I don’t understand the question,
nor will I, for there’s nothing to question about it. As for the answer – that science
solves the problems, whereas philosophy does not (as though each could be
personified in such an allegory) – I don’t think there’s something to be
Understood ABOUT it. Consider just a few philosophical perspectives:
1.
Deleuze says that the philosopher produces an Idea
in the same manner as the artist produces a work of art, and the function of
this Idea is to solve a Problem.
2.
Marcel insists that all problems are relatively
superficial by contrast with Mysteries, and this in itself is a problem which
is peculiar to Modernity.
3.
The Buddha alleged that all problems are internal.
The function of philosophy is therefore to decide what phenomena we are to
regard as problems and what phenomena we are to regard as values. No solution
can be imagined without this, and all solutions will therefore be resolved
philosophically, for their ultimate identity abides within the mind.
These are just a few ways of saying
the same thing: were it not for philosophy, we would not even KNOW what our
problems ARE. The first step is admitting the problem.
4.
Marx admitted that the state of capitalism created
problems for the Working Class.
5.
Camus admitted that the state of Absurdity creates
the temptation towards suicide, one of the greatest problems of which is that philosophers
cannot agree about the moral efficacy of such a solution to the problem(s) of
Life.
6.
Foucault and Nietzsche admitted to the problem(s) of
Power.
7.
Theologians admitted to the problem(s) of Evil.
8.
Sartre admitted to the problem of Freedom.
9.
Wallace addresses the problem of suicide, though his
solution was markedly more escapist than that of his fellow water-signs Sartre
and Camus. His ultimate solution was a tragic one.
10. MacIntyre
admits to the problem that people make moral statements outside of their
original sociological context.
None of these problems, to be
admitted, require science, and a great many of them have little to DO with
science, since they concern matters of Ethical Imperative. MacIntyre attempts
to resolve this problem by arguing against Hume.
11. Hume admits
to the problem that ethics cannot be derived from facts.
12. Ayer, that
rascal, uses Hume’s logic to draw a definite line between science and morality.
13. MacIntyre
attempts to reconcile science and morality by challenging Hume.
It may appear to be tautological to
do so, but I must contribute a problem of my own:
14. Millennials
tend to regard Philosophy as though it were inadequate to solve Problems, which
thereby renders it irrelevant.
They have a lot of authorities to
warrant this nihilism. For instance, Zizek insists that Philosophy ought only
to reorient our subjective attitudes towards problems, though he presumes, with
an extravert’s arrogance, that the problems remain the same and that science
can be used to solve them. Yet even one of the staunchest technocrats, Peter Joseph,
cannot escape philosophical necessities:
15. The American
Upper Class has the capacity to feed and house every human being on the planet,
but it has no inclination to do so, and any attempt to change this state of
affairs, either by appeal to the conscience of the Elite or by unification
against the Elite, is squandered by the Protestant Work Ethic that drives
Production and therefore oversees distribution.
It’s not that we don’t have the
science and technology to solve World Hunger; it’s just that the presumption
that we OUGHT to, at this moment, remains a dogma without warrant. Ayer would
say, “I may PREFER to feed the poor, but that is simply the expression of my
own emotive preferences, for which no science exists to necessitate an
absolute.”
Yet does any science exist to necessitate
that SC!ENCE is an absolute?? I mean: is that not a tautology in itself?
Science may be deified as though it were omnipotent, but is it generous? Is it
righteous? Science has no autonomy; it is a tool. It does not produce ethical
statements, whatever MacIntyre may say to the contrary. And its applications
are not universally good.
16. Huxley
admits to the problem that within a hundred years of his time the World may fall
under the rule of a technocratic dictatorship wherein people are stratified
based upon genetic predispositions, pacified by drugs and entertainment, and
forgetful of their common history.
When you hear someone call someone
an “Alpha” or a “Beta”, that’s just ONE example. Then we must recall the
quotation: “For particulars, as every one knows, make for virtue and happiness;
generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but
fretsawyers and stamp collectors compose the backbone of society.” Is
this not what you mean to say when you dismiss Philosophy?
Science is pathetically
impoverished by design; Jung writes: “Scientific method must serve; it
errs when it usurps a throne. [...] Science is not, indeed, a perfect
instrument, but it is a superior and indispensable one that works harm only
when taken as an end in itself.” This in itself expresses a problem:
17. If we are
to depend upon a technocratic view of the World, wherein Science Alone defines
what problems ARE and Science Alone is employed in finding a Solution, we are
caught within a vicious cycle so perverse that we wouldn’t even know that our
most basic presuppositions about Life were mere tautologies.
