Original post titled “Falsification”, It’s a very good outline and another reason why I tend to say that a science of philosophy is possible, but we have to take risks. Philosophy does not take risks upon its own ideas for the most part. It take risks within a career mentality, if I may stretch a term, philosophers take risks with their identity, which is to say that they’re proposing an idea that they have come upon through their intuition upon the world of transcendence. The risk is entirely theory, for they’ll sit there and argue their proposal which is their academic identity, which is to say The risk is utterly speculative and philosophical and not scientific.
Instead the risk I talk about appears as a scientific risk in the sense of this post below. That a science may be found through the assertions that propose a test that has nothing to do with whether one is arguing it’s truth or not; it is theory in the sense ofhypothesis of evidence. As I have said elsewhere , to argue a set of postulates , to construct a structure of meaningful phrases based upon the logic that orders the ability of such structures to make sense, merely stands upon pedestals similar to that of Freud and marks and the like mentioned in the post below. The true test, The scientific test , The test of fact , comes not through perpetual ideological restructuring and reducing of terms to relative motions of human interactions — these are political and ideological arguments of real ideological space; The true test comes in what is repeated , what repeatedly arises as the occasion for such ideological strides and maxims . The facts, then, can only be found in the motions of time, despite how we might argue such theoretical ideas, strategies of argument and debate. The proof of the fact of a Theory will be found over an extension of that theory applied to actual circumstance of history. And this is not found over a mere 10 or 20 or even 50 or even 100 years ; it is taking us nearly 3000 years just to be able to come to this idea of what might be a factual philosophical basis . This is what we can mean when we talk about historicity, The fact of history. It is not so much about whether Marx was correct so far as I can use a particular argument to argue Marxist view upon the world and its political ideological unfolding’s; rather what might be true and factual of Marxist Siri is what is subsequently shown in the actuality of historical unfolding. That’s sweet don’t fall into the category of Marxist arguing it is this way as in the post below or Existential arguing it that way, or empiricalist arguing it another way; all such arguments fall into identity politics. The fax that arise out of the description of what is occurring in these identity politics will indeed be a philosophical science or a science of philosophy and that can only be found over an extension of time and history. The risk one must take is to suspend his present identity for the sake of the historical possibility, to make proposals upon the past but as well the future, definite and specific statements of facts that risk being countered.
This is why we have the big names. Heidegger took a risk with his support supposedly of nationalist socialism.
And this is indeed what Kierkegaard talked about so far is Abraham and being a night of faith.
This is why we talk about ways of knowing, routes of meaning; these are not epistemological byways of one unitary manner of understanding, of one true and ubiquitous reality world. They are ultimately different manners of appropriating objects.
One problem with professional philosophy—and this holds for some of the sciences too, like physics and biology—is that the subject matter is difficult to master and require a great deal of time and technical training. This does not, however, stop philosophical concepts from spilling over into popular discourse, where they are usually poorly understood, or […]
Leave a Reply