All idealisms, including Kant's, end in solipsism. I agree with you, it's clearly nonsensical.Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 2:14 amMercury wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 9:37 pm
There are echoes of the allegory of the cave here, now you mention it, but I'm talking about the Cartersian subject/object dichotomy - as it relates to the status of science in society. In my view, there's a huge over-emphasis on subjectivism to the detriment of science ...and society!
Subjective idealism is another way of saying solipsism; the corner Descartes paints himself into with his method of radical scepticism. Having doubted all that could be doubted - his perceptions, the existence of the object world, and even that he had a physical body, he finds he can assert his existence 'I think therefore I am' - but only at the cost of everything else.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 13th, 2022, 11:50 pmPlato was an idealist, but also a realist. Modern idealism is represented by subjective idealists peddling anti-realism, and yes, it is an infectious intellectual disease that hinders human progress.
Solipsism: "the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."
Subjective idealism positively asserts that this is the case: "Subjective idealism, or empirical idealism, is a form of philosophical monism that holds that only minds and mental contents exist."
Descartes' method of radical scepticism was wrongful; not least because it requires far greater assumption to imagine a demon is deceiving him than it does to accept that what he sees exists. The epistemic assumption that reality exists, and that perception is accurate to, if not comprehensive of reality - is the least possible necessary assumption to knowledge. Further, the evolutionary origin of humankind requires perception is accurate to reality to facilitate survival. It's not merely inconceivable the human species could have survived unless perception were accurate to reality, but inconceivable evolution could build such a deluded organism. Subjectivism, solipsism and subjective idealism are clearly nonsensical; but useful politically, to those who would abdicate from a responsibility to scientific truths.
As science is true - philosophy is false!
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:21 pm There are no insults. It's about the logical possibilities. As such, you seem to be saying that there is an (ultimate) objective reality of some kind. An independent existence somewhere. Independent of humans. What, where, when, how and why are you thinking that? Also, that basic primacy issue, though, you still haven't reconciled. So I'll ask in a different way, are scientific theories themselves, mind dependent?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pmI am not thinking that. I embody it - prior to any conscious thought process. I snatch my hand from the fire, instinctively. It's something my body does. Even if I consciously exert willpower, I cannot prevent my body removing my hand from the flame. The flame exists. My body exists. My mind cannot deny it for long. I wake in the middle of the night needing to pee. I get out of bed in the dark and kick the table leg, hurting my toe. I was unaware of the table, but it still exists - as evidenced by my busted toe. My unawareness of the table does not imply it doesn't exist. There is an objective reality, and no amount of sophistry can free us from the consequences of material existence.
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmSo, it seems you are acquiescing to a mind-body problem. A dualism of sorts, to one's perception of reality. A subject-object dynamic between two different entities, yet dependent on each other. No?
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pm We're confused. What are scientific theories dependent on?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pm Are scientific theories mind dependent?
It requires minds to formulate scientific theories, but also an objective reality to form scientific theories about. If you insist on methodological absolutism, the only thing you can know is that you exist: "I think therefore I am." That's your lot. Begging the question you didn't answer:
'Is it a rabbit or a duck?'
"Who said that?"
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmOkay. Now you seem to be recognizing both a 'subjectivity and objectivity'. But where is that ultimate objective reality that science has discovered? You know, in accordance with your OP?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:11 pmWhat do you mean by 'now'? I have not denied the existence of mind, or even denied that there's a subjective assumption that what is experienced 'in here' corresponds to reality 'out there.' My argument is that, this is no assumption at all - in reality, a nothing burger, sans fries, without relish on the side - blown into a full philosophical banquet for religious and political reasons. And while 400 years of philosophers have feasted at this table, science has been turned out in the cold to beg for scraps from industry and government!
The status of science is relevant to the fate of humankind. Your questions are silly, wrong end of the telescope questions - based on a subjectivist perspective that's false at every level. Methodologically - radical scepticism is falsified by Occam's Razor, in that it requires far greater assumption to suppose the reality we perceive somehow doesn't exist, than to accept that it does. It's false to evolutionary history - in that human beings could not have survived if their perceptions were inaccurate to reality. It's psychologically false - in that you assume an objective reality exists in your every behaviour; yet somehow deny this intellectually. Subjectivism ignores its own implication that all that can be known is the existence of the self, and steals scientific knowledge about the mechanics of perception and consciousness to deploy against science. Subjectivism is false in every regard. And while science based on objectivism and empiricism surrounds us with technological miracles, subjectivism produces nothing of worth! In face of the climate and ecological crisis, science offers the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future. Your best hope is that the notion objective reality doesn't exist will comfort billions of people as they seem to starve and die of thirst.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pmNot relevant to the question. I'll ask for the third time (and I'll keep asking until you get it right), how does an independent objective reality exist?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
While science has been tardy in exploring the subjective domain, it will catch up quickly due to the need to detect potential sentience in seemingly intelligent systems created in the lab, be they organic or synthetic. It's obviously ethically important for researchers to avoid creating entities that suffer.
