This is all the same sloppy argumentation, couched in high-minded rhetoric. None of these claims stand up to scrutiny. They are full of equivocation. Some are just downright absurd. To say that we "need philosophy in order to participate in democracy" is ipso facto to say that anyone who has not studied philosophy--anyone not trained to do philosophy--should not participate in democracy. This is ridiculous. How do people get away with these arguments. Then there's equivocation on the term humanities itself. What is the humanities? Is it a body of knowledge or a method? Science is both. The scientific method yields knowledge. If the humanities has a method, then it must be interpretation (see Dilthey). But interpretation doesn't yield knowledge. Yet, Nussbaum claims right off the bat that the humanities provides us with knowledge about the world--none of this knowledge was produced by the humanities. The humanities is incapable of producing knowledge. God, this is aggravating. Stop letting these people get away with these arguments. Read Stanley Fish. The huamanities may be worthwhile or not, but they don't have a VALUE. To argue for their value is downright disingenuous.
First off, what you have claimed is a philosophical statement unto itself, making philosophy inescapable unless you are vegetable, dead or stop talking about philosophy. Second, there's no such thing as the scientific method, because it is not one unified methodology; it is a family of methods. Third, the sciences yield information on the natural world, however they do not give us a set of absolute truth about the natural world, especially since evidence is interpreted based on an interpretation on a hypothesis, lining up with the evidence, unless the evidence is falsified and therefore the interpretation of one's hypothesis needs to be modified and improved upon if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis interpreted. Fourth, without the humanities, we run into a dogma insofar as science becomes a religion when we assume it is the sole source of knowledge, when that is a misunderstanding of science, and why we have the philosophy of science to cross examine and critique a scientific theory if its methods and materials are incorrect and to explain how science works for science can't study science because that would be going in circles. Fifth, science isn't the only source of knowledge, since we have other areas of knowledge such as logical and mathematical proof, ethical knowledge, metaphysical truths, and aesthetics truth to name a few. Sixth, before you call math a science, let me tell you that math is an interpretation of a scientific world view in that it express the empirical data of an experiment and for science to examine it would again be going in circles. Seventh, philosophy is designed to clarify thinking and conceptualize concepts in the same way mathematics and logic do.
Look, I understand that in nature there are natural occurrences of democracy; searching something such as democracy in nature/animals in your search bar could show you that... but that does not mean that science is that which constitutes us to have democracy (or not). Can you, with the basis of scientific reasoning, tell me why any human society should have democracy? No. You can't. Because science only tells us "what is". But to tell us "what should"... it doesn't. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live in by our own personal perspectives. Interpretation doesn't yield knowledge? Are you sure? Interpretation is everything. Knowledge would be unnecessary without interpretation. Interpretation is that which we collect data in order to make sense of the world. Knowledge is a rather vague word. Knowledge is just what you know. But what you simply know doesn't teach you how you could/should maneuver within this world. What is the point of knowledge for the sake of knowledge? You can't do anything with that. What you know (the data) is the Micro. How you interpret your data is the Macro. Doesn't matter if science is involved or not. Interpretation will always be involved. This is why I think the atheist and the theist are more similar than we realize. Does the humanities have value? Well let me ask you something... why do you think science has more value than philosophy? Science itself does not have value. If you think that people are interested in science for the sake of science itself, that wouldn't make much sense. Nothing has value in and of itself; you must project value at something for it to have value. Even the most logical human being needs to believe that science is somehow worthwhile to explore, somehow worthwhile enough to learn more about, through his/her own (subjective) interpretation about science. Without a personal interpretation, things are only left to be perceived as meaningless.
The argument you produced is an example of how the humanities influence the thinking of people.The study of critical thinking is a direct link to philosophy. A narrow view that demeans the humanities discredit the ways it is use in everyday life. Also the discovery of the scientific method can be accredited to the philosopher,Francis Bacon. The perspective that show philosophy as an isolated and unincorporated filed dismissed the discoveries made by philosophers. Not only the scientific method has basis in philosophy but also, geomatic proofs and other principles in other fields. The decrease in the degrees in the humanities isn’t due the the lack of interest, as mentioned in the video, but due to the misinformation of the economic factor of these degrees. The humanities are often forgotten and discarded but their attributions to society are allocated to more “concrete” fields. Rational thinking is a distinctive study within philosophy and the methods of this fields are still used today. Not on philosophy but humanities as a whole, diversify the way we perceive the world around us and introduces us different methods of analyze and process this information gathered. The study of arguments and identifying different logical fallacies, I.e., critical thinking, is of philosophy. The interpretation of knowledge within fields outside the humanities is again influenced by the humanities. To argue against their value without the knowledge of their contributions to the more “concrete” fields is disingenuous and demeaning to their core and the foundations of the “concrete” fields. Even within the nature of science, humanities are present because what are hypotheses if not just an ambiguous interpretation of what “might” happen? Also, there is no claim that says anyone who doesn’t understand or studied philosophy should not participate within a democracy. Rather, the expansion of the mind and perspective that is experienced by philosophy make for a better and well versed participant in a democracy. Ignorance finds a way to prevail in society fulled with narrowed perspectives and one sided arguments. Philosophy expands the argument and perspective to allow for a continuous discussion. It allows for the interaction of seeing both sides and interpreting them through your own mental faculties. - A person who holds a degree in the field of philosophy
Nothing of the sort. I'll cut it out simply for you: It says that anyone who Has done it will be Better Able to participate in democracy, which is perfectly correct (and rather simple and obvious besides, not sure what your issue is).
