Hello, fellow philosophers!
First things first: I wanted to thank you all for a wonderful inaugural meeting last week. Kyle and I greatly appreciated the turnout and the willingness to discuss. Also – and this is extremely important – our meeting place for this semester will not be GAR 0.120 like last semester. We will now be meeting in GAR 3.116 for the rest of the semester.
At the beginning of the Fall semester we read a paper on what distinguishes what we now call “analytic” philosophy, from what we call “Continental” philosophy today. Some of you may recall that one of the major distinctions was the attitude towards science. Our own university offers courses here such as “Philosophy of Biology,” and “Science and the Modern World”, allying philosophy and science almost completely uncritically. In the words of John Locke, they espouse a view of philosophy that serves as something of a “handmaiden” to science.
A long tradition of Continental thinkers feel differently about science. Their thought is marked by a kind of critical skepticism of the scientific project and methodology. Babette Babich elucidates Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophy of science and its connection to art as a way of exploring the meaning of existence. As Babich writes in her abstract, “For Nietzsche, science and art draw upon the same creative powers and both science and art are directed at the purpose of life.
Are these reflections on science, thought up long before its dominion in the 21st century, still relevant? Could they be more salient than ever? Come with questions to discuss this Friday at 4:30, at GAR 3.116.
Armando and Kyle, co-presidents