Philosophy & everything else

I’m not entirely sure how you arrived at the conclusion that I view art solely through a visual lens—especially since I brought up Escher in the first place. It’s actually quite the opposite, isn't it? An Escher piece is simultaneously philosophy, science, and religion all rolled into one. Should we perhaps dive into a specific example—maybe look at an actual Escher work?
Can you help me understand why there's this persistent push to drive a wedge between science and philosophy? If we’re actually in agreement on the definitions—that science deals with understanding the individual pieces of a whole, while philosophy seeks to grasp the whole itself—then aren't they just two complementary ways of thinking?

I posted some thoughts over at www.evolutionarytheory.com/theories regarding my piece, "Evolution Demands a Redefinition of Humanity." I’m curious—from a purely philosophical angle, where exactly are we headed? Where is the human race actually evolving toward? Can philosophy even touch the question of whether there’s an evolutionary goal, or if there's any inherent purpose or meaning behind the natural and applied sciences?

For the second year running, I’ve been trying—unsuccessfully—to kickstart a meaningful dialogue about art. On the old message board, a moderator actually moved my thread over to the "General Fun" section, which really tells you everything you need to know about how people here view fine art.

So, let’s try bringing in some heavy hitters. Even though I wouldn't call myself an expert or even a devoted follower of Hegel, you just can't ignore him when this topic comes up:

Hegel argues that art is actually the lowest manifestation of the absolute spirit. To him, it's simply that spirit taking on a sensory, visible form. Religion expresses itself through preconceptions and emotions, while philosophy uses pure concepts—which he considers the most fitting vessel for the absolute spirit.

Within the realm of art itself, there's a hierarchy: it starts with the visual arts at the bottom and climbs up toward poetry and music as the highest forms. If my memory serves me right,
Plato held a similar view. I personally find his perspective quite compelling. 😁

But before Hegel, we had Kant, and here is how W. Jerusalem describes his work:
Kant taught us that in an aesthetic judgment, "we do not relate a preconception to the object through reason, but rather to the subject and the feeling of pleasure or displeasure." He suggests that an aesthetic judgment isn't a cognitive one; we aren't identifying specific traits of the object, but rather using the object as a way for the subject to express the feelings it stirs up.
According to Kant, the sense of beauty is distinct from mere pleasure—which is what a pleasant object triggers—and different from the joy that follows goodness.😉

I’ve always had a soft spot for what Etienne Surio puts it: "An artist wants to create a singular, unusual entity that exists for its own sake. The mere thought of beauty can actually mess with the psychology of creation—an artist isn't chasing 'beauty' or any other arbitrary category; they're chasing that specific world that the work itself becomes."
In my piece on philosophy origin, I posed this: "How can a work of art actually function as philosophy? Isn't that question essentially tracking the same path of strangeness?" It's been said that in classical art, works were basically totalities—think paintings or statues of people. They were complete wholes, crafted from an outside perspective. A painting like that is really just the packaging for traditional philosophy, which sought to understand those kinds of closed systems. But then you have contemporary artists who paint totalities, though unlike the classics, these are structural totalities viewed from the INSIDE. Such a painting or sculpture presents a totality without needing to describe it or put it into words. That’s why it’s essentially wordless philosophy. A classic example of an artist dealing in these structural totalities would be Escher. So, there’s my take on how art and philosophy relate—or don't. Personally, I think Hegel was dead wrong when he claimed art is the lowest level of the absolute spirit; he missed the mark both in his premise and his whole interpretation of the dialectical triad—you know, thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

geza said:I personally resonate with what Étienne Surio said: "An artist seeks to create a singular, unusual being whose only purpose is its own existence. The concept of beauty can actually distract from the creative process; an artist isn't chasing 'beauty' or any other set category. They are pursuing that specific world which the work itself becomes."

I believe the drive to perceive nature and its phenomena is identical for both the artist and the philosopher. The divergence lies solely in how they interpret those observations. An artist takes what the senses gather and processes it exclusively through the spirit. This inevitably leads to a confrontation with the spirit of whoever views, hears, or experiences the work. These clashes are usually settled quickly. We bow to and find joy in a stronger spirit's interpretation of nature 👍 , while we try to move away from a weaker one as soon as possible so it doesn't get in our way 👎 .

Aesthetics is a different matter entirely.😎

🙂 🙂 🙂

So, it looks like we’re on the same page—which means it might be time for me to start dragging science and religion into this mess too, right? But here's the thing: sure, there's a difference in how we interpret things, but what exactly are we interpreting? If we've already agreed that philosophy is basically the study of the whole—or at least thinking about the "whole"—then shouldn't we be applying that same level of communication to other disciplines, like spirituality? Or is that a stretch? Though, if we're talking strictly about art, then you can't ignore the symbol. At the end of the day, that symbolic way of thinking is pretty much the backbone of any serious philosophical discourse regarding art.