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
Gertie wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:31 pm Mercury
Apologies for the chopping up and repetition.
Thanks for your reply; I accept it as a serious response, but disagree - speaking for a philosophical tradition that did not occur because of religious and political interference in philosophy, starting with Galileo and Descartes - and continuing unto the present day. You'll likely be aware that in 1635 Galileo was arrested and tried for the heresy of proving earth orbits the sun. What you may not know is that Descartes immediately withdrew a work on physics from publication, and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in which he employed a method of radical scepticism to cast doubt upon everything that may be doubted, including the existence of the object world, the evidence of the senses, even that he had a body, to conclude, nonetheless, 'I think therefore I am.' This subjective certainty was far more consistent with Church doctrine regarding the soul, and spiritual disdain for the mundane object world.
Galileo was held under house arrest for the rest of his life, while Descartes was appointed to the Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. Bearing in mind that the Church was the ultimate authority for the Divine Right of Kings, and also that the Church burned people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - the effect on European philosophy was considerable. Subjectivism was unduly emphasised while a philosophical tradition positively codifying scientific epistemology, and describing the truth value of scientific knowledge did not occur. On the contrary, scientific epistemology is defined in negative terms; in terms of subjective limitation, as you describe here. You say:
"Well it's not that I (or philosophy) can't assume the world represented by my conscious experience exists, I do that nearly all the time. It's a matter of how can that be tested?"
Is that the pertinent question? Given that we do assume, naturally and unavoidably that the object world exists - why doubt it, if not by dint of Descartes tortured method of radical scepticism? Why even point out this is an assumption?If defining the role of the observer in science were the nature and purpose of subjectivist philosophy - that would be a terrific answer to the question. But it's not. Rather subjectivism prosecutes a disdain for the object world - that stems from a religious distinction between the spiritual and mundane; where the mundane is relegated morally in relation to the spiritual. It is thus, Galileo was condemned as suspect of heresy, and thus science was cast as heretical, even diabolical. 210 years after Galileo, Darwin was guilt ridden, and attacked by the faithful for publishing Origin of Species.Gertie wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:31 pmTwo reasons. First it's true. And secondly, the corollary is that if we want to understand knowledge, which we should, then understanding our role as subject knowers/creators of knowledge is key. We should want to understand how we create models of the world, what influences are at play, and how we can do better. From realising both the limits and value of inter-subjective falsifiability (the basis for science) to seeing how bias can come into play. We'd be daft not to.
"Hesitatingly, he had revealed to a few other natural scientists his godless theory, over a period of nearly two decades: "It is as if one were confessing to a murder," he wrote to his closest confidante, the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker."
In 2008, a scientist named Craig Venter created artificial life in the lab, and was attacked by religious types for 'playing God.' Why? Because Descartes was an intellectual coward, and rather than defending Galileo - created a subjectivist philosophy that undermines scientific epistemology. It does not define the role of the observer, but claims that observation is subjectively idiosyncratic, and so an unreliable basis for knowledge - all the way through to suggesting that the object world doesn't even exist.
Naive realism is a straw man borrowed from the ancient past; Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas - hundreds of years before Galileo formulated his hypothetico-deductive methodology, and proved the earth orbits the sun with regard to observation. It's only since Galileo we can really talk seriously about scientific method - and consequently, about the role of the observer in science. Further, it was the science of optics and light, plus medical knowledge of the eye and the brain that refuted naive realism, not subjective philosophy.Gertie wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:31 pmThe alternative to acknowledging the role of the subject in creating knowledge isn't science, it's naive realism. Science acknowledges our limits and flaws as subject knowers of reality, and creates methodologies to try to get around them. Where-as naive realism claims we have direct knowledge of reality, which a simple optical illusion refutes. So lets grapple with the difficult reality of our flaws and limitations, as science and philosophy do, rather than opt for naive realism.
