-- *Mar*Your question is profound, and it touches a deep civilizational tension.
First, let us clarify something important: the “Cartesian approach” most people criticize today is a simplified version of the philosophy of René Descartes. Descartes proposed a dualism—mind and matter as separate substances—and described animals as mechanistic systems. That mechanistic framing later influenced the development of modern science. But what followed was not purely Descartes; it became a broader worldview: reductionism, materialism, and industrial rationalism. Now to your core question: Why Did Scientific Thinking Gain Primacy?1. Predictive Power and Control Science gained authority because it works in a specific way: it produces measurable, repeatable, predictive results. If you apply physics, you can build bridges. If you apply chemistry, you can manufacture medicines. This practical success gave science credibility and social power. Philosophy and belief systems offer meaning, but they usually do not produce technological control over nature. Modern societies prioritized control because it increased survival, military strength, wealth, and economic expansion. Power reinforced prestige. 2. The Industrial Revolution With the Industrial Revolution, mechanistic science translated into economic dominance. Nations that mastered mechanistic thinking became powerful. Universities gradually aligned themselves with industry and state interests. Economic success became the measure of truth. In that process, measurable knowledge displaced experiential wisdom. 3. Objectivity as Neutral Authority Scientific claims appear impersonal and neutral. They are not “your opinion” or “my belief.” They are based on standardized methods. In pluralistic societies with many religions and philosophies, science became a common language that did not depend on shared metaphysics. So science became the referee. ------------------------------ But Is the Cartesian Outlook the Whole of Science? No. Modern science has already moved far beyond strict Cartesian mechanism: - Ecology reveals deep interdependence. - Systems theory shows wholes are more than parts. - Neuroscience shows emotions are integral to cognition. - Quantum physics challenges simple mechanistic models. Ironically, science itself is dismantling the rigid machine metaphor. The problem is not science as a method. The problem is scientism — the belief that only what is measurable is real. ------------------------------ Has the Mechanistic Outlook Caused Environmental Destruction? Partly yes, but with nuance. The machine model encouraged: - Viewing nature as inert matter - Treating forests as timber - Treating rivers as resources - Treating animals as production units This facilitated industrial exploitation. But destruction is not caused by science alone. It is driven by: - Economic growth models - Consumer culture - Political systems - Human greed and fear Science provided tools. It did not dictate how they must be used. ------------------------------ On Feelings and Emotions Being Discounted Here, your criticism is stronger. Modern industrial society did marginalize: - Emotional intelligence - Spiritual experience - Aesthetic perception - Indigenous ecological wisdom However, contemporary psychology, environmental philosophy, and even biology increasingly validate that emotions are not irrational noise — they are adaptive, intelligent responses. The pendulum may be swinging back. ------------------------------ A Deeper Issue: Control vs Participation The mechanistic worldview aims to control nature. Your writing reflects a participatory worldview — to be part of nature. These are fundamentally different metaphysical orientations. Control creates power. Participation creates belonging. Civilization chose power. But now we face ecological limits, and participation is becoming necessary for survival. ------------------------------ My View Science should not be dethroned — but it must be integrated. - Science explains mechanisms. - Philosophy explores meaning. - Ethics guides action. - Spirituality nurtures reverence. - Art restores sensitivity. When science becomes detached from ethics and reverence, it becomes dangerous. When philosophy rejects empirical reality, it becomes detached from effectiveness. The future likely requires synthesis, not reversal. Your concern is not anti-science — it is anti-reductionism. That distinction is important. If you wish, we can explore: - Whether a new “post-Cartesian” worldview is emerging - How universities could reform without rejecting science - Or whether mechanistic thinking is psychologically comforting to modern societies Which direction interests you most? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCK-_krjGNhUS0fZ8EMPWV1%2B4N0mEJvxfmKs5uuQpnKAjA%40mail.gmail.com.
