What is this?

It’s the structure of the human sciences. “Philosophy isn’t a science!” That’s right, it’s an insult to call it that.

Let’s just LARP for a moment and pretend you’re Benjamin Franklin and I’m Thomas Jefferson and we’re having a chat.

If you want to talk about what a new country should be then we need to start at the very beginning. If you approach the subject as a Psychologist, say, you’re going to be limited. That’s because that’s one discipline of many. If you found a country through the lens of one discipline that country is going to be limited.

Maybe it will turn out that Psychology IS the one discipline that a country should be founded according to. You don’t know that until you juxtapose it with the other disciplines.

To present all of the disciplines before your eyes (including philosophy) is to begin at the beginning. Or at least the near beginning. Because then you wonder what it is exactly that you’re doing when you present them all before your eyes. So the true beginning is to wonder what philosophy is.

To think of a real-world example, modern China is founded on a philosophy, in the singular, Marxism, which is sociology. Any questions about philosophy there is downstream from this sociology, by law. Thus it’s illegal there to begin at the beginning. Maybe they did have this conversation I’m speaking of and instead of Psychology they chose the discipline of Sociology to found their country on. Whatever the fact may be, this originary conversation I’m suggesting cannot be had anymore there, or you basically risk being shot by the government at whim. If you ever have the whim to shoot ME it’s because you’re similar to the Chinese government in regard to the question of whether the beginning should begin again. Your answer to that question is No. And why is that? Your answer is probably circular- the west is founded on a particular sociology and it is against the tenets of that sociology to begin from the beginning. Is there a distinct philosopher behind our postwar order? Or is it kind of just a “theory” that they pulled out of the air amidst tears and rage?

Let’s look at this again

It seems to be somewhere around the Sociologists-Psychologists part of the continuum.

Well, if you want to found a new country it helps to describe what the previous one was based on. Was it based on a beginning at the beginning? Do you think they made sure to bounce their theories off a professional logician? I think the biologists alone would have stopped them in their tracks. So, this is where our zeitgeist is in terms of epistemological purity. Wayyyyy on the side of the “quacks” you might say.

Mr. Franklin, are you not interested in founding a new country on solid premises?

Then we cannot be like China, we have to allow ourselves to wonder what Knowledge itself is, and how it is fragmented between the disciplines, and what it is that oversees the disciplines. That itself will require leaving the old country’s beliefs behind.

Who is willing to go this far? If they are then they are serious about having a country with a solid foundation. If they are not then they are content living in a country founded on smoke-and-mirror “sociology” way on the side of the quacks.

I repeat- “What’s this?” What IS this? You tell me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: