Science is the criterion for evaluating philosophy? The essence of philosophy is science? Or is philosophy a science? Historically, in order to explain their differences, those extremely clever brains have racked their brains to find ways: someone gave us an analogy, saying that knowledge is like a tree, philosophy is the root and science is the branch (Descartes); Some people say that philosophy and science are the relationship between universality and particularity, philosophy is universality and science is particularity (Stalin); It was said earlier that philosophy is a curious tendency in human nature and the "first philosophy" after physics beyond experience (Aristotle); Some students wrote to Hegel complaining that philosophy is too difficult and "abstract" (many of our students today are still very imaginative about those old students who have passed away). Hegel wrote back that only science is abstract, while philosophy happens to be concrete; Now there is even a school that simply thinks that philosophy has nothing to do with science in essence, and philosophy is just a logic or ability of thinking; Wait a minute.
There was also a period in history when philosophy was regarded as science, that is, the period of natural philosophy before the birth of Marxist philosophy. At that time, philosophy tried to embrace all specific sciences and overreached itself as "scientific science", and as a result, it was "revolutionized" by rising stars such as Marx. On the one hand, Marx affirmed the role of science as a driving force for historical change. On the other hand, it is pointed out that only philosophy is the "ideological weapon" to criticize the real world. Engels even accepted Hegel's famous saying in philosophy that "what is reasonable is realistic, and what is realistic is reasonable". After dialectical deduction, the conclusion is that everything that exists will eventually perish. Here, philosophy is not science, but the essence of the spirit of the times, which plays a role in class struggle and social practice.
It is unacceptable for anyone, including natural philosophers, to equate philosophy with science completely. However, many people unconsciously regard philosophy as a kind of science. If we look for historical reasons, people will find that the rapid development of modern science has greatly changed nature and society, and rationalism and emotion are also expanding day by day. Just like money that people yearn for in a commodity society, science seems to be an invincible magic weapon. It has become the object of human spiritual attachment. Worship of science, superstition or "belief" education have caused the deformation of people's value system. So everything in the spiritual field has become a vassal of science. Because of this, people can't escape the old rule: extremes meet! Here, science began to go to the opposite side it tried to oppose: superstition. It can be seen that clarifying the relationship between philosophy and science is not only related to the living space of philosophy, but also to the development of science itself.
When did mankind have philosophy? Why think about "philosophy"? This is probably the first question of philosophical genesis. Is it really not enough for experienced people to use experience and science as their survival tools? This question is so mysterious that in the whole history of philosophy and science in the east and west, those wise heads have not given a standard answer that people agree with. Zhu Zeng recalled that when he was four or five years old, he began to wonder what "things" were in "outer space"-experienced people must be puzzled by such a child looking up to heaven, but this is what Kant, the later "sage", said: philosophy is the result of human rational requirements. However, what is the requirement of "rationality"? Science is not enough? When Aristotle said that philosophy was born in a place of leisure, he really meant that people were full and had nothing to do. In addition, it is people's innate curiosity. Almost all these theories are reasonable extensions of the abstract theory of human nature, but the essential question has not been answered. It seems to say, why are you eating? A: Because you are hungry!
The emergence of philosophy in history must be out of specific needs. Perhaps, the reason for its appearance is exactly the same as the reason for the birth of religion and primitive art; Maybe they are twin brothers in the same mother's womb. But what are the "specific needs"? This cannot be explained in a few words; But one thing is certain: this "need" is different from the "need" that needs the birth of science. People can logically ask why primitive people left murals in caves. This question is very similar to why Zhu thought about outer space when he was four or five years old. Murals in caves will never help primitive people get more food and prey. They are willing to spend so much time (the word time is very interesting, it doesn't mean "time" completely, but more refers to "labor". There is no doubt that the creation of murals is a kind of labor, not enjoying "leisure" as Aristotle said. The only explanation is that activities similar to mural creation can get satisfaction or enjoyment different from food, clothing, housing and transportation.
