RE: Freedom and Bad Faith: The Myths We Live In

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Freedom and Bad Faith: The Myths We Live In

in philosophy •  8 years ago 

Trust me. The emotion is still there. Slowing things down is for everyone's safety. Haha. I am a Leo with a Scorpio rising (its a lot of a lot). BTW, its 4:40 am here...sigh

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Women always carry that feminine emotion ;) I'm an Aries ram! It's my bday on Thursday so I run on emotions as I butt people onto their asses! ... hence the need for philosophy ... now goto sleep you!! :)

Well, that explains a lot. ;) I don't like to assume an essentialism to my nature. I am what I am based on my collected experiences, educations, family etc. and not merely some "natural" or pre-given state. well, I at least like to think I am product of my accumulated living thus suggesting I have the ability to continue to evolve and even transcend my particular status and mode of being.

Death to the pre-given state!!! :) By the way I feel a vid coming on called 'Is it common among scientists to scorn philosophy?'

Being precedes essence after all. That wont be difficult as Stephen Hawking declared philosophy is dead.

More generally, here are typical sources of the problem is that scientists and techies see with philosophy:

  • It's useless or not as useful as it could/should be.
  • It uses nonscientific methods.
  • It carries over bad influences and failed ideas of the past.

haha...see the article I posted before reading this!

Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") - Most scientists know very little about philosophy, and tend to run into some crappy philosophy, and then assume that all philosophy is equally crappy. For example, what parts of philosophy are most familiar to physicists? One thing is, every physicist I know has heard of the Sokal hoax, which means that they are familiar with really dumb extreme postmodernism. Or in physics you sometimes encounter mediocre philosophers of science, who have strong opinions about things like quantum mechanics and string theory and multiple universes, but where they obviously don't understand what they're talking about (they never successfully learned the relevant math and physics).

Of course, whenever you do science, you are implicitly anchored in a philosophy of science. But for most scientists, most of the time, the relevant philosophical principles are "obvious" ones, like "there are laws of physics", or "avoid overfitting". So they do not require interacting with modern-day philosophers.

Philosophy Now had a great article on this.

Damn! You found the source of my idea ;) Sssssssh! :)

I really liked Truth and Method By Gadamer. Science is riddled with a few problems.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/opinion/sunday/scientific-pride-and-prejudice.html?_r=0

I used Gadamer in my thesis for my Masters.