Conceptualising philosophy being an idea that is allowed to live simultaneously with science is as strange a concept as permitting a combine harvester to travel through central London. Most would state a case exploring that philosophy, especially what is understood as armchair philosophy, is not needed in today’s age and has been replaced with a better, more finite and substantial way of the thinking called science.
Whether or not to the conceptualization of coexistence is relevant, this essay hopes to bring to light a certain surroundings concerning the relationship between philosophy and the academic sciences. The first error arrives when people begin with definite. Man has an untaught and completely biological urge to take either or for their assurance rather than composing us synthetic map comprising of many variants. before beginning to encounter the questioning, we must entertain a presence of mind which entertains herself with synthetic and varied alias.
Stated clearly, the problem may seem both simple and at the same time insoluble. But it is wrong to assume that a simply asked question requires answers that are no more complicated. But the reverse of the problem faces terms that they’re either is or is not Just cause for both to exist simultaneously. This is too easy though, and so exemption and allowance must be made for those who, without concluding, keep questioning.
Before proceeding to claims for the use of philosophical sciences, we must proceed to predating current and past cases of such. In such instances, I recall upon the scientific uses of subjective reality. with the argument of subjective reality also causes the inside of parallel universes. The notion of subjective reality came forward first as a philosophical assay. It was then evaluated by scientists such as Stephen Hawking. It is therefore determined that without philosophy, in some parallel universe, Mr. Hawking would be working in a McDonald’s with nothing to base his scientific career off of.
Though there is also the notion that such tasks and methods of thinking should not lay side by side. Most commonly the argument is heralded by the individuals who preach only from one hymn sheet. This problem I have concluded begins in education systems. When children are placed in classrooms, especially in the U.K., they are informed with binary answers; right and wrong, up and down, and most importantly either is or is not. This last statement is crucial in the discovery of human behavior to stop the influence of their political ideologies. The child now believes that the choice is only either / or. They are not affirmed in fluid belief systems.
When this individual has grown to adulthood and decides on the academic route, a proposition faces them head-on, the roads of literary academic scholarship, or the roads of scientific academic scholarship. They pick only one path and in doing so have only fooled and lied to themselves. They will forever be unfulfilled with their situation.
Philosophers such as John R. Searle sook to pursue a philosophical insight into consciousness using the sciences. He understood that both situations can live harmoniously and by using such methods, changed the way we think and act about weak/hard AI as well as making philosophers see conscious thought differently through the new eyes of the Chinese Room Thought Experiment. In reflection of the facts that were presented, there is no valid reasoning behind why philosophy and science cannot live side by side rather than one taking dominance over the other. This truth though that I am stating will not sit well with the common reader as he relishes dogmatism full stop. In philosophy, no such question is ever as simple as the biblical dogmatism that he would expect. What the science says is built upon the basis of facts, as many would expect for armchair philosophy and the syncopated volunteering of science. The ones who practice these dogmatic thoughts, they are the vacuous ones.
Argumenting though that there are differentials in both sides and philosophy can and should also be taken into consideration while the sciences favor a synthetic approach to the questioning of the fields of medium and that of exploration. Philosophy will see to the development of the sociological and political means of the human condition. Both act in a Venn diagram into twining at certain passages, But it must not be misunderstood but both are different.
Without feeding to the question and avoiding the point entirely, I ask the statement that will conclude this essay: why is it that we refuse to digest the substantial notion that both may exist. Imagine, deeply rooted in our histories, that we explored the deepest jungles. Say that, in the present day western world in an alternate universe, that there was the possibility to explore the outer reaches of space. Both methods of exploration are built upon the syntaxes of their own environments, they lead into each other in venn diagrams. The people protest that we should continue to explore such growths even though the future points towards space exploration. Now, why are we not as observant when it comes to the exploration of our own qualia and our collective selves. And that because the dogmatism of man is deeply rooted, we cannot rule out one or the other and favour without calling ourselves slaves to hypocrisy. We must accept that the notions are equally valid and though see themselves as different they are in many respects the same. And even in larger areas of research, we cannot say whether it is wise to cancel out other fields for the pursuit of others.
Without philosophy to question morality and ethics, where would our judicial system be? And with the fast-changing climate of both our mental and physical worlds, how may these ethical quotas change? In many aspects, we change with the times, but generational minds rarely change so fast and this is shown in how a father will act. He will act in his ways with very little change while his son may act drastically different in his youth and then set in his generational ways in his mid-twenties. Because of these gaps in the generations, it is difficult to understand what people in the future may see as relevant, important, and even ethical.
So we look towards the now. The now, or the absurd and the conscious, are the only two things that we can be purely sure of above everything else. Whatever in our lives may be subject to doubt, the qualia of consciousness and the absurd are the only two states we are deeply sure about. And so though the future may rule my career out as an invalid form of scripture or profession, the now states that we still need philosophy to push science, law and the humanities forward: and all three are needed to push philosophy forwards.