It's not a natural starting point if one accepts a scientific epistemology and that science has truth value, it's a bizarre objection - easily dismissed. Speaking from that non-existent pro-science philosophical tradition, the existence of the object world is confirmed in every way. What I see is confirmed by what I touch, and by what you see and touch, and by the very fact of our survival. It's inconceivable a species could have survived while suffering from such a grand delusion, as that the reality they inhabit, that impresses itself upon their senses were somehow unreal. In adopting this starting point, we have fatally undermined scientific empiricism right from the outset - in that what is observed is not a basis for knowledge of objective reality.Okay, let's be clear that solipsism is the unavoidable consequence of Descartes method of sceptical doubt by which he established subjectivism as the only certain truth: 'I think therefore I am.' But he cannot know anything else, because it's all been doubted away. There is no methodologically consistent way out of the solipsistic trap. And if you assume the object world exists - then you cannot doubt it away, and so cannot establish subjective certainty. You cannot have it both ways.Gertie wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:31 pmLets be clear about solipsism, which I think we'd agree can't be refuted. If solipsism is true, there's really no more to be said. So lets put that aside and make the assumption that a real world exists. Once we make the assumption, then the epistemological question must be what can we know about that world.
Right, but we can measure the table. The fact that occasionally objects are perceptually ambiguous - usually from a particular angle, or in a certain light, isn't the be all and end all of scientific investigation. Science looks at it from all angles, measures it, weighs it whole, then chops it to pieces and weighs the pieces. Any subjective perceptual ambiguity is certain to be tested to irrelevance by an adequate scientific investigation.Gertie wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:31 pmYou're right what we are immediately presented with is a world of trees and gravity and cause and effect. Why question what our senses are flinging in our faces? Because we also discover we are subjects with a specific first person perspective, not a god's eye pov. And when Russell or I walk around a table it changes shape. Just that is enough to tell us we create models of reality in our heads. If you and I stood at either end of the table, each of us would claim our end is bigger, but by comparing notes we can work out that it's our experiential model which creates the illusion. Further along we discover what we hear is created in our heads, so is colour, solidity, taste, smell. Our senses aren't giving us a perfect 'god's eye' view of the world, they are flawed and limited tools by which to know reality. And that we are 'designed' by evolution to create models of reality which are useful 'Darwinian fictions'. And as far as things which aren't inter-subjectively falsifiable (not physical stuff and processes), like conscious experience itself, our inter-subjective falsification methodology is flummoxed.
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
Nonsense! And not relevant to the question: Where is that objective reality that science has discovered? Your OP is weakening by the second!!Mercury wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 12:59 am3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:21 pm There are no insults. It's about the logical possibilities. As such, you seem to be saying that there is an (ultimate) objective reality of some kind. An independent existence somewhere. Independent of humans. What, where, when, how and why are you thinking that? Also, that basic primacy issue, though, you still haven't reconciled. So I'll ask in a different way, are scientific theories themselves, mind dependent?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pmI am not thinking that. I embody it - prior to any conscious thought process. I snatch my hand from the fire, instinctively. It's something my body does. Even if I consciously exert willpower, I cannot prevent my body removing my hand from the flame. The flame exists. My body exists. My mind cannot deny it for long. I wake in the middle of the night needing to pee. I get out of bed in the dark and kick the table leg, hurting my toe. I was unaware of the table, but it still exists - as evidenced by my busted toe. My unawareness of the table does not imply it doesn't exist. There is an objective reality, and no amount of sophistry can free us from the consequences of material existence.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmSo, it seems you are acquiescing to a mind-body problem. A dualism of sorts, to one's perception of reality. A subject-object dynamic between two different entities, yet dependent on each other. No?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pm We're confused. What are scientific theories dependent on?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pm Are scientific theories mind dependent?
It requires minds to formulate scientific theories, but also an objective reality to form scientific theories about. If you insist on methodological absolutism, the only thing you can know is that you exist: "I think therefore I am." That's your lot. Begging the question you didn't answer:
'Is it a rabbit or a duck?'
"Who said that?"3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmOkay. Now you seem to be recognizing both a 'subjectivity and objectivity'. But where is that ultimate objective reality that science has discovered? You know, in accordance with your OP?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:11 pmWhat do you mean by 'now'? I have not denied the existence of mind, or even denied that there's a subjective assumption that what is experienced 'in here' corresponds to reality 'out there.' My argument is that, this is no assumption at all - in reality, a nothing burger, sans fries, without relish on the side - blown into a full philosophical banquet for religious and political reasons. And while 400 years of philosophers have feasted at this table, science has been turned out in the cold to beg for scraps from industry and government!The status of science is relevant to the fate of humankind. Your questions are silly, wrong end of the telescope questions - based on a subjectivist perspective that's false at every level. Methodologically - radical scepticism is falsified by Occam's Razor, in that it requires far greater assumption to suppose the reality we perceive somehow doesn't exist, than to accept that it does. It's false to evolutionary history - in that human beings could not have survived if their perceptions were inaccurate to reality. It's psychologically false - in that you assume an objective reality exists in your every behaviour; yet somehow deny this intellectually. Subjectivism ignores its own implication that all that can be known is the existence of the self, and steals scientific knowledge about the mechanics of perception and consciousness to deploy against science. Subjectivism is false in every regard. And while science based on objectivism and empiricism surrounds us with technological miracles, subjectivism produces nothing of worth! In face of the climate and ecological crisis, science offers the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future. Your best hope is that the notion objective reality doesn't exist will comfort billions of people as they seem to starve and die of thirst.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pmNot relevant to the question. I'll ask for the third time (and I'll keep asking until you get it right), how does an independent objective reality exist?
Remember, it takes a thinking subject to produce a scientific theory.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to support your thesis that science has all the answers, and philosophy is false (whatever that's supposed to mean)!?!
― Albert Einstein
-
- Posts: 377
- Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
I must away. I shall return in the New Year to check your progress. Well, not your progress, obviously!3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 9:01 amNonsense! And not relevant to the question: Where is that objective reality that science has discovered? Your OP is weakening by the second!!Mercury wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 12:59 am3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:21 pm There are no insults. It's about the logical possibilities. As such, you seem to be saying that there is an (ultimate) objective reality of some kind. An independent existence somewhere. Independent of humans. What, where, when, how and why are you thinking that? Also, that basic primacy issue, though, you still haven't reconciled. So I'll ask in a different way, are scientific theories themselves, mind dependent?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pmI am not thinking that. I embody it - prior to any conscious thought process. I snatch my hand from the fire, instinctively. It's something my body does. Even if I consciously exert willpower, I cannot prevent my body removing my hand from the flame. The flame exists. My body exists. My mind cannot deny it for long. I wake in the middle of the night needing to pee. I get out of bed in the dark and kick the table leg, hurting my toe. I was unaware of the table, but it still exists - as evidenced by my busted toe. My unawareness of the table does not imply it doesn't exist. There is an objective reality, and no amount of sophistry can free us from the consequences of material existence.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmSo, it seems you are acquiescing to a mind-body problem. A dualism of sorts, to one's perception of reality. A subject-object dynamic between two different entities, yet dependent on each other. No?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pm We're confused. What are scientific theories dependent on?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pm Are scientific theories mind dependent?
It requires minds to formulate scientific theories, but also an objective reality to form scientific theories about. If you insist on methodological absolutism, the only thing you can know is that you exist: "I think therefore I am." That's your lot. Begging the question you didn't answer:
'Is it a rabbit or a duck?'
"Who said that?"3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmOkay. Now you seem to be recognizing both a 'subjectivity and objectivity'. But where is that ultimate objective reality that science has discovered? You know, in accordance with your OP?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:11 pmWhat do you mean by 'now'? I have not denied the existence of mind, or even denied that there's a subjective assumption that what is experienced 'in here' corresponds to reality 'out there.' My argument is that, this is no assumption at all - in reality, a nothing burger, sans fries, without relish on the side - blown into a full philosophical banquet for religious and political reasons. And while 400 years of philosophers have feasted at this table, science has been turned out in the cold to beg for scraps from industry and government!The status of science is relevant to the fate of humankind. Your questions are silly, wrong end of the telescope questions - based on a subjectivist perspective that's false at every level. Methodologically - radical scepticism is falsified by Occam's Razor, in that it requires far greater assumption to suppose the reality we perceive somehow doesn't exist, than to accept that it does. It's false to evolutionary history - in that human beings could not have survived if their perceptions were inaccurate to reality. It's psychologically false - in that you assume an objective reality exists in your every behaviour; yet somehow deny this intellectually. Subjectivism ignores its own implication that all that can be known is the existence of the self, and steals scientific knowledge about the mechanics of perception and consciousness to deploy against science. Subjectivism is false in every regard. And while science based on objectivism and empiricism surrounds us with technological miracles, subjectivism produces nothing of worth! In face of the climate and ecological crisis, science offers the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future. Your best hope is that the notion objective reality doesn't exist will comfort billions of people as they seem to starve and die of thirst.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pmNot relevant to the question. I'll ask for the third time (and I'll keep asking until you get it right), how does an independent objective reality exist?
