When building a new theory, the real philosopher does not seek to name other philosophers, the true scientist never seeks other scientists to name, but they are automatically directed to them to try to understand more about issues that afflict them.
is the very body of new knowledge generated to guide the investigator for their developments. References and bases for the formation of a new knowledge born of free writing on it and reach it needs as intrinsic to the articulation and understanding.
When one aspires to discuss an issue in philosophy or science, it seems to me that the right thing to do is first understand more about certain points that, in our personal feeling and life experience, touching the question we want to lie on. So we educate. A technological marvel allows us even in our homes, sitting at our computers, we write well chosen keywords on search engines that drive us of the excellent encyclopedias or sites present in this bottomless pit of information that is the internet. And so we being directed by their own information, to seek other related to it and central to our argument. Such a direction is given by the fact that as we read critically the information we receive are automatically directed to seek a new topic that we have been misunderstood. And so it is to navigate the Internet, and the real interest in issues is then able to know more about them and their stories, there applying his epistemological sensitivity and personal experience to guide you through the navigation directions "right" the search for knowledge. And then you'll be learning how to sail, the machine becomes a tool to better understand the human, comes in with the extremes of either knowledge, we see the gaps which still remain unanswered about them and decides to lie, to argue , solve, or simply to develop greater capacity rhetoric possible.
Navigating on the information. The navigation is without doubt the best metaphor for the pursuit of knowledge through technological means. The scientist or philosopher, to build new information, browse through the hypertext of the Internet and will be driving slowly in search of a solid and well grounded knowledge on the subject it studies. The direction of its navigation is epistemological, a forehand, unknown or only glimpsed in a broader spectrum. It is the very conceptual navigation on the webs of knowledge already built, coupled with the intellectual sensitivity the author who will tell you what to question, where to go, how best support what is thought or argued.
I am convinced that the philosophical theories come before personal questions of the philosopher, the natural feelings of unrest that have sprung up to you as an individual questioner. Claims against certain natural concepts that the individual is fit and has not yet been able to incorporate accurately in his brain and conceptual network. At one point this guy feels so ripe for questioning in depth a specific topic and honestly seek to achieve a fuller understanding of your questions. The work of philosopher and the scientist is a work born of personal concerns under which wants to investigate deeply and honestly. And around these personal concerns of individuals, you end up seeing is built over the centuries a tradition of humanity's concerns, a well of cultural baggage, which features a deep epistemological cultural thinking - logical thinking of a people. When merging is then the feeling of uneasiness with the modern concerns taken in the past, it produces clear pictures of epochs and civilizations, demonstrating new intersections and notes that roam between different cultural and alarming concerns arising from a particular tradition culture, both in art as in science. Sometimes there is also the element consisting syncretic, that blend traditions in search of creating an element of the intersection that creates and that is greater than the sum of the parts that constituted it. Such events are quite syncretic found in Brazil, where different conceptual and anthropological summaries are produced by the blend of knowledge, information and beliefs of diverse cultures that formed the basis of our people.
The philosopher can have your sim glimpse while reading the other philosopher, but this time, Eureka is just the result of the text in question be able to play some kind of restlessness that was dormant in the soul of the reader-interrogator, and the true philosophers are - without doubt - the flame lighters philosophical other individuals. In this sense, the epistemologist Imre Lakatos argues that richer research program is a scientific or philosophical as he leaves more fruit for the world and for humanity. In his theory, the fertility of knowledge is that attests to its importance, that is, the more people study a subject, it will probably be more relevant in a particular historical moment. If today we discuss Kant or Socrates this is because these philosophers had questions relevant to other human philosophy and lit the flame of questioning, which has not abated.
The philosopher is an artist to create his work mixes his palette data and information using known techniques of logic and reason. Like any artist, he must be endowed with sensitivity excels so you know exactly what they can join with what, how to make the best of intellectual certain technique, how to mix data and facts in a logical perspective to generate new knowledge and relevant delicious to be enjoyed. The philosophy and science can also be understood as forms of intellectual aesthetic.
Bad philosopher or scientist is one who sits in his chair and forcibly try to invent some philosophical theory that artificially come to light only in order to oppose any other existing theory, in order to contest la. The true philosophy is that part of a truly intimate sense of incomprehension about the logic of operation of the physical world and society, everything else is sophistry. also true and the good reviews are those that depart from epistemologically sensitive concerns, not fully rational clashes on minute details of theories. Criticize me with his heart and his faith in the search for truth, not his stupid logic and reason, but rather use them as instruments of his desire to collapse the castle epistemological construction craftsmen.
Major theories and good scientific or philosophical 'bodies, and walk with their feet. The scientist or philosopher need not be anxious to seek new information or mechanically precise information to add in his theory to better shape it as the natural development of these will normally be able to guide the practitioner the most important points within a given theme concise . I truly believe that philosophical inquiry should develop naturally from the author's written on the subject and their concerns about him, these concerns will call forth intertextually all the cultural baggage of humanity. Of course, a critic can understand the intersection between a proposed new theory and vision of a particular philosopher / scientist who was not originally addressed by the author. And from this criticism, the author, directed the new source of information unknown to it, may try to incorporate it into their theoretical developments. Right now it runs the risk that the whole house of concepts and relationships generated will shatter or disappear, since the knowledge may not be compatible with each other in a logically coherent conceptual network. Moreover, new knowledge can enrich suggested, seating and cementing even more precise the arguments already proposed. In fact, the tradition of a philosophical or cultural overlap is precisely the new compatible ideas on each other to create a cosmology (or understanding of the world) a concise logical exemplary intellectual and aesthetic beauty.
0 comments:
Post a Comment