I agree with this repost. But it also shows the problem that is perpetuated in a certain type of philosophical mode: Philosophy is still stuck in the either /or mode. But because this is always the case, because people in order to make careers and identities must take a position that automatically creates a certain polemic by which other people can argue against and state their position and doubts and reasons, I merely call this situation real.
The problem with philosophy then is not that there is a scientism or not a scientism or a science equates to this or it doesn’t equate to that or philosophy is dead so it’s not that, etc… The problem is exactly in that it can’t operate without that mechanism in place; indeed this is what François Laruelle calls the ‘prior decision’, and as evidence of what we generally call ‘correlationalism’, despite what Quentin Miellassoux wants to make His idenity work for.
The issue is found in the method itself: “we’re going to argue this and my position is that and let’s see if somehow this common thing that we call human rationality and critical thinking can sort the truth of this whole thing out”. It is not that this method is wrong or incorrect or that scientism is wrong or incorrect or that not scientism is wrong or incorrect or that philosophy as a methodology is wrong or incorrect — The point that I make by pointing out this real method is not that it is incorrect as a method, which is to say as a real method. Where it is wrong is exactly in it’s appropriation of meaning to say that when I point to this category of reality that somehow I am suggesting a better or more true-real route. The point is that there are two irreconcilable routes. And the one route, in particular , the real route, that says that this ubiquitous an Omni present plane of human existence should and must be able to appropriate all discursive meaning unto itself, to thereby appropriate it for its methodology to find solution: it is this assumption that is incorrect. And, it is the notice of that situation that I just described that becomes the basis for a science. It is only scientism when real appropriations are attached to it in a polemical manner. Hence we can talk about facts, and once there is the fact that we can identify we have there by the basis of a science.
The point here is analogous to computers. I presently have not and at no time in my future will I ever have a knowledge of how computers function and how they operate from a mechanistic level. And I have said this before; I emphasize the fact of the matter: I do not, nor have I ever, nor will I ever be able to comprehend the mechanistic mode of computer operation. This is a fact. To argue that somehow I could have or indeed I could if I applied myself in the proper manner is to utterly rely upon a transcendental fantasy. I could say the same thing of refining oil; I will never know how to do that. I will likewise never be able to tell where gold is from geologic structures.
These are facts. For those who don’t admit that they are facts, for those who say that I’m stuck in a certain kind of psychology or my life has granted me a certain attitude upon things, those who would say that I’m subject to a common human psychology that can describe me to my limits and my neuroses and defects, those people are fully invested in real appropriation.
Now again; I am not saying that those appropriations are wrong or incorrect. I am saying that they are real, and that real modes exist within a certain current of meaning that we can identify as an orientation. And that there is another orientation that I call “Not real” that does not reduce to real appropriations.
As another analogy; conventional philosophers would have ot that they can analyze say the functioning of ‘Windows’ platform thereby be able to have access to everything about computers there could possibly be. And because of this one cannot explain to them anything different, because their whole field of view is ‘windows’, and because all of their information and their total experience comes through the windows platform, One cannot explain to them nor use terms specific or indicating enough to be able to prove to them or show them that there is a computer science that has nothing to do with windows.
But the computer scientists know that Windows is just a superficial horizonal manifestation.
Think “enders game”, the sci-fi story. Or even better, Think about or consider how a shaman was selected within a tribal organization. It is not that he made certain arguments to some sort of counsel to thereby lead the group in some sort of spiritual manner. It is exactly because the operative shaman noticed something have a particular person, that this particular person was already evidencing a particular orientation up on things that was significantly different than the rest of the group.
The Folly of Scientism
By Austin L. Hughes The New Atlantis ‘The positivist tradition in philosophy gave scientism a strong impetus by denying validity to any area of human knowledge outside of natural science. More recent advocates of scientism have taken the ironic but logical next step of denying any useful role for philosophy whatsoever, even the subservient philosophy of […]
Positivism, The New Atlantis, scientism, Austin L. Hughes, rationality, Science