Regarding “XX philosophy,” I once said that, in general, its core question is “What is XX?” But after listening to Wu-laoshi speak, I suddenly realized that this kind of philosophy often has two layers of meaning: one is philosophy as a departmental discipline, and the other is philosophy as a basic philosophical disposition. The so-called core question of “XX philosophy” being “What is XX?” refers mainly to it as a departmental philosophy—that is to say, as one part of “philosophy,” one field among others, where, because philosophers have their own specialized areas, some people focus on discussing topics related to technology. But the other kind, which is often the form in which every kind of “XX philosophy” first emerges, is in fact a philosophy that places “XX” at the core of all philosophical reflection. The first kind of “XX philosophy” (as departmental philosophy) starts from philosophy and discusses XX, whereas the second kind of “XX philosophy” (as a philosophy of philosophical disposition) starts from XX and discusses philosophy.
For example, “natural philosophy,” as a departmental philosophy, is meant to investigate “what nature actually is”; but in the beginning, the so-called “natural philosophers” of ancient Greece did not at all refer to philosophers who specialized in the field of nature. Rather, it meant that they took “nature” (the ancient Greek word for nature did not yet mean what “the natural world” later came to mean; it meant only “nature” in the sense of “essence”) as the core of all thought. Ancient Greek natural philosophy, so to speak, was the pursuit of the nature of things from within the things themselves.
When Wu-laoshi talked about “philosophy of science” and “philosophy of technology,” it was similar. One cannot build a departmental philosophy with immense “topic-generating capacity” and broad room for development around just any “XX”; only when “XX philosophy” has as its root a philosophical form that exists as a philosophical disposition can it possibly become a departmental philosophy with a bright future. On reflection, that does make a lot of sense.
So, in order for the development of “XX philosophy” to maintain strong vitality at all times, it must always attach great importance to, and repeatedly return to, the foundation where it exists as a philosophical disposition. The foundation of natural philosophy is ancient Greek natural philosophy; the foundation of philosophy of technology is Marx and Heidegger. Then where is the foundation of philosophy of science? Wu-laoshi mentioned that philosophy of science, understood as a philosophical disposition, specifically refers to the Vienna Circle—that is, logical positivism, which uses scientific and logical means to discuss the full range of philosophical topics.
That does seem correct. However, is the philosophy of science of the Vienna Circle sufficient to serve as the foundation that would make the future of philosophy of science boundless? I am a bit skeptical, perhaps because I do not like logical positivism. So I thought: the foundation of philosophy of science can be traced back even earlier! In fact, rather than saying that the Vienna Circle started from science and then discussed other philosophical problems, it is more accurate to say that they used science to dissolve all philosophical problems. They were not devoted to discussing various philosophical problems; rather, they were devoted to analyzing those problems into pseudo-problems or expelling them from the domain of philosophy.
The ones who truly took science as the starting point for discussing all philosophical problems were actually the modern philosophers—Spinoza’s Ethics is a typical example. And the so-called tradition of “scientific metaphysics” in Kant, Fichte, Brentano, and even Husserl, etc. (see [German] Hans Poser, Science: What Is Science, trans. Li Wenchao, Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, 2002, p. 6) is more suitable to be retrospectively regarded as the starting point of “philosophy of science.” Wu-laoshi mentioned on another occasion: when doing philosophy of science, it is worthwhile to begin with Kant; I very much agree.
18:36, March 9, 2007
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply