To What Extent is Philosophy Science or Art?

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I am writing this thread question is because science has such an influence on thinking, to the point where philosophy could even become a mere appendix to science. However, I am not sure that it is quite so simple, because even science depends on meanings. Hermeneutics and the understanding of the nature of meanings may also be important as the basis for developments of conceptual meanings.

In thinking about this question, I am also interested in the relative value placed upon science and art. Science has ushered in empiricism and rationality. This may be important, but there is also the nature of inner knowledge and reflection. To what extent is the this dimension important in philosophy and how does it relate to the wider aspects of understanding? What is self-knowledge and how important it it? How are meanings constructed, as theories and mythical narratives? Even if science is seen as essential, it is bound up with concepts, which involve metaphors and ways of making ideas meaningful.

So, I wonder about philosophy in balancing science and art. I even query to what extent is the idea of the existence of God a question of the sciences or the arts? The whole dichotomy between science, art and human meaning appears to me to be such a complex area for understanding. What do you think about science and art, and the relevance of both angles in philosophy? How may be art and science be evaluated in understanding human meaning and the basis of epistemology, or as the core basis for thinking about the many aspects of what is 'reality'?

[Pattern-chaser]

The practice of science has to include art (creativity), or it can't function. I'm not sure there is an arena where art and science are clearly separate...?

[JackDaydream]

The practice of science has to include art (creativity), or it can't function. I'm not sure there is an arena where art and science are clearly separate...?

The two aspects or approaches may be interconnected but have become separated in academic thinking. Certainly, in my own studies I went in the direction of the arts, but with the realisation that science was important too. Generally, from my understanding of philosophy ot appears that the perspective of science is seen as essential, with the interpretations of the arts being undervalued in many respects.

[mrdim]

I think that the relative value of art and the search for/creation of meaning, is that we can always create more information in a world that initially presents us with, shall we say "quantity X" of information.
The amount of information is therefore continuously exponential, as we create meanings to supply reasoning behind already existing meanings. A way to deal with exponential change, is to create exponential systems that can be explained by scientific reasoning, and can be further advanced to any degree of desire, by artistic or philosophical meaning.

The problem is, I'm not sure how science could ever be exponential, or that it could ever be fixed in content either.

This is by no means a comprehensive argument, but I hope it helps.

[value]

A similar question was asked by Thomyum2.

(2019) Is philosophy an art form?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 13&t=16470

My answer was the following:

"Any activity of a human can be considered an art in the face of the quality 'human performance'.

The concept 'an art' can be applied to any human activity by which that activity achieves a positive qualitative differentiator.

The categorization art seems to be inappropriate for philosophy although it might be considered a valid label as it is for any other human activity in the face of 'human performance' as a quality.

Philosophy can be the origin of art from a theoretical or reason perspective. Whatever the true origin of true art might be, philosophy would be a means to touch the essence of that aspect with theory and reason which would be unique to philosophy."


With regard science. Scientific evidence is limited to what is 'repeatable' and to limit the scope of what is meaningfully relevant to that is highly questionable in my opinion.

The post–World War II era is considered to be an 'anti-philosophy' era in which philosophy was increasingly placed on a level comparable with that of religions. In a sense, while science originates from philosophy, science has attempted to overcome philosophy and intended to rid itself of any influence of philosophy, which includes morality.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) already warned about the start of the development in 1886.

"The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy and values which includes morality. Science (in practice) is operating on the basis of a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy - which results in an ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

My answer: philosophy can be the origin of art and science. Philosophy has created and can motivate science and it can create the theoretical foundation for art.

[JackDaydream]

I think that the relative value of art and the search for/creation of meaning, is that we can always create more information in a world that initially presents us with, shall we say "quantity X" of information.
The amount of information is therefore continuously exponential, as we create meanings to supply reasoning behind already existing meanings. A way to deal with exponential change, is to create exponential systems that can be explained by scientific reasoning, and can be further advanced to any degree of desire, by artistic or philosophical meaning.

The problem is, I'm not sure how science could ever be exponential, or that it could ever be fixed in content either.

This is by no means a comprehensive argument, but I hope it helps.

Thanks for your reply and it is definitely likely that science gives the information and art involves the connections of meaning. It seems to involve the craft of construction because raw information itself remains abstract without the connection. I have to admit that I disliked the physical sciences when I was at school and much preferred the arts and it was probably because the sciences seemed so remote that they seemed meaningless in comparison with the expressive arts, especially literature. It was only later after reading philosophy that exploration of science became important for me in filling in gaps for more detailed foundation for clearer understanding.

[JackDaydream]

To Value,
Thanks for your reply and its various ideas, including your response to Thomyum. I am not quoting the actual posts because I think that there is a new rule that if links appear in the text that the post has to be looked at by the moderators.

With regard to Nietzsche, I am aware that his writings are so different from what is presented in philosophy in the twentieth first century. So, I have been inclined to see him more as a literary writer or poet, especially in his, 'Thus Spake Zarathrustra'. Camus and Sartre, as well as Iris Murdoch presented their ideas in the art of fiction. Most philosophers nowadays focus on very rational presentation of ideas and concepts, even if it involves a lot of analysis of language itself.

Regarding your conclusion, that philosophy can be a starting point for art or science, that does seem to be the role philosophy seems to play, like a parent figure. It may be about the generation of ideas which can be developed much further. That may be why philosophy was so important for the ancients as giving birth to core ideas. Now, after so many centuries of art and science it may involve going back to where the ideas lead bringing out new connections and provisioning.

[Samana Johann]

To What Extent is Philosophy Science or Art?

To the extent that's likewise just individually constructed, without heartwood, real refuge and not leading toward release, good householder. Just playing around, entertainment and burdensome objectivication.

[JackDaydream]

To What Extent is Philosophy Science or Art?

To the extent that's likewise just individually constructed, without heartwood, real refuge and not leading toward release, good householder. Just playing around, entertainment and burdensome objectivication.

Yes, art and science may involve an element of playfulness, as well as pleasure and joy. Art itself is experimental. Both also require the a certain amount of discipline and technique but the process may become too dry if an appreciation of life, processes and aesthetics gets lost in discovery and exploration.