Know thyself

 Last time, religion explained the world with "myths", while philosophy pursued "confirmation possibilities".

I told you that it is what you want.

But isn't that a "science" job now?

Modern science is at a level that is incomparable to ancient Greek philosophy. Does that mean that philosophy has been replaced by science today?

No, that's not the case. Philosophy, both now and in the past, is actually the foundation of science.

――At the end of the last time, I talked about that.

What exactly does that mean? What is the difference between philosophy and science? This time, I would like to answer these questions.

Know thyself

The ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes introduced last time are generally called "natural philosophers". Literally, what kind of mechanism nature works by, the principle of "thinking" through observation rather than "myth"

Those who tried to reveal by.

The etymology of philosophy is philia (love) and sophia (knowledge). In ancient times, love wisdom

Inquiring was considered a philosophy. That is why people, who are now called "natural scientists," were also called "natural philosophers."

The natural philosophers did not have satisfactory experimental tools and techniques. Therefore, I relied solely on "thinking" to tackle the mysteries of the world.

From the current science perspective, it's almost like a child's deception. So, from that point of view, it may be said that ancient natural philosophy has certainly been replaced by science.

Rather, it should be said that natural philosophy has "evolved" into the natural sciences. Just as religion was the mother of philosophy, philosophy also gave birth to modern science as technology evolved.

However, on the other hand, philosophy has evolved itself in a direction other than science.

Its creator was Socrates (and his disciple Plato), the father of Western philosophy, who appeared more than a century later from Thales and other natural philosophers.

Socrates thought about this.

The problem that philosophy should really think about is not the "nature" or "world" that natural philosophy asks. Rather, we are the "human beings" who are asking this world!

The ancient Greek temple of Apollo was engraved with the saying, "Know thyself." Socrates said that this is exactly the fundamental theme that philosophy should explore.

Great Revolution of Knowledge

Look from "outside" to "inside". In a sense, this is a sign that the human spirit has grown from childhood to adolescence.

Babies and children are always curious about the "outside" world. By touching insects, leaves and soil, I try to know what the world is like, to put it exaggeratedly.

However, from the time we reach puberty, we gradually turn our attention to ourselves. "What kind of life should I live in?" "What is right for me?" "What is happiness?"

The development from natural philosophy to Socrates philosophy was probably a similar event.

By the way, around the same time as Socrates lived in the 5th century BC, Confucius appeared in China and Buddha appeared in India. They too, "What is a human being?" "How should life live?"

They were just people who thought about "human beings".

At the same time, people who thought the same question appeared strangely in a completely different civilization.

2500 years ago, humankind suddenly experienced a great revolution in knowledge.

"The world of facts" and "the world of meaning"

I would like to boldly restate Socrates's ideas from the perspective of the relationship between philosophy and science.

Science reveals, so to speak, the mechanism of the "world of facts". For example, if you let go of something, DNA will fall, DNA has a double helix structure, when a person is in love, the ventral tegmental area of ​​the brain is activated, phenylethylamine and dopamine It is literally a world of "facts", such as being secreted.

On the other hand, the theme that philosophy should explore is the essence of the human "world of meaning" including "true", "good" and "beauty".

"What is" really "?" "What is" good "?" "What is" beautiful "?" And "how should life be alive?"

The essence of these meanings and values ​​is the question that philosophy should unravel.

We are living not only the "world of facts" that science targets, but also the rich "world of meaning" at the same time. When we fall in love, we live in the "world of meaning" of the tasteful love, rather than what phenylethylamine says.

Science can reveal what chemicals are coming out of the brain of a person in love. But it doesn't tell us almost anything about what love really is to us and the essence of its "meaning".

It is the work of philosophy to clarify it.

We live in the "world of meaning"

Furthermore, the "world of meaning" explored by philosophy actually precedes the "world of facts" explored by science.

 e? What do you mean?

I think there are many people who wondered.

Many of us usually assume that the world is governed by scientific laws. The "facts" such as the laws of celestial bodies, the mechanism of the human body, the function of the brain, and the mechanism of DNA come first, and I think that "meaning" is something that humans have attached to such facts. ..

However, the situation is completely the opposite.

This is because so-called "facts" are never recognized as "facts" unless they are caught by the antenna of our "world of meaning".

For example, the "fact" of the celestial law exists because we find "meaning" in this law.

Since ancient times, human beings have needed to know the mechanism in order to farm. Or, fascinated by its "beauty", I have been observing celestial bodies.

Similarly, we know the mechanism of the human body because it is meaningful to us. Mankind has continued to challenge the mystery because it finds "meaning" in health and longevity.

If we had not had such an antenna of "meaning", "facts" such as celestial laws and human body mechanisms would not even exist for us.

There is no "absolute truth" (I don't know)

No, that may be the case, but there are many people who haven't fallen in love with it yet.

Certainly, "facts" may not exist for us unless they are captured by our "meaning" antenna. But even so, the laws of celestial bodies still exist objectively, and DNA has had a double helix structure since ancient times, didn't it? In other words, scientific facts, whether humans or not, can be said to be objective facts, aren't they?

――Some people may think so.

But is that true?

At the extreme, if there were aliens who were far more intelligent than humankind, the "world of facts" they lived in would be very different from ours. Far from being three-dimensional or four-dimensional, they may live in a world of about twenty dimensions. In that world, DNA may not have a double helix structure, or even time may not exist.

No, even if you don't bring up such a strange example, you can think of something more familiar, such as a dog, a cat, or a crow.

It is said that dogs and cats cannot recognize colors like humans do. On the other hand, crows can recognize ultraviolet rays that humans cannot recognize. Therefore, it seems that they do not recognize each other as black.

In short, dogs, cats and crows live in a world that is somewhat different from the "world of facts" for us.

That means that we too can only live in the "world of facts for us."

Nietzsche has left the following famous words.

"There is nothing really true, there is only interpretation."

 When. And say.

"In order for facts to be possible, one meaning must first be put in."

And ("will to power").

We can only know the "world of facts" in the light of our "world of meaning".

We never know the colorless and transparent "world of facts" (objective truth). It always takes on the color of our "world of meaning".

This means that the "world of meaning" precedes the "world of facts" in principle.

How is philosophy useful for science?

In this way, it can be said that the philosophy that reveals the essence of the "world of meaning" forms the basis of science.

As I have said repeatedly, the "world of facts" is based on the "world of meaning". That means that we can't really understand the "world of facts" unless we have a deep understanding of the "world of meaning."

Then, how is the philosophy of exploring such a "world of meaning" useful in modern science?

Next time, I would like to talk specifically about this point.