The reason why science was born is the need of human survival. The earliest trial planting of crops must be the first experiment in agricultural science. Then in their experience, they gradually found that the high yield of crops is closely related to climate, soil, varieties and so on. Agricultural science is no exception, almost all sciences are based on meeting the needs of human beings for food, clothing, housing and transportation. Science is the logical and natural extension of human experience. As for today's professional "scientific researchers", it is naturally the result of social division of labor. It focuses on our life needs. From this perspective, the mysterious and sacred science museum is actually doing an ordinary thing.
From the psychological point of view, philosophy, religion and art seem to be farther away from us than science. This is also the reason why we feel that science is more needed. While dealing with people's direct needs, science has also pushed this demand to a new stage. Therefore, we need and rely on science more and more. We feel that philosophy is completely dispensable, as if it is just a spiritual luxury of human beings. Naturally, this is short-sighted. Or turn a blind eye, because humans and other animals are not completely equal. The spiritual needs of human beings are not possessed by other animals. Primitive people, while fighting against nature, issued a real "JIU Wen". Or by their perfect posture, or by the orderly nature, or by the unpredictable storms and lightning, which may trigger their inspiration and stimulate their talent and intelligence.
Of course, in the embryonic period of human knowledge, everything is in a state of chaos, there is almost no difference between the categories of knowledge, and there is no clear boundary between philosophy and science in the later sense. Just like a baby in the mother's womb, for a realistic person, he (she) is only a possibility, and at most it is only the possibility of moving towards a realistic "person". However, just like a baby, it contains almost all the information of a living person. The later separation of philosophy and science has been decided at this time. Later development was only a morphological development, and its development direction was not free walking, but was restricted from the beginning. No matter how tall a tree is, it is actually just the external development of that small seed. Because philosophy and science meet different aspects of human survival and development needs, their differences have existed from the beginning.
From the perspective of genetics, the emergence of philosophy and science is the result of the interaction of many factors. Among them, there are both environmental factors and intellectual, natural and psychological factors constructed by human beings in the process of adapting to the environment. Although people's multi-dimensional demand is not the final decisive factor-dialectical materialism holds that "demand" itself is also certain-it does play an unquestionable direct role in promoting. In other words, many times, people can only or only know their own needs. As far as people's intellectual ability is concerned, the ability to discard one-sidedness and run the whole, such as understanding and intuition, often appears only at the moment when extreme situations have not been experienced, just like the inspiration that the creator's spirit of cave murals is suddenly liberated from bark and bone holes; Like an epiphany under the bodhi tree of suddhodana; Just as Thales discovered water from the source of life; Just like Cao Chen singing when he is drunk; ..... Some people say that art is the sublimation of instinct, which is undoubtedly appropriate in this sense. In fact, besides art, philosophy and religion are also? The difference between them and science is that, first of all, they advocate a wider range of needs and sublimate deep irrational instincts with the collective unconscious that existed before human beings.
If the purpose of science is to solve or facilitate human life, then philosophy is to see through human existence; Science aims at understanding, while philosophy aims at consciousness.
What is philosophy? There is no really suitable answer. From the meaning of "philosophy" in Chinese, it is similar to consciousness and wisdom, which is very consistent with the saying of "loving wisdom" in western languages. The original meaning of science should be practical knowledge. Science was born from "trial and error" activity (the mechanism of "experiment" activity), but philosophy is the result of wisdom, which can also be said.
Philosophy and science are fundamentally different because of their different starting points.
