Random thought on metaphor: in engineering, your "argument" is always grounded in a structure "beneath" your construction: the UI is grounded in code, which is grounded in the OS, which is grounded in the processor's logic, which is grounded in circuitry and ultimately physics.
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
But in Philosophy, your argument is grounded in structures "above" it: your political philosophy is grounded in a "higher" ethics, which is grounded in epistemology and ontology, themselves grounded in the "highest" metaphysics. The Heavens above the Earth.
6 replies 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
So, unlike in engineering, philosophical arguments have a strange dual character, in which the chain of abstraction is simultaneously beneath (the grounding, the roots) and above the argument in question, in a metaphorical sense.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 5 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
It is true that physics "wraps around", the empirical method generates questions of subjectivity which lead back to a metaphysics. But a characteristic of engineering is not wanting to know about what lies beneath one's domain of construction. I don't need physics to code.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The problem raised is "why?" and to answer that we need to contrast the goals of engineering vs philosophy. Both construct objects for use, but the former builds something concrete, the latter builds something abstract and psychological.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The psychological (read: not formal) "proof" of any construction is in its successful use as object. Engineering objects, at least in 2020, are intended for use with as little knowledge as possible, through physical interaction with the construction.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
On the other hand, the use of a philosophical object is in symbolic argumentation (with oneself or others), and the "rational aesthetics" of philosophical argument, the property which convinces others, is best with a formal chain of grounds leading to axioms which must be true.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 5 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
Hence in philosophy, one must both engineer a useful argument from the grounds beneath, and must ensure its ultimate connection with the heavens above, with transcendent, self-justifying truth.
-
-
Of course, which transcendent truths people accept is another matter entirely, on which plenty of philosophy already exists (it seems to involve social authority and lived experience), but that's for another conversation.
0 replies 1 proslijeđeni tweet 5 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.