Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!sics.se!sics.se!torkel From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: sci.philosophy.objectivism Message-ID: Date: 20 Jan 90 17:23:33 GMT References: <1990Jan13.140242.14111@twwells.com> <9001140024.AA18363@apee.ogi.edu> <8P1157Gxds8@ficc.uu.net> <8250@portia.Stanford.EDU> <1990Jan17.083725.1215@twwells.com> <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> Sender: news@sics.se Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista, Sweden Lines: 32 In-Reply-To: mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU's message of 18 Jan 90 23:00:06 GMT In article <9001182300.AA28308@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@APEE.OGI.EDU (Mehul Dave) writes: >Some great minds have >devoted their lives to this field of thought. One belittles their >achievements by not regarding philosophy to be a science. Now why on earth is this? Do we belittle Shakespeare's achievements by not regarding his plays as works of science? >All >the major philsophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, >Liebniz Kant, Hegel etc. regarded philsophy as a very systematic and >important field of thought and having fundamental impact on human life. >The whole school of Rationalists attempted to model philosophical >systems on mathematics and science (such philosophers as Liebniz for >example). They were correct in regarding philosophy as a science. >If you think it is not, please explain why. It's a blatant anachronism to attribute a view of what was or was not "science" to Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz etc. It's only in recent times that we find people insisting on philosophy being a "science". In my own experience, I encountered an undergraduate who wanted to be sure that philosophy was "science" around 1975. Among professional philosophers, I know of nobody who feels "belittled" by not being regarded as working in "science". It is only in fringe groups like the Objectivists or the Scientologists that one encounters this kind of insistence on being "scientific". On the other hand, I submit that there is no reason why the Objectivists should not be allowed to style themselves sci.philosophy.objectivism or sci.rational.uncompromising. objectivism, or whatever they please. It's been said that the sci category should not be "polluted" by purportedly scientific talk about fish or about Ayn Rand, but I can't see that this is any big deal.