The primary reason why "essence" is different is that they point to different objects. Science has two objects: First, each relatively independent scientific category has its own research field. It is precisely because of this that science has the distinction between categories called "physics", "biology" and "information" and knowledge. Second, scientific objects can also be understood as "facts" and "facts". What can be "identified" and what cannot be "identified" cannot be called "facts" in the scientific sense. The task of science is to explore facts and their "relationships", such as inevitable relationship, probable relationship, sequential relationship, causal relationship and so on. In these two senses, the object of science is concrete and concrete, so science is also called "concrete science". The concreteness of dialectics refers to one-sided synthesis or abstract synthesis, which transcends and sublates scientific concreteness. Because of this, Hegel called science "abstract" and philosophy "concrete". In other words, science is "abstract" because of the concreteness or concreteness of its object! We concrete people will feel how much we need science, and the illusory mysterious philosophy seems to be out of touch with our lives.
"Metaphysics" should be the original and proper expression of philosophy. The basic characteristics of philosophical objects are announced. "Metaphysics refers to Tao and metaphysics refers to apparatus", which almost tells the difference between scientific and philosophical objects. Philosophy does not point to concrete facts or things. "Rationality lies in being ahead" (Zhu's remarks), which has been criticized as idealism for many years, but it is here. Philosophy is about "reason". Compared with "things" or "utensils", "reason" is of course the first, or more "essential". Philosophy first appeared as a "principle" that questioned the world, and it still takes this as a starting point. The "principle" is invisible and intangible, even a sensitive nose can't smell it. To find a suitable word for this kind of thing, it must be "Xuan"! However, what are the benefits of "Xuan"? In other words, what's the use of philosophy? The ancients seem to have had a special evaluation of this: because it is mysterious, it is wonderful! Because metaphysics is the gateway to all miracles. Today, we often use the word "mystery", but we often lose its meaning. Philosophy is the most intolerant of pragmatism, but today it is mysterious to have a "pragmatic" philosophy! "Practicality" is not "applicability". Philosophy doesn't seem to teach us specific "skills", for example, it can't directly help us make money, so it's not practical! But all "skills" (or "many wonderful things") contain science, no matter how wonderful, they are ultimately inseparable from philosophy, so they are "applicable".
Marx once used Hegel's words to express "metaphysics": "non-objectivity" "Non-objectivity" is a description of the object characteristics of philosophy, which shows that there are both objects of philosophy-from this point of view, the dispute between "being" and "being" in metaphysics in Wei and Jin Dynasties is indeed a cause-so-called "being", and any "learning" must have cause, reason and harmony. The so-called "nothing", philosophy is different from "learning" in the usual sense, it has no "thing" in the usual sense. For example, you feel upset, but you can't find a specific reason. The same is true of philosophy. We can neither say that philosophy is the study of specific objects, nor that it is not "learning". Therefore, the accurate statement can only be that the object of philosophy is beyond the specific object. Yes For example, you have seen many beautiful things, but you don't know what beauty itself is. You have done a lot of good deeds, but can you explain what is good? In life, we will encounter many "round" things, but none of them seem to be round enough. Where is the roundest "circle"? What do you mean by goodness, beauty and roundness? Does it or they have a "concrete" appearance? Don't! What's more, Kant said that human knowledge is limited. When we synthesize "one-sided", absurdity and treachery inevitably appear. According to "scientific" Kant's philosophy, it can only be the embodiment of absurdity. In this sense, Kant, like many learned people, is still a rational scientist at heart. Because the word "absurd" has no specific meaning.
Metaphysics represents infinite and limited relativity, invariance in change, comprehensiveness after one-sidedness and absoluteness after sublation of relativity. In a word, philosophy refers to the "world" beyond human experience, which is deeply influenced and restricted by it. In scientific terms, it is a world of possibility, ideal, extraordinary and psychology. Just as a fearless person is bound to be afraid of something in his bones, the "truth" of our life is often a more deceptive illusion. "People are dying, words are still in their ears", which represents disillusionment. Buddhist philosophy shows people an "empty" world beyond our eyes with great patience. What we see is a very "real" world. There are mountains and water, and the Buddha can see it. Everything in the eyes is conditional (born because of "fate" and died because of "fate"), and the existence of conditions is conditional. By analogy, nothing concrete exists unconditionally and "independently". Therefore, the only truth is "emptiness" or "nothingness". Empty is also mysterious. Without everything we live on, our hearts are really mysterious. Can we abandon the illusory, cowardly and ignorant lifestyle and turn to a new voyage of compact and orderly life? The answer should be yes.