So, I just wrapped up this massive project—calling it an "Adult Picture Book" for the sake of the title—and it’s basically a 352-page A4 beast. It’s packed with 290 images total: about 133 pulled from the web and 157 that I actually put together myself, plus 14 different tables scattered throughout. If anyone happens to be interested in a bit of contemporary—well, let's call it
modern visual philosophy—feel free to reach out directly. I'll send over a promo CD for free, no strings attached.

There’s that old cliché everyone knows—searching for the impossible just to squeeze out the absolute maximum of what's possible. It seems like Atlantic has really taken that mantra to heart lately: let's just give it a shot instead of constantly labeling things as impossible, unknowable, or beyond reach. Honestly, just trying to get close to the WHOLE thing is a massive undertaking in itself, so let's revisit Atlantic's take: basically, the WHOLE is everything that simply IS (in any sense of the word), which means it has to include all those weird leftovers we usually ignore when we try to visualize the WHOLE—things like space, time, consciousness...
Time is inherently meta-empirical because, well, it encompasses empiricism itself, making it theoretically inaccessible to us.
In my view, this perspective is still stuck at the level of generalization—more of a challenge than actual insight—because, as Atlantic puts it, it remains INACCESSIBLE. But is it truly unreachable?

Aunt Pandora has a slightly different angle, which, from the standpoint of intellectual history, is actually quite sound. I find myself leaning toward her view, and here’s why: my job is grounded in realism.
(I’m a machine designer/engineer) and because of that, I know that before any object—any component of a machine—becomes part of our physical reality, it exists in my design-oriented brain as an idea. A kind of reality in its own right. That reality is always a cocktail of familiar elements pulled from the world mixed with NEW elements born from the interaction of ideas within my head (or anyone's, really). For a long time, I thought this was how we approached understanding the Whole (idea + reality, or vice versa), at least until I started digging deeper into the phenomenon and phenomenology of POLARITY. That’s where, at least in my estimation, the image of the WHOLE begins to emerge—the very Whole that philosophy has been unsuccessfully trying to conceptualize to this day, always hitting a wall at the barrier of the INACCESSIBLE!

To make a long story short: my strong impression is that thinking about the WHOLE is only possible through the polarity that underlies everything Atlantic mentions and Pandora opposes. If you're up for it—and this is a warm suggestion—maybe we could chat a bit about the phenomenon of polarity? Let's approach it as researchers, without any "model-based" competition, meeting as equals in the knowledge that we all only know a tiny fraction of what polarity and the phenomenon of polarity actually are, even though they constitute the fabric of our lives from conception to birth, from birth to... well, ??? The question marks aren't accidental, leading toward a new
"conception," toward a new polarization... which ultimately finds ITS OWN WHOLE!

Atlantic, we can dive into the Whole and empiricism later!

To quote Pandora: EVERY COMPROMISE SOLUTION IS WRONG! I couldn't agree more!

Thought I’d throw a little more fuel on the fire regarding the concept of WHOLENESS—maybe shake things up a bit?
Wholeness is essentially what encompasses polarity, and if you think about it, polarity is just a reciprocal inversion of identity. There’s this great English passage that nails it: The polarity of male and female is simply part of the polar system that fills the universe, much like how we see positive and negative electrical charges, or the way polarity functions within the atomic structure of quarks and electrons.
Then there’s the whole magnetic aspect to consider:
The reality is that magnets actually emit two completely distinct forms of energy—the north pole and the south pole—and these energies have massive impacts on biological systems. It turns out south pole energy spurs growth, whereas north pole energy tends to retard it.
Both of those points make it pretty clear that a polar system permeates everything—the entire universe, every object, every physical thing, every life form, every human being, every idea, and every single thought. We’re talking about the fundamental force that constitutes and fills the entirety of anything. In a very literal and all-encompassing sense, a "whole" is a Human Being—simultaneously masculine and feminine—whereas "masculine" and "feminine" aren't wholes themselves, but merely polar halves that oscillate and exchange reciprocally. The philosophical implication here is a sense of pervasiveness and universality that, if viewed as philosophical insight, could actually be empirically proven. It gives philosophy a genuine shot at reclaiming its lost connection to Phil and Sophia. We really just need to radicalize philosophical inquiry by placing it within the context of modern discoveries—specifically findings regarding polarity, such as this: Polarity simply means power and information (energy) that runs from one pole to another. The universe, life forms, and all of creation are built upon this principle of positive (plus) and negative (minus) poles.
That’s the kind of wholeness philosophers should actually be tackling!

