- Jul 2015
I have answered part of that above. While others may have built upon him, there is no reason to learn his theories. It is not like we got an alchemy 101 when we started chemistry. We do get the law of Archimedes when starting physics for two reasons: It is a correct law (in that it is falsifiable and not yet falsified) and it is relevant.This seems to be a rather bizarre assertion. Tell me, have you ever studied Plato or the neo-Platonists (Plotinus, Proclus, etc) on anything more than a superficial level? The neo-Platonists have articulated what is probably the single most profound non-Abrahamic system of metaphysics and ethics. Then there are also the Stoics. Are they useless as well?
Neither does philosophy. It gives opinions of people who think for a living. Nothing more nothing less.Obviously, science has developed into it's own field, and Plato doesn't give you large hadron colliders or the genome. But science is merely descriptive, in that it explains the mechanics and rules by which things operate. But it tells us nothing at all regarding the metaphysical underpinnings of existence or ethics, and by extension, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the truly great questions which have engaged the minds of men since the beginning of time.
Disagree and agree. While I think it is good for scientists to be schooled in stuff like ethics, I think that is more of a thing of upbringing, society and personal interest, rather then making it some sort of mandatory requirement.Science and philosophy each have their own lanes, and we ignore one or the other at our peril.
Vice versa destroys marriages