A tautology, by definition, is a
circular argument, and you might see how this sort of technocratic Wheel of
Samsara would produce such delusions.
Zizek is admirable in this regard:
he admits that in our day and age we ought to stop acting and to start
thinking. Too many people are literally running about putting theory into
action. Some of them are warranted by God, but others are warranted by Science.
Why should one be less neurotic than the other? The former is a Platonic
episteme, whereas the latter is Aristotelian. Both have been corrupted by
social stratification and capitalism. One comes out of privilege; the other
comes out of desperation. Neither can be reconciled with the other without Philosophy.
In fact, Philosophy Alone has been able to bring religion and science into
harmony, precisely because Philosophy is the parent of both.
You can delight yourself in
whatever it is that you choose to worship. Wallace says that we will all
worship SOMETH!NG; he echoes Jung in his refusal to undervalue the Religious
Instinct, and Wallace’s addictions serve as context for his conviction, since
Jungians had founded Alcoholics Anonymous on Jung’s observation that spirits
are a surrogate for the Spirit. Religions are not merely “proto-Scientific”
attempts to “explain the Universe”; a cosmology is only ONE of MANY problems,
and Science was developed not even to solve those many problems but to
UNDERSTAND them. How it was that Science and Philosophy switched roles in Common
Sense I cannot know. As far as I’m aware, philosophers have solved more problems
than any scientist. Technology also ought not to be equated with Science; it
precedes it by thousands of years, and its growth is also morally ambivalent.
If we are to decide on WHAT we would even L!KE TO SOLVE, we must philosophize.
Even if we cannot solve all the problems we consent to regard, we ought not to
presume upon an answer to come out of Science. A Nietzschean Ubermensch is far
more likely to save us, because technology does not require us to think, and how
we think is the danger. Let me leave with just a FEW problems to ponder:
18. Immunology
can create a vaccine to kill a virus, but few will deny that autism and brain
cists are possible side-effects. Furthermore, the vaccine is purported only to
work in “herds” wherein everyone is vaccinated, irrespective of personal
conviction. Critics of this are marginalized and treated as though they were
threats; they are the modern equivalent of witches, and all of the
superstitions of witch hunts are projected upon these critics as well, despite
evidence that witchcraft itself exists.
19. The U.S.
military uses science to develop a sort of drone that acts almost as
efficiently as the Shinigami Notebook in the popular animated series Death
Note. These little buggers can identify their targets from miles away, and
they are designed to swoop in and to drop a tiny explosive on the head of anyone
who has that face.
20. Clinical
psychiatry dismisses all forms of radical, epistemological subjectivity in
favour of an industry which profits off of the sale of experimental
mind-altering drugs. While young people use psychedelics illegally to alter
their perspectives, individuals suffering emotional distress in a society
afflicted with depression, anxiety, alienation, meaningless, and suicide are
diagnosed, often by nurses instead of doctors, and within very narrow time
limits, as having one to several of about three hundred disorders. While
patients diagnosed this way are subject to experimental treatments, alienated
from their societies, Drug Cartels become militarized through the sale of narcotics,
which remain illegal. (Despite the fact that some of the most prevalent drugs,
such as heroin, were initially synthesized for medical purposes, and numerous
psychiatric drugs remain more addictive than most scheduled substances.)
Science does not solve these
problems; IT CREATES THEM. People only presume AFTER the fact that mental
illness was “always a problem”, that war is “ultimately inevitable”, and that
people are “inherently herd animals”. Only philosophers have the gall and
indignation to challenge technocratic paradigms which restrict our freedoms and
demoralize us in these ways. If Philosophy can have only one external benefit,
it is in alerting us to THESE problems, by doing what it always has: upsetting
the irrational power projections which every State and Clergy, whether
democratic or authoritarian, secular or spiritual, has employed in order to
oppress us. In short: if you cannot even find T!ME for philosophy, you are
already so hopelessly enslaved that you falsely believe yourself to be Free. If
the simple INTERNAL Good of knowing yourself and examining your own life is not
enough to stimulate you, for you are too busy producing new chemical solutions
to abstract information about Global Warming, (brought to you by Industry,
partnered with Modern, Scientific Production!!) then you are already part of
the EXTERNAL problem which only philosophy can solve.
“We cannot solve our problems with
the same thinking we used when we created
them.”
A. Einstein.
[({Dm.A.A.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment