The Fruitfulness of Philosophy

[blessedrosary]

Does anyone believe that belief or knowledge of God is something that can be had directly without reason(s) or argument or that there must be some underlying basis which grounds or justifies faith?

The reason I ask is that it seems to me that when posed with a difficult [philosophical] question, people often want to respond by answering it, whereas I would want to say that a good deal of questions should instead be rejected application. The reason for this follows from the realization that philosophical problems are not problems embedded in the nature of the universe; they are questions that arose and are considered because of the culture in which those questions are posed and considered.

 

[blessedrosary]

The poll probably doesn’t get at what I intended. My question was originally motivated by a previous thread which claimed that philosophy- not science- explains reality.

I almost want to agree, but I want stronger to disagree. Explanation isn’t objective (dont jump on me too soon!) in the following sense: if someone tells me that man comes from monkey, that fact is explanation if I stop asking ‘Why am I here?’ and not if I don’t. Scientists arrogantly claim that their having been satisfied by a response therefore settles the issue for good. But it doesn’t if someone can still grasp onto something in the question that isn’t answered by the response. And I think that was the point of the post I was referring to; science doesn’t explain reality because we still have questions that science doesn’t [even attempt to] touch. (‘What is the “meaning” of life?’, ‘What is love about?’, etc.) The question of explanation is just a particular example of a more general question ‘What answers a question?’, which apriori is not at all obvious to answer. (Plato, I think, touched upon it somewhere.)

Now to correct what I said, explanation isn’t objective but that doesn’t mean truth isn’t. My point is that explanation is part of an activity for which ‘objective’ isn’t really a good (an accurate) category to use. Saying it’s not objective was not intended to imply that explanation is subjective. (Or better, it wasn’t supposed to imply all the other negative things are sometimes associated with subjectivism.)

 

[prodigalson2011]

Theology (philosophy of religion) is one of the most tangible distinctions between Christianity and the pagan religions that came before it. Whereas philosophy stood apart from religion before it, Christianity presented a faith that was open to reason. It is, no doubt, one of the reasons Christianity has remained so successful. The truth must be open to reason, because it is a product of reason! Without reason, you’re left with mythology.

 

[ReapReason]

Does anyone believe that belief or knowledge of God is something that can be had directly without reason(s) or argument or that there must be some underlying basis which grounds or justifies faith?

I did not vote, because I believe there are different degrees of evidence and different kinds of rational; there are different contexts and ways in which evidence and rationality applies. A demand for evidence might not have rational authority within a particular context. Scepticism can become irrational if it prevents rational thinking or prevents the world from being intelligible. A concept can simply make personal sense of the world without referring to some philosophical arguement. And there are different degrees of reasonable behaviour. It might be reasonable for a human to believe in some-things without evidence because they are required in order to act coherently in the world. It could be that the world is unintelligible without first assuming some basic unprovable principles of knowledge.

I believe in the pragmatic “hope” that something is true, but I don’t believe that such a hope or faith should be held in adversity to other known facts. For example, I don’t think it is reasonable to have faith in a seven day creation of the universe; because other reasonable methods of investigation has produced data that contradicts that view.

I believe in Pragmatic faith, so long as the underlying concepts make qualitative sense of reality as a whole. For example I would not believe in peter pan, because the concepts involved seem childish to me. But I do believe in objective good and evil or Moral law, because the concept makes sense of my experiences as a person.

However, if we believe that we have a duty to convince others or that our faith should have some kind of respected authority in human society, then it goes without question that we should produce evidence of what we believe, especially if our belief makes transformative demands on our chosen lifestyles.

Therefore it seems more productive to have a faith that is grounded in reason insofar as one tries to convince other people of what one believes to be true.

 

[Khalid]

Two main Western schools: the one I follow says faith is supra-rational, not anti-rational, and is both justified by reason, and itself justifies reason (faith seeking understanding): unlike the other sciences, it starts from what is known, and proceeds to what is not. This tradition is prominent in the West, especially amongst the great Scholastics; it achieves its highest philosophical expression in Ss. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, which each can be assigned as the head of a “sub-school” within the tradition.

The other says that faith and belief in God itself is a foundational belief, and requires no warrant outside of itself. This is followed by the presuppositional apologetic, and achieves its highest philosophical expression in Alvin Plantinga’s writings. It’s, to excuse the contradiction in terms, a “philosophical fideism”, philosophical for the elite, and fideism for everyone else who has faith in the arguments presented by the elite as being true, in addition to faith in God, or, just as accurately, a philosophical justification for fideism.

