The Basic Philosophy Series 101 -1: What is philosophy and how is it done?

[Kismetji]

What if metaphysics does contradict science some of the time? Does it, therefore, make metaphysics worthless? Or is it just because you are privileging science? Which itself is based on theory (namely, that truth can even in principle be empirical)?

 

[Shike]

What if metaphysics does contradict science some of the time? Does it, therefore, make metaphysics worthless? Or is it just because you are privileging science? Which itself is based on theory (namely, that truth can even in principle be empirical)?

Well in that case it would seem that science really wouldn’t contradict metaphysics because it seems like you are saying science couldn’t, in principle, arrive at truth because of its empirical nature. So, no contradiction arises, it would seem.

Of course this is ignoring the fact that some metaphysical arguments proceed from basic observations about reality.

 

[Kismetji]

Well in that case it would seem that science really wouldn’t contradict metaphysics because it seems like you are saying science couldn’t, in principle, arrive at truth because of its empirical nature. So, no contradiction arises, it would seem.

Of course this is ignoring the fact that some metaphysical arguments proceed from basic observations about reality.

I think science does allow us access to truth. But that truth is not first and foremost predicated on sense-data. That sense-data is taken, and interpreted in a larger frame. That frame is something metaphysical. So, when you say that Neptune is a substantial heavenly body revolving around the sun it isn’t as though you simply observed that with your instruments. You assume, in tandem with the data which is presenting itself to you as ‘given’, that there exists space outside of our world, that Neptune really is revolving around the sun and that this isn’t only an illusion, that to think otherwise would be to violate the principle of parsimony, etc. Because we presuppose reality a certain way, that is how we “see” whatever is “given” in relation to those prior propositions; in terms of how we think of the world and the ‘truth’ vouchsafed for us.

 

[Shike]

That sense-data is taken, and interpreted in a larger frame. That frame is something metaphysical.

That I think is true and can agree with.

 

[Kismetji]

That I think is true and can agree with.

…Than how can you say our ‘knowledge’ rests on foundations of sense-data, and not something assumed prior to sense data; namely, ideas of various sorts?

 

[Abba]

Welcome back Abba! I am glad you didn’t get swept away in the storm.

This time, I think I am back. My youngest son just woke me up and said; Mom, we have internet! I said; No, c’est pas vrai. (it’s not true). He said; yeah, we do, it would be rude for me to wake you up to tell you that if it’s not true. We do, we have internet! Really! My, goodness, we feel like we have been isolated and deprived.

In fact, not only Aquinas and the Scholastics, but Aristotle too maintained–in opposition to Plato–than knowledge begins in the senses. I stress ‘begins’ because, unlike the materialist, they do not believe it ends there. We can move from what we perceive to judgements about what we can’t perceive. Reason can take us beyond the senses to unseen truths…

I understand now. They are not rejecting nor denying the value of reason - I thought that is what they were doing when I read you statement, and it surprised me that Saint Thomas Aquinas would hold such a view (again, not that I am familiar with his writings but, he is a doctor of the Church). I skimmed Aristotle’s metaphysics and there he notes what you are stating, that from the senses we get information and that information allows us to reason, so reason begins with sense information but then it takes off from there on its own and Saint Thomas Aquinas agrees.

Yeah, well, get ready to fall back on your chair. I think that at this point I will have to say that I reserve my judgement for a later time regarding this matter. As I still need to contemplate and analize a bit more. Firstly, although I would be going against the agreement of the many, including a Doctor of the Church (and I am allowed to disagree with a Doctor of the Church for as we know they disagreed with each other in many points) I have to say that I am not sure that I agree with this understanding. Not only am I not sure all knowledge begins in the senses but of another things and this I am sure is that not all knowledge comes from either the senses or reason. I understand that there is such a thing as infused knowledge - I don’t know if anyone has written about this before - but this is true. So, for one, where would infused knowledge fit in this view that all knowledge begins in the sense? What about the doctrine of the Trinity? I have never seen the Trinity. I never heard it, touched it, smelled it nor have I tasted it. Not even when I receive the Eucharist. The doctrine of the Trinity is not self evident nor is it probable with reason. As it is, we have a difficult time proving the existence of God with reason never mind that he is a Triune God.

