|
@simpolism | |||||
|
Random thought on metaphor: in engineering, your "argument" is always grounded in a structure "beneath" your construction: the UI is grounded in code, which is grounded in the OS, which is grounded in the processor's logic, which is grounded in circuitry and ultimately physics.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
But in Philosophy, your argument is grounded in structures "above" it: your political philosophy is grounded in a "higher" ethics, which is grounded in epistemology and ontology, themselves grounded in the "highest" metaphysics. The Heavens above the Earth.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
So, unlike in engineering, philosophical arguments have a strange dual character, in which the chain of abstraction is simultaneously beneath (the grounding, the roots) and above the argument in question, in a metaphorical sense.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
It is true that physics "wraps around", the empirical method generates questions of subjectivity which lead back to a metaphysics. But a characteristic of engineering is not wanting to know about what lies beneath one's domain of construction. I don't need physics to code.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
The problem raised is "why?" and to answer that we need to contrast the goals of engineering vs philosophy. Both construct objects for use, but the former builds something concrete, the latter builds something abstract and psychological.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
The psychological (read: not formal) "proof" of any construction is in its successful use as object. Engineering objects, at least in 2020, are intended for use with as little knowledge as possible, through physical interaction with the construction.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
On the other hand, the use of a philosophical object is in symbolic argumentation (with oneself or others), and the "rational aesthetics" of philosophical argument, the property which convinces others, is best with a formal chain of grounds leading to axioms which must be true.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
Hence in philosophy, one must both engineer a useful argument from the grounds beneath, and must ensure its ultimate connection with the heavens above, with transcendent, self-justifying truth.
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
Of course, which transcendent truths people accept is another matter entirely, on which plenty of philosophy already exists (it seems to involve social authority and lived experience), but that's for another conversation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jprwg
@jprwg
|
9. sij |
|
Initial thought, may not be helpful: perhaps the difference between interface connections upwards vs downwards is they represent "why?" vs "how?" respectively?
|
||
|
|
||
|
simpolism
@simpolism
|
9. sij |
|
seems correct! I guess what's interesting is that the question of "why?" in engineering is separate from the "how?" whereas in philosophy they are much more closely connected (although not entirely the same).
|
||
|
|
||