Unscientific Philosophy: Part 1. The Non-scientific Nature of Philosophy

#philosophy #science #philosophyofscience #metaphilosophy #Feyerabend #kuhn #unscientificphilosophy #introduction

Since the start of our sessions in this YouTube channel, as you might already know, we have been occupied analyzing the basis of philosophy, and related to this it is now time to ask the following fundamental question about the reason for this analysis;

With other words: “What is philosophy for?” or “why is philosophy needed at all?”

And his is a most general question.

Philosophy, as we have already been demonstrating in our previous sessions, is not a science or is at least fundamentally different from science in that it cannot ignore the very question of the meaning of its own activity.

Philosophy has no secluded place where it could forget itself and simply develop its subject.

The subject field of philosophizing is characterized by the absence of isolated phenomena as such.

Philosophy deals with everything and nothing.

While science is not concerned with the question of justifying its activities as evidenced by the investigations of Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn, who concluded that “Science does not think”;

But if science would do that (in that sense), it would turn into philosophy.

Philosophy on the contrary proceeds from this “fatal” question in order to substantiate its own activity and, if desired, also the activity of science.

“If desired” is very important in this context.

In science there is no place for desires, it moves along an already laid route.

This route, i.e., the direction of movement, can be the subject of critical examination, but it is not at all burdened with self-reflection.

Science, in this respect, demonstrates (from a philosophical viewpoint) an amazing naivety.

A mathematician, naturalist, linguist, historian and even a psychologist can safely say that he does not know why he is doing his science, but at the same time, his contribution to science will not suffer from this at all.

But again, if science would deal with this kind of issues, it would turn into philosophy.

In philosophy, things are different.

A philosopher who declares ignorance of the meaning of his own activity loses ground for his research.

Philosophy cannot avoid the question of its own meaning.

“Why, in fact, engage in philosophy?” is the most important question of philosophy.

It is in this question that the fundamental unscientific nature of philosophy lies, contrasting with the rectilinear security of science.

In other words, philosophy, unlike science, cannot relate unconsciously to its own consciousness.

[tcoopr]

this talk is one of your best -- a very clear summary of the underlying issue. One suggestion about wording at the end where you say, "...philosophy, unlike science, cannot relate unconsciously to its own consciousness." I think "should not relate" is better than "cannot" here. Some naive philosophy is not aware of its unconscious activity, but should be.