Sure, the previous post is correct. But, in your class, it might not be that simple.
It’s been many years since I studied philosophy.
Your best bet might be starting with the authors of your books or assigned readings.
I cannot imagine university education today with computers and the internet. I walked through the U of Mich classroom buildings and saw enormous computer lab facilities, packed with students.
There must be many philosophy database websites that have resources that you can use.
The problem would be, becoming overwhelmed with them.
Philosophy has a lot to do with defining the words and terms you use. “Philosophy of nature” is a very old-sounding term, like ancient greek philosophy.
It’s like they are starting from scratch to organize and explain the world around them. The early philosophers get trapped within their own words, and the inability to express things, like when they start talking about vapors, and you have no cotton picking idea what they’re referring to. You’re supposed to read their writings and figure out what they are trying to say. That’s at least half of the problem.
See? “nature of science” is a twist on the word “nature.” The nature of something is supposed to be some distilled and pure essence of something, and they plunge in to say what it is, and I get lost in what they’re trying to express.
“science” is a hypothetical construct. It means whatever somebody intends it to mean. “Chemistry” sounds pretty concrete and defined, but it is seamlessly connected with mathematics, physics, biology, and astronomy. All those sciences are not distinct. You are deceived thinking that they are separate, just like the books you would study them in.
The problem is, somebody here like me can make all these wise cracks, but it doesn’t seem to help with your class.
You have to be able to pass those midterm and final essay exams. But, when you write a paper, you’d best stick to a narrow subject and beat it to death. Best to show something about how wise Plato was, for example. Just his very abstraction of things shows he’s not like a dog just following his nose. He is using his mind to map connections in it to things he sees out there in the world.
Didn’t those guys back then try to explain everything as a mixture of air, fire, water,and earth? Nice try. See how that gets them so far, but only so far.
Some philosophy classes deceive you by leading you to believe that the philosophers were not working on practical problems, but they were. Maybe the internet or encyclopedia or wikipedia can give you an overview.
For example, Da Vinci was a great practitioner of engineering sciences, betraying his strong orientation to the idea of a physical universe with very deterministic connections between the pieces. His inventions show complex linkages between seemingly separated things. That is an important concept to grasp, it turns out, for things that are remotely connected themselves or have subtle or almost invisible connections.
Carbon dioxide is an invisible but real connection between plants and animals. Gravity is an invisible thing that connects planets and the sun. How long do you think it took them to find that out?
The Romans invented cement and built all those aqueducts (which takes vision, not to mention work and measurement and planning). Then, the technology of cement was lost for centuries. What a drag.
The mathematical constant pi is built into the pyramids, did you know? How do you think it got in there? Do you think they were aware of it? There are books on pi, and its discovery. It’s amazing to see technology take off when it is discovered.
