leyline

sophie

i personally agree that it would be a mistake to throw out time completely, and a whole lot more besides!

"The question philosophers must ask themselves is what is the accuracy of our senses when it comes to supplying us with information about this wonderful world all around us. "

I completely agree with you there and ‘information’ includes fundamental conceptual relationships as well as events, and it is why i believe that space is a philosophical touchstone. I maintain and have tried to show, that it is inconcievable to come up with a scientific mechanism for the perception of it, precisely because science trusts the senses when they tell us that space surrounds the brain. Subjective space surrounds the subjective brain. The scientist grabs that and claims that real space surrounds the real brain, and perception is contained therein.

Now of course science isn't strictly speaking a philosophy at all, as you agree. I kind of admire science for the way that it will from the philosophers point of view, radically change its entire conceptual scheme simply because the results are better. When it comes to conceptual world schemes it will grab just about anything that fits with its empirical results. See the history of science, the world views weren't always as now. Not only that but compare say the determinism of present day biology to quantum mechanics. Science has a laddish attitude to conceptual schemes and will entertain jumping into bed with all kinds. But at the same time it always rely on its bosom buddies ....... empiricism and mathematics.

It is precisely its pragmatic prowess that challenges and informs philosophy. However this has got to the point where much of western philosophy has become cowed by science. Classic western philosophy doesn't challenge science at all. (postmodernism in my opinion is at least trying, but its biggest opponent is of course analytical philosophy, not science.) I believe analytical philosophy can really challenge science too. If analytical philosophy were to examine the scientific conceptual framework for building a theory for the perception of space, then it will be seen to be incompatible with its empirical claim that it doesn't trust the senses. As a prospective mechanism whereby real space and the rest of reality causes the subjective experience of space, it will be seen to be inconceivable because it sets up all kinds of internal contradictions.

But when i read and listen to most people who are interested in philosophy and have been educated in the west, they state their beliefs in materialism and determinism and the like and constantly refer to the scientific paradigm to convince themselves and try to persuade other people. Even to the point that when science changes its model of reality, they trip over themselves in a game of scientific catch-up to incorporate the latest into their analytical schemes. Science is driving their beliefs and they are not going to risk sounding ridiculous by challenging it. This is so ironic when science itself couldn't give a toss about maintaining the status quo.

It is also a loss to science of course. Science feeds off new ideas. It also values very highly anything that shows an internal inconsistency. That is why science progresses so quickly. It has an army of thinkers and explorers that out of respect and love for it are trying to find a chink in it. Anyone who succeeds is patted on the back for enabling progress by finding a flaw in the present.

Analytical philosophy by comparison has become like the dowdy stay at home forever cleaning the house, and only shows any signs of life when she hears the front door slam. Then she gets all excited at the prospect of hearing what her outrageous tart of a sister has been up to.

One day sis wont come home. She will have run off with a yogic contortionist or something.