February 13, 2011
“Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong. ” Richard Feynman
I still cannot resist myself from quoting Mr Feynman (the great RP Feynman) here is something else he said of philosophy in the context of science.
“A philosopher once said ‘It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results’. Well, they do not. You set up the circumstances, with the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which hole you will see the electron. ”
So I am tempted to say Philosophy has a limit, its perspectives are limited, it’s not capable because of a lack of great deal of tools and methods and a plain perspective to see our latest understandings we have amassed as a human community. Like Stephen Hawking in his recent Grand Design mentioned, philosophy is dead, it does not keep with the pace of understandings and knowledge we have attained elsewhere.
But science does not deal with such a stiff fall or a lack of pedestal. Science, while respectful of the doubts, uncertainties and its own philosophization, does not have a limit or lack of pace or a lack of methodologies, a pedestal to sustain an ever growing perspective, they all grow into our ways of executing the goals of Science, to attain enlightenment of human intellectual quest.
Science is physical but its implications for human civilization are spiritual and humanistic, philosophical and enlightening both at the same time. We cannot reject the philosophical implications of science as opposed to the philosophical attempts of a group of ill prepared knowledge mongers; call them philosophers if they still do not see the rationale here.
But here the implications of science are to replace the forceful occupants proclaiming intellectual beauty. Without that we are creating a space problem for those that must be there as opposed to those that have swindled into our psyche and reserved a prime organization in our intellectual making. Replace them with vigor. If you do not find enough, seek, for the glory of intellectual attainment.
I know when I say this, that philosophy is like a sour grape, I sound like I cannot philosophize or I am deadly and venomous but I am saying I am against that branch of human tendency to intellectually mislead the world from truer knowledge and truer intellectual progress.
(Who is righteous and who is self righteous and how do we differentiate the good from the fake, that’s another line of thought, I can not do any special ploy to be in shape while at the same time describing my sincere thoughts about my knowledge attained or accumulated or just sand soaked in a sand bed, is knowledge like a sand bed and we are like cats and where is the place for God to spiritually and masterfully control our fate and who is to guide us to behave and who tells us what is righteous behavior and what is not, we are all lost in the quicksand of such life philosophy, lets just humor ourselves a little and lets just enjoy the evening with a little brain spanking)
I would dwell on philosophy a little more and a little longer but this is just one of those very few articles, when I stopped a few times while writing it, may be to ask why I should ponder on something as acceptable but as irritating as something called implications of science towards philosophy (or is it the other way round). Now that I did on this one but not on most others where I wrote non-stop, so as to save myself a little significance of continuity, I am feeling a little relaxed that Philosophy is nothing like religion, philosophy is possibly a little friendlier towards human loneliness than the crowd friendly religion.
And the religious inclinations and tendencies that are not very crowd friendly or in other words a companion of agonized or lonely hearts but otherwise fine souls is something that do not have a popular base but a problem of human psychology or a effect of thoughts of loneliness. So I am not tempted to paint them into any. But Philosophy is by its own nature a little lonely and therefore suits an intellectual interest than something, which is achievable by any religion on face of earth.
As a somewhat religious and deeply humanistic person by my existential history, I am often tempted to associate or be fooled by worldly religions but none of them has the appeal to me that a pure inane sense of learning the subtleties of human behavior or call it human tendencies has. Therefore it is psychology studies that appeals to me more to be with people and I am quite social at that, but philosophy and religion are more or less equally unnecessary to the satisfaction my intellectual curiosity.
I do not feel bad about the fact that by such a proclivity I alienate a good deal of people from having any sense of my personality or me but I feel happy about such. It gives me enough time and solitude to reflect on my personal needs as opposed to my social needs. I think I have run out of my religious and philosophical compulsions while at the same time, painful, as it is, to pursue science, my quest to know some conceptualization of psychology has not died. I believe it is this that will come in handy at a time when my creative side will feel a little breathless.
But leaping back onto the fold of describing the attitude of scientists in thinking what science is or rather what science proper is, I tend to think science ideally fits into what I may claim with pride and proclivity that science provides to everyone a challenge on equal footing. We can be somewhat successful at achieving goals of science and this, time and again makes us glad that we have attained true goals of science, as I described at the beginning of this essay, to attain enlightenment of human intellectual quest.
Such a stringent criteria which is natural and binding on anyone without prejudice, because nature does not have prejudice in terms in which individuals and communities and societies have towards each other is conspicuously missing from any human pursuits such as philosophy, which you can put forth opposite to science. This is a subjective claim of course, but what you stand to lose from another person’s independent philosophization. I think this subjectivity in my claim is quite personal and this defines me as a person, over a decade of thoughts and proclivity.
But you would expect me to cater to popular demand of objectivity in creating a comparison between science and philosophy, wouldn’t you, I think, I will cut short here, I never succumb to such irrational expectations. Popular notions of objectivity create allergic response in my head. So that’s all I had to write this evening, I think I will take a little stroll, for undisclosed reasons.