What I am trying to express is that it is not evident to me that the knowledge that comes from God originates in the senses. I have to contemplate on this. I think this preoccupation brings me right back to Plato. I think Plato wondered where that ‘aaaah or aha’ comes from and deduced that it must be from remembering - anamnesis. I think Plato was wrong in saying that it was because of re-incarnation but, where does it come from? I don’t think that it is so simple as to say that it all originates in the senses and okay, even given that reason then takes off, although that too supposedly exclusively originates in the senses, does it exclusively originate in the senses? I don’t know, I have to think about it.

But they are quite adamant that however lofty reason may climb, it does indeed begin with sense perception and experience confirms this for us. For we are not born with knowledge, as Plato held, in order to remember it throught teaching or recollection. Knowledge is gained through experience, so that I first perceive being, then I perceive that this being is not like that being, and so arrive at truth; finall, I perceive the goodness of truth or being itself (ST I.16.4.ad2).

Well, I don’t know that I fully agree with this. Again, I am reserving my position for a later time as I need to think this through and evaluate it with my knowedge and see where it would fit in. I don’t think that it is all so simple. I think that we are able to recognize certain immortal things because we were made in the image of God and some of our knowledge is innate on that account and because God wrote his laws in our hearts and the Holy Spirit within us gives us wisdom. Now, I am not just talking about who taught my son to climb up and find the nipple that can be argued to be instinctive knowledge.

Thomas says,

“I answer that, all our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God.” (ST I.12.12)

And again in the De Trinitate (q6.a2) he explains how knowledge progresses from the senses:

“Now all our knowledge begins in the senses; from sense perception results the apprehension of the imagination (which is a movement arising from sensory knowledge, as the [Aristotle] says), and from it in turn springs our intellectual apprehension, for images are like objects to the intellectual soul, as is clear in the De Anima.”

And we find similar arguments in Anselm, Bonaventure, etc.

Yeeeaah, again, I reserve my position for some later time after I have processed all the information. To complicate matters a little more, in my life I have come to understand that the knowledge we obtain through the soul is more valuable than that obtained through the senses and reason. It’s that aaahh or aha moment that I am currently wondering about. That is when do we come to recognize that we know something? Is it once it is associated with the senses? This is what I wonder and will ponder on for some time to come.

 

[Abba]

I think a good addition to your series should be a thread about the epistemological differences between science and metaphysics, and why they are both valid inferential systems and do not contradict each-other.

Excellent recommendation! That’s the thread that will get us down to business. Keep true to the objectives of this first series 101 we should cover some more preliminary material. I will let you know when it can be fit in properly. Take a look at the aim for this series on the first post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611279 We are running a little behind schedule due to technical problems. Let me know what you think and when we can fit it in. Again, I am thinking that we can cover some more general material before getting into a heavy duty discussion where we may lose people. confused Not that I think we necessarily will, but, it would be more pleasant for some to experience the discussion with a better background. We will get there before you know it, you will see.

) is an issue i spend most of my time challenging, and so a thread discussing the epistemological nature of metaphysics as expressed by Aquinas/Aristotle and in relation to science would would be quite cool.

Btw, I think that you may appreciate what Professor Michael Dummett is arguing there. He is exactly responding to scientism and defending philosophy. It happens that in England they are planning to cut back funding research that is not useful (scientism) and philosophy is one of those things they consider to be pointless and as their beloved child (Hawking) has put it - dead. Professor Dummett is really responding to this threat to the philosophy departments of England and it’s origin - scientism. It is not clear to me what role Quine has played, I am not familiar with him but his name keeps coming up as a promoter of the idea that metaphysics can be done with science as its basis and it will be a better metaphysics. Not sure if I can put that in his mouth, but, that is what I have been picking up. I will try to get familiar with Quine. But, I digress…

A thread on epistemology (what can we know?) would also be good.