But, can knowledge of God himself be had without recourse to logic? Of course - look at the mystics. But that knowledge can not be justified to anyone else; it is strictly personal and subjective, even if the truth it reaches is objective and can be reached through other means. Indeed, the highest and most perfect knowledge of God is not that which is reached through philosophy, but through contemplation.

There’s also plain old fideism (anti-rational faith, faith in spite of reason, e.g. as presented by many Fundamentalist Protestants), and the Eastern kind of religion-as-personal-experience-vision-of-God hesychastic mysticism, which has much in common with it (indeed, I’ve been told they are different, but I have never been able to see the two from an angle where they were not identical: I continue to wait for that perspective to present itself, yet I do not hold my breath).

I also believe that philosophy - that which begins from first principles - is the only sure explanation of reality; empirical science is grounded in philosophy, but is a lesser and more imperfect discipline. Philosophy delivers truth; empirical science delivers measurements and the ways to alter them: technology. Without philosophy, empirical science falls completely; without empirical science, philosophy, on the whole, wouldn’t notice the difference (although quite a few contemporary analytic philosophers are becoming more open to the idea of using empirical data in addition to first principles in the formulation of their arguments, which seems to be a debasement of both philosophy and empirical science).

In my thought, I have come to see empirical science as the lowest form of knowledge (as, by definition, it can never take in to account the metaphysical), or, more accurately, way of seeking understanding, so that if philosophy or theology or even Biblical hermeneutics contradicts it, it can be safely dismissed in the knowledge that it is incorrect or “on the wrong track”, and will hopefully eventually catch up through a (series of) paradigm shift(s). (Thus my strict Creationism in tandem with what is often seen as an overbearing rationalism in matters of religion: a most strange combination.)

Of course the matter is much more nuanced than presented here - indeed, even more so that I am, or likely ever will be capable of presenting - and can not be fully exhausted even after years of study of the relevant disciplines.

 

[catholictiger]

I’ll just say this Philosophical thought is the basis of all theological thought, and without a good background in philosophy you can’t do good theology. Some examples, without metaphysics we could not have a understanding of the Body Soul connection and why this is the case, what this means for humans. Without metaphysics we couldn’t know about what truth is, what meaning it has. I’m talking about truth as a transcendental.

Good philosophy can be very fruitful and can help us grow closer to Christ, because philosophy deals with things of the divine at times.

please note the good part, because there is some philosophy that can cause us to grow away from God if we aren’t careful.

 

[blessedrosary]

I’ll just say this Philosophical thought is the basis of all theological thought, and without a good background in philosophy you can’t do good theology. Some examples, without metaphysics we could not have a understanding of the Body Soul connection and why this is the case, what this means for humans. Without metaphysics we couldn’t know about what truth is, what meaning it has. I’m talking about truth as a transcendental.

Ok so this is exactly what I am asking about, so I’m glad you said this. I am skeptical that theology is based on philosophy (though I have heard before that it is) or the degree to which it is. Of course, I’m not a theologian, but here’s my understanding of it: theology is essentially God-oriented. Obvious point, but what is not so obvious is ‘how’ it is oriented. There are a thousand ways a thing can be related to another thing (now we’re doing metaphysics!), and it isn’t prima facie clear which way theology is. IF theology is merely an academic study of God, then I would agree that it is based on philosophy. If, however, theology aims at deepening our love for God, then I think it’s a bit of a stretch to find a connection, love isn’t metaphysics. As for the body-soul connection philosophers are more in a muddle about it (even Thomists!) than anyone, and besides having an intellectual grasp on what is going on there isn’t really that important for anything. You can understand perfectly well what truth is without metaphysics, for ordinary people use the word in ordinary language and meaning is closely tied to use. (Besides theories about [the nature of] truth are really different from questions about what the truth itself is, and therefore irrelevant.)

The picture I like to give: you meet a woman and fall in love. Eventually you get married, procreate, and live together till you die (a romantic story). Find me a man who thought his marriage (i.e. his love for her) was a matter of understanding her metaphysics.

