Wrong Division of Philosophical Labor
The most important questions, the ‘existential’ ones, should not be left to the sloppiest and least able thinkers. Equally, careful and rigorous thinkers should not confine themselves to unworthy or merely preliminary topics.
For example, some of the best heads in philosophy work exclusively in the philosophy of science. But for a philosopher to be a a mere handmaiden of positive science is an unworthy use of his abilities. Better to be a handmaiden of theology. But best of all would be to be no handmaiden at all. Philosophy is ancillary to nothing, unless it be truth herself.
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Tuesday August 16, 2005 at 5:58pm
1.Science attempts to explain nature, the philosophy of science attempts to interpret science.
2. General philosophy attempts to explain existence and knowledge and theology interprets existence and knowledge.
From the point of view of the philosopher science is merely providing the medium in which philosophical inquiry is taking place. From the point of view of science philosophy brings meaning and perspective to its discoveries. Therefore science is dependent on philosophy not the other way around. The relationship between theology and philosophy is different though. Philosophy can be said to be ancillary to theology. Theology is the knowledge of God gained over the centuries through God revealing himself in history to individuals of faith. Philosophy in its effort to understand human knowledge and existence can help us to relate the journey taken by others to our own journey and thus help us recognize when God reveals himself to us. It can help those who doubt God's existence take the first steps toward recognizing that it is possible that God exists.
Philosophy can do a lot on it's own but it is still dependent on theology. Philosophy cannot help us know much about the nature of God and nothing about His purposes. Philosophy can say nothing about why we exist, only that we exist and in what manner. Philosophy can never provide the surety of moral answers that theology can because the medium in which philosophy is working is fallen human nature, while theology bases it's conclusions on the character of God. When philosophy divorces herself from the underpinnings of knowledge about the real world that theology supplies you get the type of postmodern skepticism that is so prevalent today.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.