So, what exactly is this "positivism" everyone keeps bringing up? In the context of how people use it here—referring to some supposed positivism within modern science or contemporary philosophy—it simply doesn't exist. Positivism is a sterile, empty concept. It’s just as useless as the old idea of
"dialectical materialism"—just more noise lost in the vast expanse of human stupidity. True intellect regarding the whole—which is what philosophy actually is—doesn't recognize any such thing as positivism.
If someone genuinely believes that philosophy is composed of neat little branches, specific sub-fields, or rigid structures, then I truly wish them a smooth journey into the "philosophy of nonsense." They can go ahead and specialize in their little niches, perhaps under a heading like: THE PHILOSOPHY OF GUILT.
I’m waiting for someone—maybe you, Atlantic—to actually start speaking philosophically about the whole, say, the totality of the Human Being.

geza said:What even is "positivism"? In the context being used here—referring to some kind of positivism within modern science or contemporary philosophy—it simply doesn't exist. Positivism is a hollow concept... much like the outdated notion of
"dialectical materialism," just more noise lost to the void of human stupidity. True wisdom regarding the whole—which is what philosophy actually is—doesn't recognize any such thing as positivism!
If someone truly believes that philosophy can be broken down into mere branches, sub-fields, or rigid structures, then I wish them a very pleasant journey into the "philosophy of nonsense"—where they can obsess over specific niches or perhaps a structure titled: THE PHILOSOPHY OF GUILT.
I am waiting for someone—perhaps you, Atlantic—to actually begin speaking philosophically about the Whole... say, the totality of the Human Being.

But that is exactly what true philosophy fights for—the INTEGRITY of philosophy itself. It should aim to "embrace" both science and religion (though goodness knows the phenomenologists want this, and I can already see the religious folks cringing)😉 so that all intellectual activity becomes truly INTEGRAL.

That sense of wholeness is the ultimate Holy Grail for any systematic way of thinking about the world.

adriatic said:For two years now, I’ve been trying—to no avail—to spark a real conversation about art. On the old forum, a moderator just moved my thread over to "General Fun," which really tells you everything you need to know about how people here view art.

So, let’s try leaning on the heavyweights—even if I’m no expert and certainly no devotee of Hegel, one simply can't ignore him:

Hegel argues that ART is actually the lowest manifestation of the absolute spirit—essentially its sensory representation. Religion shows up through preconceptions and feelings, while philosophy uses pure concepts, serving as the most appropriate form for the absolute spirit.

Within art itself, there is a hierarchy ranging from the visual arts, as the lowest forms, up to poetry and music, which sit at the top. If memory serves, Plato held a similar view.
Personally, I find that quite appealing... 😁

But before Hegel, we had Kant, and here is what W. Jerusalem says regarding his work:
Kant taught us that in an aesthetic judgment, "we do not relate a preconception to the object via reason, but rather to the subject through the feeling of pleasure and displeasure." An aesthetic judgment, he claims, isn't a cognitive one; it doesn't highlight any specific attribute of the object, but rather allows the subject to express the feeling that the object awakens within them.
According to Kant, the sense of beauty is distinct from mere pleasure—which is sparked by a pleasant object—and from the joy that accompanies goodness.😉

Heidegger would likely agree with you during the later stages of his career—he eventually turned his focus toward art, specifically poetry. However, much like a comparative linguist, he believed that poetry preserves the ancient, primal meanings of words. He sought out those words and meanings within the poetry of his fellow countrymen, interpreting them through essays however he saw fit.
If we consider the claim that German is the finest language in the world—especially for philosophy—we might feel a bit skeptical about that particular "phase" of his work...

Anyway, back to the idea of POLARITY. It seems like the history of philosophy is just a circular rotation of Platonists and various shades of materialists—whereas in science, ever since Aristotle, things haven't changed much—engineers and theorists have been chipping away at the heliocentric model, much to the horror of the clergy.
Is Geza referring to the SUBJECT-OBJECT POLARITY??🙄

Since we seem to agree that philosophy is fundamentally about the whole—and that some thinkers have basically wrecked the field by rebranding anything they ponder as mere pragmatic "praxis"—I think we’re on the same page. In my view, that shift did massive damage. It turned philosophy into little more than apology, a messy catch-all, or just a repetitive loop of things we already know. It feels like philosophy drifted into this disorganized sprawl because it’s frankly much easier for certain philosophers to talk *about* the "philosophy of science" than to actually apply scientific insights to philosophical discourse. From where I'm sitting, you see this all the time: scientists acting like philosophers whenever they touch on universal themes, origins, or the totality of the universe. Conversely, you have philosophers trying to shoehorn scientific findings into their theses, only to have those ideas vanish into a "black hole" once they hit the wall of scientific relativity and uncertainty. But then, there are cases where a single scientific discovery is simultaneously a philosophical one. Here’s an example that illustrates how science and philosophy can merge, specifically regarding the essence of a human being—or any living thing on Earth or in the cosmos
Biologist Koretz believes that DNA technology has essentially opened a "Pandora's box," releasing influences that touch every facet of human existence. The red line of this revolutionary breakthrough is that humanity has instantly shifted from being an object of creation to becoming its subject. Through this discovery and its application, humans have directly inserted themselves into the work of God—whether anyone wants to admit it or not. The implications of this scientific leap call the entire Western philosophical and humanistic tradition into question, especially the idea that humans are merely derivatives of material nature or, alternatively, some weak, frail derivative of God. And it isn't just about our ability to manipulate micro and macro biology; you also have nanotechnology miniaturizing the physical world at an incredible scale.
Based on that, I have to ask: Is the *logos* of the DNA molecule the same as the *logos* of philosophy? That *logos* represents the totality, while simultaneously accounting for every individual level and fragment within that whole. Isn't that effectively "philosophy and the other"—what we typically categorize as "the other," namely science and religion?