Remember, it takes a thinking subject to produce a scientific theory.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to support your thesis that science has all the answers, and philosophy is false (whatever that's supposed to mean)!?!
- 3017Metaphysician
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am
Re: As science is true - philosophy is false!
Keep trying Mecury!!!Mercury wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 9:23 amI must away. I shall return in the New Year to check your progress. Well, not your progress, obviously!3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 9:01 amNonsense! And not relevant to the question: Where is that objective reality that science has discovered? Your OP is weakening by the second!!Mercury wrote: ↑November 15th, 2022, 12:59 am3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 12:21 pm There are no insults. It's about the logical possibilities. As such, you seem to be saying that there is an (ultimate) objective reality of some kind. An independent existence somewhere. Independent of humans. What, where, when, how and why are you thinking that? Also, that basic primacy issue, though, you still haven't reconciled. So I'll ask in a different way, are scientific theories themselves, mind dependent?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pmI am not thinking that. I embody it - prior to any conscious thought process. I snatch my hand from the fire, instinctively. It's something my body does. Even if I consciously exert willpower, I cannot prevent my body removing my hand from the flame. The flame exists. My body exists. My mind cannot deny it for long. I wake in the middle of the night needing to pee. I get out of bed in the dark and kick the table leg, hurting my toe. I was unaware of the table, but it still exists - as evidenced by my busted toe. My unawareness of the table does not imply it doesn't exist. There is an objective reality, and no amount of sophistry can free us from the consequences of material existence.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmSo, it seems you are acquiescing to a mind-body problem. A dualism of sorts, to one's perception of reality. A subject-object dynamic between two different entities, yet dependent on each other. No?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pm We're confused. What are scientific theories dependent on?
Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:15 pm Are scientific theories mind dependent?
It requires minds to formulate scientific theories, but also an objective reality to form scientific theories about. If you insist on methodological absolutism, the only thing you can know is that you exist: "I think therefore I am." That's your lot. Begging the question you didn't answer:
'Is it a rabbit or a duck?'
"Who said that?"3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 1:24 pmOkay. Now you seem to be recognizing both a 'subjectivity and objectivity'. But where is that ultimate objective reality that science has discovered? You know, in accordance with your OP?Mercury wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:11 pmWhat do you mean by 'now'? I have not denied the existence of mind, or even denied that there's a subjective assumption that what is experienced 'in here' corresponds to reality 'out there.' My argument is that, this is no assumption at all - in reality, a nothing burger, sans fries, without relish on the side - blown into a full philosophical banquet for religious and political reasons. And while 400 years of philosophers have feasted at this table, science has been turned out in the cold to beg for scraps from industry and government!The status of science is relevant to the fate of humankind. Your questions are silly, wrong end of the telescope questions - based on a subjectivist perspective that's false at every level. Methodologically - radical scepticism is falsified by Occam's Razor, in that it requires far greater assumption to suppose the reality we perceive somehow doesn't exist, than to accept that it does. It's false to evolutionary history - in that human beings could not have survived if their perceptions were inaccurate to reality. It's psychologically false - in that you assume an objective reality exists in your every behaviour; yet somehow deny this intellectually. Subjectivism ignores its own implication that all that can be known is the existence of the self, and steals scientific knowledge about the mechanics of perception and consciousness to deploy against science. Subjectivism is false in every regard. And while science based on objectivism and empiricism surrounds us with technological miracles, subjectivism produces nothing of worth! In face of the climate and ecological crisis, science offers the possibility of a prosperous sustainable future. Your best hope is that the notion objective reality doesn't exist will comfort billions of people as they seem to starve and die of thirst.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 3:37 pmNot relevant to the question. I'll ask for the third time (and I'll keep asking until you get it right), how does an independent objective reality exist?
Remember, it takes a thinking subject to produce a scientific theory.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to support your thesis that science has all the answers, and philosophy is false (whatever that's supposed to mean)!?!
― Albert Einstein
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023