 

[ReapReason]

Ok so this is exactly what I am asking about, so I’m glad you said this. I am skeptical that theology is based on philosophy (though I have heard before that it is) or the degree to which it is. Of course, I’m not a theologian, but here’s my understanding of it: theology is essentially God-oriented. Obvious point, but what is not so obvious is ‘how’ it is oriented. There are a thousand ways a thing can be related to another thing (now we’re doing metaphysics!), and it isn’t prima facie clear which way theology is. IF theology is merely an academic study of God, then I would agree that it is based on philosophy. If, however, theology aims at deepening our love for God, then I think it’s a bit of a stretch to find a connection, love isn’t metaphysics. As for the body-soul connection philosophers are more in a muddle about it (even Thomists!) than anyone, and besides having an intellectual grasp on what is going on there isn’t really that important for anything. You can understand perfectly well what truth is without metaphysics, for ordinary people use the word in ordinary language and meaning is closely tied to use. (Besides theories about [the nature of] truth are really different from questions about what the truth itself is, and therefore irrelevant.)

The picture I like to give: you meet a woman and fall in love. Eventually you get married, procreate, and live together till you die (a romantic story). Find me a man who thought his marriage (i.e. his love for her) was a matter of understanding her metaphysics.

The Catholic faith cannot be fully understood without philosophy. Philosophy to large extend is the laguage through which the Catholic faith is rationally understood.

 

[blessedrosary]

The catholic faith can’t fully be understood period. So the statement ‘… without philosophy’ is vaccuosly true. But nevertheless, something might be understood with philosophy; my question is ‘What?!’

 

[catholictiger]

alright last post of the night I’ll address responses first thing tomorrow morning or monday busy day tomorrow .

Ok so this is exactly what I am asking about, so I’m glad you said this. I am skeptical that theology is based on philosophy (though I have heard before that it is) or the degree to which it is.

no theologian can expect to be successful without a good basis in philosophy. That is why
the first 2 or 4 years of seminary formation has a HEAVY philosophy focus. 30 required hours of philosophy.

There are a thousand ways a thing can be related to another thing (now we’re doing metaphysics!), and it isn’t prima facie clear which way theology is.

yes but metaphysics relates to theology in ways that other things don’t. (please note I talk about metaphysics so much because I haven’t hit some of the other philosphys as much as I have hit metaphysics.

BUT

ethics is the basis for morality
metaphysics is our basis for understanding our being our person and GOD himself.
epistomology is the basis for why we are able to know things and such (probably more)

IF theology is merely an academic study of God, then I would agree that it is based on philosophy.

are you implying philosophy is must nearly an academic study because its not.

If, however, theology aims at deepening our love for God, then I think it’s a bit of a stretch to find a connection, love isn’t metaphysics.

Love is metaphysics if you believe that love is a transcendental aka it transcends reality.

So is truth, beauty (debated if it is or not) and goodness.

plus we understand God more with metaphysics so we love God more if we understand him more. Even though it is impossible to fully understand him.

Also look at some of our greatest theologians in the Catholic Church, most of them are also considered great philosophers. STA, Augustine, Bonaventure, Anselm, and many others.

As for the body-soul connection philosophers are more in a muddle about it (even Thomists!) than anyone, and besides having an intellectual grasp on what is going on there isn’t really that important for anything.

I could be wrong but I don’t think thomists actually disagree one if humans have a body and soul. That is clear what that initials ins’t clear but they do agree we have body and soul.

plus I don’t see how it couldn’t be important to have an intellectual grasp on it. I mean the soul is only the most important things we have. The fight to save it is important. While you can save your soul without having a knowledge in metaphysics. I don’t think we should just ignore it. Anselm did say faith seeks understanding. We must as Catholics look to deepen our faith in God by understanding our faith more. Philosophy helps us with that.

You can understand perfectly well what truth is without metaphysics, for ordinary people use the word in ordinary language and meaning is closely tied to use. (Besides theories about [the nature of] truth are really different from questions about what the truth itself is, and therefore irrelevant.)

the only reason you can understand what truth is, is because of philosophy. You may not have education in philosophy but your views are based on some sort of philosophy. Your understanding of the truth can only happen because of philosophy. If you are able to tell me why you have a body and soul, I fully suspect that your answer will be philosophical and theological not just theological.

The picture I like to give: you meet a woman and fall in love. Eventually you get married, procreate, and live together till you die (a romantic story). Find me a man who thought his marriage (i.e. his love for her) was a matter of understanding her metaphysics.

no of course not that is the beauty of it. But if you were to understand your love for her you would be understanding it because of metaphysics.

