ENGLISH

FOR SMA PRO ONLY

Running head: PHILOSOPHY VERSUS SCIENCE

PHILOSOPHY VERSUS SCIENCE 5

Philosophy versus Science

Name

Institution

Date

Due to the technological advancements and the industrial revolution in the late 19th and 20th century, there was a birth of the new era called modernism. This was geared by the end of the first and second world wars which gave some scope and relief for the new progress in the society. The new development of modernism is characterized by the move of new collection in cultural thoughts which shaped human social life and understanding of nature. This came as a result of the innovative minds like Charles Darwin, a renowned geologist and naturalist (Fog 1999).

In understanding the bridge between philosophy and science is the knowledge about God and the entire creation. Science is having knowledge on the classified and systematized facts of nature. Philosophy is a drawn conclusion which men make is search of truth, knowledge and the God’s creation. Between the two is the religion that acts as conclusion of philosophy and the facts that science brings about to conduct and individual life (Boyd et al, 1988).

Science, religion and philosophy have to start with the already known facts about the environment and human life. Stuewer (2011) says the revolution raised many questions about the aim and the procedure taken in interpreting science. Scientists argue that science aims at providing truth and that people should see scientific theories as true or likely true. On the other hand, the other two disciplines; Religion and Philosophy are seen to rely on the creation side and base their facts on human nature and its environment (Stuewer 2011).

During the enlightenment of late 19th century, the philosopher Nietzsche builds a very tough bridge between religion and philosophy. Assoun (2002) argued that Christianity was dead and that there was no more morality derived from nature simply because ‘’God was also dead’’. The philosopher seems to argue that Christianity blocked the spontaneous and free human instinct (Assoun et al, 2002).

Looking closely to the history of this great man, Nietzsche, I think he deserve to be treated as a noble and be criticized as well. With his conclusions on the death of God, the philosopher made his understanding right on decay and decline. He was a critic and a great physician as well. Like his fellow philosopher, Fyodor Dostoevsky assails the fundamental enlightenment and argued that man is naturally depraved, rebellious and irrational. He goes against all schemes and plans for social improvement. (Haaften 1997).

The Russian novelist in his book, Notes from the Underground presents himself as critical of rationalist, positivists, humanists, liberals and socialists in his effort to improve the ways of human by fashioning a culture based on conceptual principles of happiness on mankind. The two philosopher’s approach is similar, emotive, immediate and personal. It is clear through this study that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche had a big disagreement for extreme rationalizing. Need to say, they did not accept the scientific mind which the Europeans had adhered to since the beginning of the 17th century (Weinert 2004).

Sigmund Freud like the earlier philosophers recognized culture development with human rationale and considered science as a true path to awareness. Unlike other philosophers, Freud was determined on the influence of power of non-rational drives and desires in human behavior and thought. Karl Marx doesn’t accept the fact that people think freely. According to Marx, most people’s ideas imitate the ideas of the first class and conclude that such ideas are always false. He says such moves can only lead to ‘’false consciousness’’ (Freud 2005).

In examining all the above philosophers, it will be true to conclude that philosophy did much work to develop the present scientific methods. Although the study indicates that science gave philosophy a good way of empirical testing, it is also evident that science could not have been there without the help of philosophy. Through the history of science and philosophy, science has slowly built knowledge basing on what was already set; try to uncover the governing rules and measuring occurrences in efforts to accumulate knowledge and improve humanity (Weinert 2004).

Reference

Assoun, P.-L., & Collier, R. (2002). Freud and Nietzsche. London: Continuum.

Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Fog, A. (1999). Cultural selection. Dordrecht [u.a.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Freud, S. (2005). Civilization and its discontents. New York: Norton.

Haaften, W. . (1997). Philosophy of development: Reconstructing the foundations of human
development and education. Dordrecht [u.a.: Kluwer Acad. Publ.

Stuewer, R. H. (2011). Historical and philosophical perspectives of sciences. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Weinert, F. (2004). The scientist as philosopher: Philosophical consequences of great scientific
discoveries. Berlin: Springer.