There are five disciplines in particular which he identifies as the leaders in determining meaning:ġ. Wilson concludes then that, by default, the task of explaining meaning necessarily falls to science. But they cannot go on from that position and historical examination of the nature of humanity to what it really is and how we might define it.” So students going into philosophy have to learn what Descartes thought and then after a long while why that’s wrong and what Schopenhauer might have thought and what Kant might of thought or did think.
“I like to say that most of philosophy, which is a declining and highly endangered academic species, incidentally, consists of failed models of how the brain works. In fact, the storied biologist has few kind words for the field as a whole: Wilson believes philosophy is ill-equipped to tackle the meaning of existence. But he also frames the questions in a way that philosophy can’t answer them, either. (That even goes for “why are we what we are”?, as the answer to that is “evolution.”) Wilson dismisses religion as providing good answers because-and I agree-all religions give different answers. If you take these as questions whose answer give us our “meaning”, then their answer clearly falls to science alone. Wilson doesn’t construe “meaning” as “how should we live?, but rather as a series of three questions:
0 kommentar(er)