Philosophy is consistent with religion and art in object. They all point to the "possible" world outside the "present" world-the so-called "existence" is actually observed by human experience and science. The "possibility" here is not untrue, but true in a higher sense. Just as air is invisible and intangible, people have long called it "empty". The "possible" world is constructed by human psychological reflection, so it is also the world of ideas. We find that all the beautiful things in life are flawed, so how can we "discover"? This is an unconscious reflection activity in the mind with its own deep concept as the coordinate. In other words, since there is no most beautiful pattern in "being", the most beautiful can only be found in people's "ideas". The beauty in the idea is only a "possibility", but in a specific sense, it is a higher reality.
There is no doubt that there is only one "world" for human existence. The crux of the problem is that different worlds are presented to different subjects. Science and philosophy "see" a completely different world! The "double" and "multiple" world theories in the history of philosophy really reflect the self-awakening of the subject. Buddhist philosophy shows people three worlds: yes-no-no. This is not to say that there are three worlds, but that the world will present three "appearances" in front of three subjects. The story of a blind man touching an elephant is really meaningful. Science is undoubtedly faced with "yes", so there are differences and opposites between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and right and wrong. Philosophy, on the other hand, leads people into the realm of right and wrong, so there is a "carefree tour" like Zhuangzi, where right and wrong, size, truth and falsehood, and so on. -in the eyes of experience, there is an insurmountable gap between the two-the meaning of opposition is lost. Undoubtedly, this is a "mystery" completely different from the scientific community.
Hegel once asserted that philosophy, religion and art are interlinked in object, but different in form; Philosophy and scientific methods are similar, but the objects are different. Indeed, Hegel was still the spokesman of rationalism in that era, except for his visionary philosophical genius. There, the role of science in experiencing life is fascinating, and the attachment to science has become the characteristic of the times. Some scientific works have become the necessary dowry for the bride to get married. Although Hegel once ridiculed the practice of publishing philosophical articles in agricultural magazines, he was also a natural philosopher who embraced science with philosophy to a great extent. Although science and philosophy are inextricably linked in history, both scientists and philosophers, this does not mean that Hegel's same argument about philosophy of science can be established.
As a means or way to serve a specific purpose, a method can have different methods for the same purpose or the same method for the same purpose. There are indeed similarities in methods between science and philosophy, but there are also essential differences in methods because of their different fundamental purposes.
In essence, scientific method is an empirical method, or an extension and change of this method. It is based on observation, experiment (repeated experience) and confirmation. In essence, it takes the object as the center, silently "sorts" the observed things (appearances) and compresses them into some kind of relationship, theorem, law or essence. Here-China also has a similar saying, habit becomes nature, and nature is the essential meaning, which shows how great the power of habit is-Hume is telling us that if the experience is repeated many times, it will "change" into a "fact", and you will see the sun rise in the east every day, so you will have no doubt that the sun will still rise in the east tomorrow, and Pavlov will do the same to dogs. Experience is the mother of wisdom. It means that if you persist in doing it, you can learn "knowledge" effectively. In fact, this kind of "knowledge" is "summed up" through repeated experience, in other words, it is habit that makes us "confirmed".
In essence, the scientific method is such an empirical method, with the object as the center, based on empirical proof or confirmation, and by means of repeated verification, to find the causal relationship between "essence" or facts. This method can help people "see" the experience world more effectively and make people's lives more convenient. In short, it is an empirical method-Popper's falsification theory has not changed its essence.