The catholic faith can’t fully be understood period. So the statement ‘… without philosophy’ is vaccuosly true. But nevertheless, something might be understood with philosophy; my question is ‘What?!’

I feel like I need to rephrase what the guy said.

NOTHING of the Catholic faith can be understood without philosophy. It can be believed but not understood.

 

[Touchstone]

Theology (philosophy of religion) is one of the most tangible distinctions between Christianity and the pagan religions that came before it. Whereas philosophy stood apart from religion before it, Christianity presented a faith that was open to reason. It is, no doubt, one of the reasons Christianity has remained so successful. The truth must be open to reason, because it is a product of reason! Without reason, you’re left with mythology.

Hey, let me introduce you to a guy named Aristotle, one of many ancient philosophers who were both theistic philosophers (and philosophers who integrated their theism into their organic philosophy), and thinkers who predated Christ by centuries, never mind “Christian Theology” as such which came many centuries after Jesus.

This Aristotle guy – it’s an easy topic to Google – was also quite enamored of myth, and for the same reasons Catholics love their myths; narrative and anthropomorphized cosmogonies and metaphysics are tremendously appealing to human ways of thinking. But, myth lover, and promoter (of his prime-mover god, not the mythical gods others supposed who, to cite an objection he often raised, needed food to survive, even though they were 'immortal), Aristotle was quite keen on reason, and adept in its use.

Even with reason, unless we turn our critical eye at myth itself, we are quite often left with mythology, as Aristotle shows in the same way Saul of Tarsus or Origen or Augustine or Aquinas or Benny Hinn does.

-TS

 

[blessedrosary]

Even with reason, unless we turn our critical eye at myth itself, we are quite often left with mythology, as Aristotle shows in the same way Saul of Tarsus or Origen or Augustine or Aquinas or Benny Hinn does.

-TS

Yes! Reason isn’t some capacity by which we metaexamine reality. I won’t get into the nitty gritty here with you, because I believe in myth; my only point is that there is no such thing as justification simpliciter (justification=reason where there should be one), so as long as you have the right premises, reason can prove anything. This is the most frustrating point to argue to Catholics. I agree with the pope that God can be known by reason, but reason cannot mean argument because of the very thing argument is. From ‘God exists’ you can very easily prove ‘God exists’. To say God can be known by reason, if you mean argument, is a trivial statement (at best- in truth it is probably meaningless), since argument first depends on what you take as your starting points. And those, by definition, don’t have reasons for them.

As for the previous comments in defense of philosophy, I’d just like to say there are prominent enough Catholic philosophers that would disagree with the strength of your statements (Newman for one, Anscombe in some ways, Giussani, and definitely the pope). If God can’t be understood without philosophy then ordinary people who are too dumb to understand metaphysics don’t have access to God. But that’s an awkward conclusion just because according to the Christian conception of sanctity some of them seem to be closest to him. As to your comment on body and soul, every thomist agrees we have a body and soul. That’s not philosophy, until you actually say something substantial about them. And that’s where all the thomists diverge. If you’re interested you should look into the problems sometime, such as e.g. what the resurrection of the body actually means and whether or not the soul is immortal.

I said ‘prominent’ philosophers, but I neglected two very important ones. The most interesting thing about Augustine was his conversion and that happened through an existential realization of his sin (his depravity!). Aquinas proved God but it is extremely important to be clear about exactly what he did. Recall how argument works: it’s putting together (like legos) some stuff that you’re given to get other stuff. If you’re given this, here’s the possible things you can get, if given that those are the possible things you can get. From ‘God’ you can get ‘God’. The only thing Aquinas showed is that you can get ‘God’ from a certain pile of stuff. It is pointless to debate the absolute persuasiveness of Aquinas’ arguments because that isn’t the purpose they served. If you are already a buddy of Aristotle’s and share his way of looking at the world, then Aquinas’ proofs have something to offer. If not then not. Guys, let’s be realistic, it’s not like the Church’s teaching on reason means you can take anyone, no matter where they are, and bring them to the faith. From thepremise ‘There is no God’, no amount of philosophy [argument] will convince one otherwise.

