (60)
Philosophical Methods, Misc (189)
Thought Experiments (357)
Transcendental Arguments (65)
History/traditions: Philosophical Methods
Aristotle: Philosophical Method (45 | 19)

Philofphil

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philofphil

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philosophy of Philosophy

Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on

Reviewed by Stephen Hetherington, University of New South Wales

note: analysis required.

note: cogent cogent

and "rational economy" (pp. 7-10).

There is a philosophically typical way of reacting.

Note: this is important in his argument the making of distinctions - to be analysed

Note; this synthesis should be analysed

Note: unfounded generalization

Note: The continually increasing complexity really?

Note: I agree about this losing in details

How many are there? We cannot know:

Note: his claim

Note: the ideal

Note: analyse this and why or why not?

Note: Sartre? Continental philosophies? Sociology and culture studies?

Note: I wrote on this concerning creative-thinking original philosophers

Dealing with Objections

ness or inappropriateness of different ways of proceeding in philosophizing.

In matters of philosophy, after all, understanding clearly

philosophy, not principles

What argues for principles? What is their justifactory rationale?

enable us to orient ourselves in thought and action,

intelligent interagents seems to be flaunted by the Socrates of Platos

rational economy to avert needless labor in production and avoidable

Principles of Informative Adequacy

Never accept anything

2. Aporetic Method in Philosophy

What Distinctions Are

Note: here he discusses the necessity or essentials of apories and distinctions!

Note: here he discusses fallacies when making distinctions

5. Systemic Interconnectedness and Explanatory Holism in Philosophy

The Structure of Dialectic

Examples of philosophizing, where I explain something to nonphilosophers.

Scientific knowledge is not a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of

The Evidence of Nothing

Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method

What Are They Afraid Of?

Can Research Be Done from a Creation Base?

Do Creationists Believe In Natural Law?

Inspired Guesses, Creative Imagination, and Science

Does Science Conflict with the Bible?

Establishing Scientific Guidelines for Origins Instruction in Public Education

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the

The branches of science (also referred to as "sciences", "scientific fields", or "scientific

Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including

Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a

Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies.[citation

1.1 Defining science

1.2 Scientific explanation

1.3 Justifying science

1.4 Observation inseparable from theory

1.5 The purpose of science

1.6 Values and science

3.1 Axiomatic assumptions

3.3 Anything goes

3.4 Sociology of scientific knowledge

3.5 Continental philosophy

there is not just ONE philosophy of science general but -

Philosophy of particular sciences

5.1 Philosophy of statistics

5.2 Philosophy of mathematics