🤍🤍🤍🤍
This is all the same sloppy argumentation, couched in high-minded rhetoric. None of these claims stand up to scrutiny. They are full of equivocation. Some are just downright absurd. To say that we "need philosophy in order to participate in democracy" is ipso facto to say that anyone who has not studied philosophy--anyone not trained to do philosophy--should not participate in democracy. This is ridiculous. How do people get away with these arguments. Then there's equivocation on the term humanities itself. What is the humanities? Is it a body of knowledge or a method? Science is both. The scientific method yields knowledge. If the humanities has a method, then it must be interpretation (see Dilthey). But interpretation doesn't yield knowledge. Yet, Nussbaum claims right off the bat that the humanities provides us with knowledge about the world--none of this knowledge was produced by the humanities. The humanities is incapable of producing knowledge. God, this is aggravating. Stop letting these people get away with these arguments. Read Stanley Fish. The huamanities may be worthwhile or not, but they don't have a VALUE. To argue for their value is downright disingenuous.
First off, what you have claimed is a philosophical statement unto itself, making philosophy inescapable unless you are vegetable, dead or stop talking about philosophy. Second, there's no such thing as the scientific method, because it is not one unified methodology; it is a family of methods. Third, the sciences yield information on the natural world, however they do not give us a set of absolute truth about the natural world, especially since evidence is interpreted based on an interpretation on a hypothesis, lining up with the evidence, unless the evidence is falsified and therefore the interpretation of one's hypothesis needs to be modified and improved upon if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis interpreted. Fourth, without the humanities, we run into a dogma insofar as science becomes a religion when we assume it is the sole source of knowledge, when that is a misunderstanding of science, and why we have the philosophy of science to cross examine and critique a scientific theory if its methods and materials are incorrect and to explain how science works for science can't study science because that would be going in circles. Fifth, science isn't the only source of knowledge, since we have other areas of knowledge such as logical and mathematical proof, ethical knowledge, metaphysical truths, and aesthetics truth to name a few. Sixth, before you call math a science, let me tell you that math is an interpretation of a scientific world view in that it express the empirical data of an experiment and for science to examine it would again be going in circles. Seventh, philosophy is designed to clarify thinking and conceptualize concepts in the same way mathematics and logic do.
Look, I understand that in nature there are natural occurrences of democracy; searching something such as democracy in nature/animals in your search bar could show you that... but that does not mean that science is that which constitutes us to have democracy (or not).
Can you, with the basis of scientific reasoning, tell me why any human society should have democracy? No. You can't. Because science only tells us "what is". But to tell us "what should"... it doesn't. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live in by our own personal perspectives.
Interpretation doesn't yield knowledge? Are you sure? Interpretation is everything. Knowledge would be unnecessary without interpretation. Interpretation is that which we collect data in order to make sense of the world. Knowledge is a rather vague word. Knowledge is just what you know. But what you simply know doesn't teach you how you could/should maneuver within this world. What is the point of knowledge for the sake of knowledge? You can't do anything with that. What you know (the data) is the Micro. How you interpret your data is the Macro.
Doesn't matter if science is involved or not. Interpretation will always be involved. This is why I think the atheist and the theist are more similar than we realize.
Does the humanities have value? Well let me ask you something... why do you think science has more value than philosophy? Science itself does not have value. If you think that people are interested in science for the sake of science itself, that wouldn't make much sense. Nothing has value in and of itself; you must project value at something for it to have value. Even the most logical human being needs to believe that science is somehow worthwhile to explore, somehow worthwhile enough to learn more about, through his/her own (subjective) interpretation about science. Without a personal interpretation, things are only left to be perceived as meaningless.
The argument you produced is an example of how the humanities influence the thinking of people.The study of critical thinking is a direct link to philosophy. A narrow view that demeans the humanities discredit the ways it is use in everyday life. Also the discovery of the scientific method can be accredited to the philosopher,Francis Bacon. The perspective that show philosophy as an isolated and unincorporated filed dismissed the discoveries made by philosophers. Not only the scientific method has basis in philosophy but also, geomatic proofs and other principles in other fields.
The decrease in the degrees in the humanities isn’t due the the lack of interest, as mentioned in the video, but due to the misinformation of the economic factor of these degrees. The humanities are often forgotten and discarded but their attributions to society are allocated to more “concrete” fields. Rational thinking is a distinctive study within philosophy and the methods of this fields are still used today. Not on philosophy but humanities as a whole, diversify the way we perceive the world around us and introduces us different methods of analyze and process this information gathered.
The study of arguments and identifying different logical fallacies, I.e., critical thinking, is of philosophy. The interpretation of knowledge within fields outside the humanities is again influenced by the humanities. To argue against their value without the knowledge of their contributions to the more “concrete” fields is disingenuous and demeaning to their core and the foundations of the “concrete” fields. Even within the nature of science, humanities are present because what are hypotheses if not just an ambiguous interpretation of what “might” happen? Also, there is no claim that says anyone who doesn’t understand or studied philosophy should not participate within a democracy. Rather, the expansion of the mind and perspective that is experienced by philosophy make for a better and well versed participant in a democracy. Ignorance finds a way to prevail in society fulled with narrowed perspectives and one sided arguments. Philosophy expands the argument and perspective to allow for a continuous discussion. It allows for the interaction of seeing both sides and interpreting them through your own mental faculties.
- A person who holds a degree in the field of philosophy
Nothing of the sort. I'll cut it out simply for you: It says that anyone who Has done it will be Better Able to participate in democracy, which is perfectly correct (and rather simple and obvious besides, not sure what your issue is).
Some people really shouldn't open their mouths.