As a last comment, you said that seminarians are required to study philosophy; my personal opinion is that this requirement should be universally dropped. It is the most scandalous thing for intellectuals to have someone who can’t understand philosophy attempt to give an argument (and think that his beliefs are justified because of the argument). Ironically, the reason I am so critical of the popular conception of reason (I say ‘popular’ because it’s not doctrine- proof: read any of the above mentioned authors) is that it is actually harmful when people see just how bad our arguments are. (Aquinas says this!) But they aren’t bad if you don’t misinterpret the force they themselves purport to have!

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hey, let me introduce you to a guy named Aristotle, one of many ancient philosophers who were both theistic philosophers (and philosophers who integrated their theism into their organic philosophy), and thinkers who predated Christ by centuries, never mind “Christian Theology” as such which came many centuries after Jesus.

This Aristotle guy – it’s an easy topic to Google – was also quite enamored of myth, and for the same reasons Catholics love their myths; narrative and anthropomorphized cosmogonies and metaphysics are tremendously appealing to human ways of thinking. But, myth lover, and promoter (of his prime-mover god, not the mythical gods others supposed who, to cite an objection he often raised, needed food to survive, even though they were 'immortal), Aristotle was quite keen on reason, and adept in its use.

Drop the snark. Why is it so hard for some people to have a conversation without being condescending a**es? I am well aware of Aristotle, but you missed the point. I did not say GOD and philosophy were separated, I said RELIGION and philosophy were separated; religion being a system of very specific beliefs, rituals, etc., etc.

Aristotle never attempted to show the logical consistency of believing in the River Styx or Mount Olympus. Theism only entered his philosophy in the most abstract of ways (the prime mover, as you yourself noted). When you can provide the long lost manuscript of Aristotle’s Treatise on the Existence of Pan, I’ll concede.

Even with reason, unless we turn our critical eye at myth itself, we are quite often left with mythology, as Aristotle shows in the same way Saul of Tarsus or Origen or Augustine or Aquinas or Benny Hinn does.

Aquinas often did just that, illustrating the logical consistency of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, or miracles.

 

[Khalid]

The picture I like to give: you meet a woman and fall in love. Eventually you get married, procreate, and live together till you die (a romantic story). Find me a man who thought his marriage (i.e. his love for her) was a matter of understanding her metaphysics.

“Metaphysics” isn’t exactly the right word, but disregarding the small infelicity in expression, it’s not a rhetorical question - he doesn’t have to find such a man, I’m already here.

 

[Khalid]

…and thinkers who predated Christ by centuries, never mind “Christian Theology” as such which came many centuries after Jesus.

Nah, the first Christian theology (and Christian philosophy, a la Etienne Gilson’s definition in The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy) was arguably written by Ss Paul and John, within a few decades of Christ’s death; in any case, the first writings which are immediately and incontestably recognizable today as such - Christian theology and philosophy - are those of Clement of Alexandria, ca. 180-200 AD, and Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and many others around the same time - a long cry from centuries, let alone many of them.

 

[azerty]

In my thought, I have come to see empirical science as the lowest form of knowledge (as, by definition, it can never take in to account the metaphysical), or, more accurately, way of seeking understanding, so that if philosophy or theology or even Biblical hermeneutics contradicts it, it can be safely dismissed in the knowledge that it is incorrect or “on the wrong track”, and will hopefully eventually catch up through a (series of) paradigm shift(s). (Thus my strict Creationism in tandem with what is often seen as an overbearing rationalism in matters of religion: a most strange combination.)
.

Hello

Have you read Maritain’s book “The degrees of knowledge” ? This is a masterpience of thomistic epistemology. It helps understand which domain of reality science and philosophy study (it ends with a brillant study of faith and mystic). They have their own “objectum formale”, their own domain of reality to study and their own ways to study it.

 

[levinas12]

Aristotle never attempted to show the logical consistency of believing in the River Styx or Mount Olympus. Theism only entered his philosophy in the most abstract of ways (the prime mover, as you yourself noted). When you can provide the long lost manuscript of Aristotle’s Treatise on the Existence of Pan, I’ll concede.

Very nicely stated. Both Aristotle and Plato (and Socrates) were very uncomfortable with the traditional religious beliefs of their time. The Pre-Socratics as well.

Philosophy began by distinguishing itself from myth. How? By insisting on “rational” insight. But what is “rational” insight? For the Greeks, it’s what happens in mathematics. But also in metaphysics. I guess you could call it, unavoidable necessity (but not in the sense of Homeric fate which is blind and unintelligible).

Maybe the search for unavoidable necessity is a more apt description.