Yes, that one for sure. I am going to post your recommendation on the thread we are using as a base for the series where we share general information, recommendations, etc… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=611279

We will do all that MindOverMatter2, thank you for the recommendations.

Now, back to our topic. I want to post Aristotles thoughts about philosophy and type up the definition not given in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy and post it here. I say not given, because the editor refused to provide a simple definition and he gives his reasons in the introduction which I think is quite appropriate. I will be back to post it.

What is philosophy? That is the question. And, of course, how is it done, that is, how do people ‘philosophize’?

I’m off to Mass…will be back soon…

P.s. I apologize for the sloppiness of my previous post. I was typing fast as I kept losing connection. I hope you can figure out what I was trying to say.

 

[Abba]

I find two particular definitions of philosophy rather satisfying, especially in so far as they make sense of actual philosophizing (at least in my experience).

(1) “Philosophy is the critically reflective, systematically articulated attempt to illumine our human experience in depth and set it in a vision of the whole.” - Clarke, W. Norris. The One and the Many: a Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2001. p. 5

(2) “In another metaphor Ryle said that formal is to informal logic [informal logic = philosophy] as geometry is to cartography. In the latter, the irregular features of a landscape have to be plotted to scale, and the success of the enterprise depends upon the cartographer’s being able to employ, or be guided by, the idealized regularities of Euclidean plane geometry. In the same way as the cartographer is the ‘client’ of the geometer, so the philosopher or ‘informal logician’ is the client of the formal logician.” - Grayling, A. C. An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1997. pp. 5-6

I think dialectical method understood as philosophy at least involves the attempt to stand a position on its strongest grounds and the leveling of the strongest objections against it to analyze that position.

Nice post.

 

[Shike]

…Than how can you say our ‘knowledge’ rests on foundations of sense-data, and not something assumed prior to sense data; namely, ideas of various sorts?

Because when I say interpreted I don’t mean any subjective overthrowing of the objective content. The the knowledge of a particular object is gained by abstracting the form of the object. The process starts with sensation. Once knowledge is gained it is placed into one’s overall framework of knowledge and viewed in relation to the “bigger picture”. Nothing about this suggests that objective knowledge about the world is impossible.

And I think the whistle is starting to blow, for I think we are straying too far from the thread’s topic. But I will make at least one more comment…

 

[Shike]

I understand that there is such a thing as infused knowledge - I don’t know if anyone has written about this before - but this is true.

Such a Divine Intervention, one that would be above and beyond the natural way we obtain knowledge, would be beyond anything that the dictum “there is nothing in the intellect that wasn’t first in the senses” was meant to cover. The epistemology/philosophy being discussed here is only meant to discover how we naturally obtain knowledge in accordance with our nature… not the supernatural.

But I can tell you are wrestling with these ideas which I think can only benefit this thread, among other things.

But back to the original topic. I think the love of wisdom is a great start for a definition of philosophy. Just like the kid who desires to know and keeps asking why, the love of wisdom seeks ultimate causes for things, and ultimately the Ultimate!

 

[levinas12]

Fr Robert Sokolowski (an American phenomenologist) says that much of the confusion about what philosophy is comes from the confusion about how it proceeds.

Thank you for mentioning my philosophical hero, Sokolowski. I’m not sure if you’re alluding to his wonderful article: The Method of Philosophy: Making Distinctions. In this article, he points out that philosophy makes explicit what we implicitly assume in our everyday life. For example, consider one of the great philosophical distinctions: essence v. accident. We implicitly “apply” this distinction all the time: the “gist” of jokes, car problems, etc.

What makes a distinction philosophical is that it embraces the “whole” - what the Presocratics called the “hen kai pan” … the one and the all … the totality … in a way, philosophy is the TOE (but not in the sense of physics) … its distinctions apply to everything (from buses and apples to electrons and quarks).

Philosophy does not discover “new” facts. It is descriptive but in the phenomenological sense … it speaks of the way “beings” disclose themselves, e.g., tools, natural beings, persons …

Based on some of your other postings, I know you are very familiar with phenomenology.