M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Systematic Philosophy is first and foremost the recognition that there is such a thing as “truth” as understood through distinction. For example a cow is not a horse, or a man is not a mouse, or a square is not a triangle. We are aware that a nature is what it is and not something else at the same time. Thus we come to an important principle of rational thought and reality; that one distinct nature cannot be at the same time something other than its distinction. Distinction is the root of logic.
Other principles arise from this understanding; principles of causality. For example, only a triangle can be a triangle and only a square can be a square. A square cannot express the nature of a triangle, and a square cannot express the nature of a square. Only a thing can express the nature of a thing. If a thing is not nothing, then things do not have the nature of nothing, and nothing does not have the nature of things. It therefore follows that things can only arise from the nature of other things and not the nature of nothing because nothing can only express nothing; nothing can only ever be the absence of something.
The power of these truths are as such that if you deny them, then all possibility of truth is also denied, because all truth begins with the identification of rational distinctions. For that reason it is the most certain form of knowledge in existence; it is the first knowledge. A truly systematic philosophy builds its self upon principles which cannot be denied rationally. It then asks what can we know about reality according to these rational principles.
In the past philosophy included the study of physics. Men soon found out that rationalization without experiment was not suitable because while men had a general knowledge of physical nature it came to light that some natures are as such that their particularities are not easily identified by rational thought alone. For example, with out knowledge of gravity, it may seem common sense that if the world is round then people will fall off, and therefore we ought to say that the world is flat. The reason they were mistaken is because you cannot gain reliable knowledge of scientific objects purely by rational thought alone. We had no knowledge of gravity and therefore we could not include it in our conclusions. While it is true that through systematic philosophy we can have certain knowledge of the fact that existence cannot come from nothing, we cannot however guarantee reliable and certain knowledge about what particular things exist and what natures they have; except in a very generalized sense. The more particular and contingent the objects under inquiry are the less certain that a purely philosophical argument is going to be correct. Therefore the study of physics became its own specialized field of inquiry.
It was no-longer suitable to include the study of physics in the context of a systematic philosophy free of the limitations of experiment. This is not to say however that science is not a philosophy. Science itself functions on the rational foundation of metaphysical principles. Its a fundamental part of scientific inquiry to philosophize about nature; otherwise it would not be possible to form hypothesis. However, a hypothesis has to be justified by experiment in order to be accepted as a valid theory of physics because of the epistemological limitations i explained above. Science is distinct from ordinary philosophy in this one vital respect.
The philosophy of today concerns itself with questions of meaning, ethics, politics, and metaphysics.
Other principles arise from this understanding; principles of causality. For example, only a triangle can be a triangle and only a square can be a square. A square cannot express the nature of a triangle, and a square cannot express the nature of a square. Only a thing can express the nature of a thing. If a thing is not nothing, then things do not have the nature of nothing, and nothing does not have the nature of things. It therefore follows that things can only arise from the nature of other things and not the nature of nothing because nothing can only express nothing; nothing can only ever be the absence of something.
The power of these truths are as such that if you deny them, then all possibility of truth is also denied, because all truth begins with the identification of rational distinctions. For that reason it is the most certain form of knowledge in existence; it is the first knowledge. A truly systematic philosophy builds its self upon principles which cannot be denied rationally. It then asks what can we know about reality according to these rational principles.
In the past philosophy included the study of physics. Men soon found out that rationalization without experiment was not suitable because while men had a general knowledge of physical nature it came to light that some natures are as such that their particularities are not easily identified by rational thought alone. For example, with out knowledge of gravity, it may seem common sense that if the world is round then people will fall off, and therefore we ought to say that the world is flat. The reason they were mistaken is because you cannot gain reliable knowledge of scientific objects purely by rational thought alone. We had no knowledge of gravity and therefore we could not include it in our conclusions. While it is true that through systematic philosophy we can have certain knowledge of the fact that existence cannot come from nothing, we cannot however guarantee reliable and certain knowledge about what particular things exist and what natures they have; except in a very generalized sense. The more particular and contingent the objects under inquiry are the less certain that a purely philosophical argument is going to be correct. Therefore the study of physics became its own specialized field of inquiry.
It was no-longer suitable to include the study of physics in the context of a systematic philosophy free of the limitations of experiment. This is not to say however that science is not a philosophy. Science itself functions on the rational foundation of metaphysical principles. Its a fundamental part of scientific inquiry to philosophize about nature; otherwise it would not be possible to form hypothesis. However, a hypothesis has to be justified by experiment in order to be accepted as a valid theory of physics because of the epistemological limitations i explained above. Science is distinct from ordinary philosophy in this one vital respect.
The philosophy of today concerns itself with questions of meaning, ethics, politics, and metaphysics.
e.g., we’re accustomed to true/false questions on tests and quizzes, sworn to tell the truth in court, and even the X-Files says ‘The Truth is Out There’ lol.