…Although
Hobbes is hardly persuasive on this subject, what he has to say about exact
sciences, as opposed to social sciences, is noteworthy. I am of course treating
this matter differently. As I said before, different scientific theories can
exist in contrariness to each other, like the geometries of Euclid and
Lobachevsky (strictly speaking, the latter is not a different geometry, but a general
geometry, treating Euclid’s merely as a particular), but they, nevertheless, coexist
in perfect harmony, as somewhat different hypotheses used in different applications.
Once again, nota bene, the point with mathematics is not that it is supremely
“truthful,” as Pythagoras would assert in strong theological terms, or as
Dèscartes would want to believe, seeking his elusive mathematical formula of
Creation, but exactly because mathematics is based not on some immutable and universal
truth, but only on such and such hypotheses, and therefore cannot be denied
legitimacy, but must be believed in its entirety. The sole criterion for
a mathematical theory to be acceptable is the practicality of its applications.
This
peculiar feature of mathematics ought not to be too much generalized either, or
else we might end up saying that the mathematical hypotheses about the shape of
the earth: flat or spheroid, can be harmonized to the point of suggesting that
the earth exists in different shapes. Curiously enough, we do need the earth to
be flat, though, in order to exercise the practical applications of Euclidian
geometry, but while making such measurements, and while still accepting its
usefulness in all school curricula, we never for a moment wish to suggest that
our flat-earth calculations can be taken out of, and generalized beyond
the particular context of their applications, somehow concluding that, in fact,
the earth is flat!
As
far as philosophy is concerned, however, there ought to be two demands made on
it: that the philosopher always limit his method to his own peculiar way
of thinking, without trying to impose it on anybody, and discouraging his
disciples from doing so as well, exactly as Dèscartes puts this in his Method.
And the other demand is not to play God, as I have said before, that
is, to limit their findings to practical applications and to leave the
development of absolute theories and concepts alone, as they belong to
the realm of the Absolute, which is with God.
Now,
back to Hobbes, once again, as always in philosophical readings of great
philosophers, it is not very important what exactly Hobbes has to say on this
particular subject, but crucially important that he raises it in this
particular way. In the logic of the passage I quoted above, I could easily
reverse his propositions, and still it should make sense. Indeed, considering
the fates of Bruno and Galileo, to name just these two, there has been such
abundant controversy in exactly the exact sciences, that Hobbes stops making
sense in this regard. Furthermore, should we acknowledge the right of every
philosopher to think the way he wishes to think, as long as the line described
above has not been crossed, once again Hobbes fails to be convincing.
My
last point on this subject is to suggest that, in truth, there is no
real difference between philosophy and science, in so far as each
is based on a set of hypothetical principles; and what are claimed to be observable
facts in science are as subjective as the personal opinion of any particular
philosopher. Only in recognizing this as a fact can science and
philosophy (and religion!) be reconciled, and ultimately harmonized, as three
legitimate and perfectly compatible spheres of human activity and
self-realization.
No comments:
Post a Comment