Marsha --
> I've already stated that there is a relationship between philosophy > and science. The last forty-five years of science has definitely had > an impact on philosophical thinking in the West, especially > ontology. At one time metaphysics was considered folly by many > scientists and philosophers. Today its importance is having a revival. What do you consider that relationship to be? Science and Philosophy, as I have pointed out before, are two altogether different approaches to understanding. The scientific approach is to explore the experiential universe for factual knowledge that can be applied within the framework of physical laws and principles. Philosophy develops theories based on logic and intuition to explain fundamental reality, such as the nature of being (ontology), the means of knowledge (epistemology), and the origins and order of the universe (cosmology). Only cosmology "straddles the fence" between Science and Philosophy, mainly because astrophysicists lack empirical evidence to support various theories of creation and thus tend to lead in formulating the "philosophy of Science." > You've stated in another post that Essentialism is oriented toward > the individual, but you're totally disregarding the metaphysics of > other cultures? You're including only those who think and value like > you? Valid philosophical thinking isn't unique to the Western mind. I don't see metaphysics as a cultural endeavor. Logic and intuition are utilized universally in the reasoning process. We're not talking about religion here, which has its roots in tribal or cultural ritual and dogma. The Eastern religions, as far as I am aware, are not founded on reason but on psychic "self-development" through meditation and the elimination of desire. If you read Confucius or Buddha, you're not likely to find a metaphysical ontology outlined there. In fact, Eastern mysticism is as averse to intellectual reasoning as Western philosophy is to religion. You must understand that the philosophy I call Essentialism originated with me and reflects my own concept of reality. It's not an anthology of what others, East or West, may have called "essence", and I haven't attempted to conform to some collective standard of what metaphysics should be. The only reason I cite other philosophers at all is to support my own ideas or to demonstrate the fallacies I see in their reality theories. Philosophy, like experience and value, is a personal matter. I'm always happy to explain my philosophy, or compare it with another if asked; but I will never force my ideas or opinions on someone else. That would be dogmatic and authoritarian, and I disapprove of such a practice. Essentially yours, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
