For example, the criticism I have been launching in TB's
direction is based upon the fact that with all of his philosophical ruminations, he hasn't
the vaguest idea of biology. So much of his philosophy is just plain silly because it is
inconsistent with the body of empirical knowledge.
Exactly why literature is so vital to the fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, etc. Without an understanding of the way in which humans really think and interact, you can't understand the human mind, and therefore can't understand the constructs of the human mind. Good literature does precisely this. It distills the essence of human nature and inter-actions.
BTW, don't try to argue with me that biology, science, etc. aren't constructs of the human mind. There may (or may not) be an external reality, but whatever reality there is is only described in terms of human language and human constructs of thought. We can know nothing we can't think about (see Descartes), we can't think about anything we can't articulate in language, and language is a construct of the way our minds and bodies function.
(Question: If dolphins have mathematics, what does 2 plus 2 equal for them? Answer: we will never know, and can never know, because we aren't dolphins.) |