As the Greeks became aware of other mythological systems, their own gods and narratives fell into disrepute. And so, like Descartes, they began to look for the fundamentum inconcussum, that which is unavoidably necessary but nonethless can be rationally justified.

And this is what philosophy has been trying to do ever since.

 

[Qoeleth]

It would seem that every religion includes some philosophy. At the most primitive level, religion and philosophy are indistinguishable.

Even if I belive that the Sun is God, this implies a viewing of the world and reality in a certain 'philosophical ’ way- a certain metaphysics, a certain axiology, a teleology, an etiology, etc.

 

[Touchstone]

Very nicely stated. Both Aristotle and Plato (and Socrates) were very uncomfortable with the traditional religious beliefs of their time. The Pre-Socratics as well.

But this does not divorce Aristotle from religion or theology. His religious philosophy was hostile to many “folk liturgies” (although, Aristotle spoke quite favorably on numerous occasions about the value of religious tradition qua tradition), but it was no less his religious philosophy, and the superstitious grounding of a “Prime Mover” is no less founded in his own intuitions than any of the cultic practices he eschews in folk religion around him. His idea that absolute thought belong to the “absolute good”, or his belief that that natural law sanctioned and even demanded slavery, this is the same kind of superstitious thinking he decried in others, but which was hypocritically indulged in, nevertheless.

I would agree he was a ground breaker in terms of breaking with the traditions of his day, but his religious instincts were as superstitious and capricious as those he displaced. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Philosophy began by distinguishing itself from myth. How? By insisting on “rational” insight. But what is “rational” insight? For the Greeks, it’s what happens in mathematics. But also in metaphysics. I guess you could call it, unavoidable necessity (but not in the sense of Homeric fate which is blind and unintelligible).

Aristotle relied heavily on dialectic as the means of vetting premises. Syllogisms were not the main problem, as formal validity problems were tractable and fairly straightforward even in Aristotle’s day. The problem lay in vetting the soundness of the premises. Aristotle didn’t have the benefit of our modern knowledge or methods, and he relied on dialectics as a way to stress and test as best he could the merits of the premises being invoked for arguments. That’s not a mathematical approach, and while dialectics do afford a context for examination and consideration, they are not by nature instruments suited to effective discrimination between myth and fact.

As the Greeks became aware of other mythological systems, their own gods and narratives fell into disrepute. And so, like Descartes, they began to look for the fundamentum inconcussum, that which is unavoidably necessary but nonethless can be rationally justified.

And this is what philosophy has been trying to do ever since.

Well, some part of philosophy, yes. But science is philosophy, and it eschews the concept of such foundationalism. That commitment is seen as problematic itself, and an obstacle to knowledge, rather than the object of it.

But that certainly does not deny such pursuits have continued in earnest ever since.

-TS

 

[prodigalson2011]

But this does not divorce Aristotle from religion or theology. His religious philosophy was hostile to many “folk liturgies” (although, Aristotle spoke quite favorably on numerous occasions about the value of religious tradition qua tradition), but it was no less his religious philosophy, and the superstitious grounding of a “Prime Mover” is no less founded in his own intuitions than any of the cultic practices he eschews in folk religion around him. His idea that absolute thought belong to the “absolute good”, or his belief that that natural law sanctioned and even demanded slavery, this is the same kind of superstitious thinking he decried in others, but which was hypocritically indulged in, nevertheless.

I would agree he was a ground breaker in terms of breaking with the traditions of his day, but his religious instincts were as superstitious and capricious as those he displaced. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Aristotle relied heavily on dialectic as the means of vetting premises. Syllogisms were not the main problem, as formal validity problems were tractable and fairly straightforward even in Aristotle’s day. The problem lay in vetting the soundness of the premises. Aristotle didn’t have the benefit of our modern knowledge or methods, and he relied on dialectics as a way to stress and test as best he could the merits of the premises being invoked for arguments. That’s not a mathematical approach, and while dialectics do afford a context for examination and consideration, they are not by nature instruments suited to effective discrimination between myth and fact.

Well, some part of philosophy, yes. But science is philosophy, and it eschews the concept of such foundationalism. That commitment is seen as problematic itself, and an obstacle to knowledge, rather than the object of it.

But that certainly does not deny such pursuits have continued in earnest ever since.

-TS

Science is founded upon philosophy. Practical science, however, is not philosophy.