Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
...We use so-called rationalism and materialism to defend particular points and given the current cultural milieu this makes them all but impregnable to true philosophical skepticism which is the true spring of eternal cultural health...
|
I can agree with this, but in so doing it seems to me that for any forms of skepticism to be intelligible they must be presented within the same sphere that has helped to create this facade of rationalism and materialism. In my own field I attempt to answer questions pertaining to the historical nature of religion and the development of "faith" (I am using this term as an expression of the broad range of religious thought and practice). All the while, my concern is to answer these questions in accordance with the methods of my discipline; methods that have been rationally conditioned but also adopted
because they work. I would imagine the same holds true for science, and for philosophy: We are beholden to our methodologies because they produce desired results. In the end, we project what those results will be based on our acceptance/rejection of them.
In the present climate, I fail to see how "science" or "technology" continue to develop apart from some sort of concept of "progress"; and yet you seem to be suggesting that we ought to, for fear that progress will become an end to itself. I guess what I don't understand is how you imagine that science would continue in the absence of this goal? You may claim that the goal should be different (and perhaps it should), but this again will still serve some concept of advancement; by which we presume that we will somehow be better off for it—however one chooses to define that.