Naturalism emphasizes science as the primary source of knowledge about the physical universe, humans, and the natural order. It can go to such extremes as to deny mystery and reject all supernatural beliefs. When this happens if nods toward Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism held two key beliefs: (1) absolute confidence in empirical experience as the only source of knowledge; and (2) logical analysis performed with the help of symbolic logic is the single method for solving philosophical problems.
A more moderate naturalism, such as that of the late Loren C. Eiseley, allows room for mystery. Eiseley was an American philosopher and naturalist whose published works over 2 decades influenced many young science writers.
Walter Veit Ph.D., wrote, "While naturalist philosophy is often strawmanned as a naive scientism, I hope to encourage my readers to seriously consider it as a different and more pluralistic way of seeing philosophy altogether, one that draws on the plurality of the sciences, rather than the traditionally restrictive, a priori toolkit of analytic philosophy."
Veit states, "Anecdotally, I have never felt more enthusiastic about the future of philosophy, then when I was able to work together with scientists, such as Nicola Clayton’s lab, to bring us closer to answering what it is like to be a crow, my work with biologists at Oxford in measuring biological complexity, or my ongoing work on several projects together with animal welfare scientists. Young philosophers in search of a shared and progressing paradigm won’t have far to look. It is not all doom and gloom."
Read it all here: A Third Kind of Philosophy | Psychology Today
Walter Veit Ph.D., wrote, "While naturalist philosophy is often strawmanned as a naive scientism, I hope to encourage my readers to seriously consider it as a different and more pluralistic way of seeing philosophy altogether, one that draws on the plurality of the sciences, rather than the traditionally restrictive, a priori toolkit of analytic philosophy."
He adds, "Naturalist philosophers are excited about the progress made on old philosophical problems with the aid of the sciences—the mind, the nature of life, or the structure of reality."
To make philosophy prosper once more in universities and the public, we must ask it to return to a state it was once in: a part of natural philosophy continuous with the sciences.
Veit states, "Anecdotally, I have never felt more enthusiastic about the future of philosophy, then when I was able to work together with scientists, such as Nicola Clayton’s lab, to bring us closer to answering what it is like to be a crow, my work with biologists at Oxford in measuring biological complexity, or my ongoing work on several projects together with animal welfare scientists. Young philosophers in search of a shared and progressing paradigm won’t have far to look. It is not all doom and gloom."
No comments:
Post a Comment