However, what is "confirmation"? In other words, what is "fact"? Our science once thought it was a fact that the earth was the center of the universe, and later thought that the sun was the center, and later thought that the sun was just an ordinary star in the Milky Way. Is this the "final" fact? It should be said that almost all theories in the history of science have been confirmed. Today, we can still say that if the universe is infinite, then everything can be the "center"; If we take the earth as the coordinate, how can we not say that the sun goes around the earth? What is the real truth? The falsification of "facts" again and again, on the one hand, constitutes the picture of scientific "development", on the other hand, it also shows people that there are inevitable blind spots or misunderstandings in science and experience itself!
The potential is almost infinite wisdom to wake people up. Socrates and Plato used extremely emotional, intuitive and, of course, rough metaphors to show people the tragic scene of human experience: people, us people, are actually imprisoned in a small, dark house. We were forced to face a wall, but there was a small window on the wall facing the back of our heads. We can only "see" the light and shadow projected by the small window on the opposite wall forever. This is what we often call "the world" or "the outside world". All human knowledge is about this shadow world. How can we jump out of this world at the bottom of the well, get rid of the shadow world and face the real world? Plato gave us a way out: turn around. Turn your head.
"Turn" is a very important concept in the history of philosophy, which is meaningful and easy to forget. In fact, the so-called "philosophy" or "wisdom" knowledge is essentially the result of "transformation", in other words, "transformation" constitutes the essence of philosophical methods! There is a very consistent saying in Buddhist philosophy: "turning back", and all Buddhism is teaching people to "turn back" or awaken.
Turning around is an action, but it is not easy to do. It's like a vegetable lying in bed suddenly waking up and opening her eyes. It's not easy to do this. This is why Buddhism requires people to "practice". Later philosophy also had a new and old word: "reflection" and "intuition". The word new means old, or "turn" Turning is not easy. The main reason is that our sight of "seeing" the world is strictly bound to the experience world or the perception world. We are satisfied with the world at the bottom of the well. It seems as warm as spring, safe and reliable, and can even meet all our needs. Therefore, there is almost no reason to make that turn. "Wisdom is a kind of pain", which is a dead end. It is painful to open your eyes and turn around in your soul. There is no heaven or hell in philosophy. And philosophy is just doing one thing and turning to "see" our experience world. Here, the world is still one, experience and science live in (or immerse themselves in) this world, "I don't know the true face of Lushan Mountain, but toward which corner of the mountain"; Philosophy and wisdom should jump out of this world and look back.
Turning, or reflection, is the basic method of philosophy. It is not a description, a photo, an experiment, or even what people usually call "research". -In this sense, Nietzsche once famously said that real philosophers have never read a few philosophical books! How absurd and wonderful! Because it is not external in nature, but internal, not "observed", but awakened, not direct, but "reflected". In modern philosophy, although the thoughts between philosophers are increasingly alienated and even indifferent to each other, they coincide in the following points: science is the product of "thinking economy" (Mach language), while philosophy is the direct reflection of human thought. But the subject is realized in the blending of subject and object. This is a state of irrationality, unconsciousness and artistry. In this state, the "truth" customarily recognized is subjective, not objective, just like the tree in the photo is not a photographed tree, but only one side of the photographed tree. However, the tree itself has countless "edges". The "objectivity" recognized by people according to the method of experience is actually quite subjective. Therefore, the philosophical method must be a transcendence or realization of experience and scientific state, or a reflection. In this sense, philosophical methods can also be said to be spiritual self-criticism and self-transcendence ability. Just as we can observe the "new" understanding and novelty of the world from a genius painting.
Of course, there is also a question of mutual judgment between philosophy and pseudoscience. But it is completely different from the opposition between science and pseudoscience. The former has no opposition, because philosophy is not the study of right and wrong, while the latter's opposition is a dispute between right and wrong. Indeed, the opposition between right and wrong is only effective in a very limited sense. Otherwise, "a step forward in truth may be a fallacy." The opposition between philosophies actually depends on the world.