What you’ve laid out could be described as a classic take on the interplay between science and philosophy—that back-and-forth dance between the two. I'll weigh in on your perspective and toss in a few of my own thoughts:
You’re arguing that philosophy is all-encompassing—dealing with the Whole—while sciences focus on tiny fragments, or specific aspects, of that whole. Because of this, philosophy tackles those "impossible" questions—since the Whole remains rationally out of reach for us—and tries to untangle problems that seem unsolvable.
I'm with you on the idea that philosophy deals with the Whole—though we’ve touched on this before, haven't we? We just haven't quite nailed down what anyone actually means when they use the word "whole." I agree that science deals with aspects of the whole, but wouldn't we also need to define what these "aspects" actually are, and what exactly is this "Whole" that they relate to in the first place?
My own view is based on the fact that, these days, science is just as much about the Whole as philosophy is. I mean, look at it—science is tackling the origins of the universe, the totality of the cosmos, searching for a unified field theory, looking at the holistic relationship between matter and energy, the nature of life itself, and so on and so forth. There are endless examples, including the holographic universe theory, which is pretty relevant right now. So, why shouldn't philosophers step in here to explain what’s actually going on? Besides, I’ve said it before: more and more scientists are turning toward philosophy. I’m constantly thinking of Hofstadter and his book >, not to mention David Bohm with his holistic model of the universe, or even old Werner Heisenberg, among many others. From where I’m sitting, it looks like scientists feel they have permission to dabble in philosophy, while philosophers aren't even allowed to touch science!? It seems like a bit of a strange setup, doesn't it?

I think there’s another massive issue lurking within the very concept of
"science." None of the standard definitions really answer the fundamental question: what *is* science? You get one group saying this, another group saying that, and there’s a huge gap between the concept of
"natural science"—discovering natural phenomena and laws—and the concept of
"applied science." Both types of researchers get tossed into the same "scientist" bucket, even though they are worlds apart. What I mean is, science isn't just some pile of raw facts accumulating over time, as you put it. Today, we have parts of science that are creative or generative, producing things that fall outside the boundaries of both traditional philosophy and traditional science. I’m thinking specifically about how non-linear perception might actually be superior to linear perception, or how four-dimensional perception holds more weight than three-dimensional views—yet our entire philosophical and scientific tradition is rooted in a three-dimensional Euclidean way of seeing things. I wonder how many American or global philosophers are actually exploring the Whole from a four-dimensional or quad-polar standpoint, rather than sticking to this dualistic, binary mindset? It feels like a major built-in error in both philosophy and science alike!

In my opinion, trying to divorce science from philosophy—or vice versa—doesn't lead anywhere useful. It just ends up making everyone dumber, especially the vast majority of people who don't consider themselves either scientists or philosophers.
From what I can see, there is one specific area that everyone seems to ignore—including the supposedly "smart" people, the scientists, and the philosophers alike—and that is MAGNETISM. Everyone misses the mark on this phenomenon because: (quoting the original here)

Despite our adventures into space, our superb transition from classical physics to relativistic physics, combined with a century of technological advancement of unsurpassed measure, and an uncanny understanding of the Cosmos as never before known, there seems to be
one remaining enigma to science: the mysterious force-at-a-distance, called magnetism.

Nobody knows why the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field changes.
Right now, though, it's something of a mystery.

Magnetism simply means power and information (energy) that runs from one pole to another. The universe, life forms and all of creation are built upon this principle of positive (plus) and negative (minus) poles.

So, you see, there's this massive, universal phenomenon out there that touches everything and everyone—it encompasses the whole thing—yet somehow, neither the scientists nor the philosophers seem to actually grasp what magnetism is.
Where would you even place that? Is it strictly a scientific domain? Purely philosophical? Or is it perhaps both—a blend of the two?
My take—and this is just my opinion—is that magnetism belongs to the totality itself. Because of that, it falls under philosophy. But then again, it's also a physical phenomenon, which means it belongs to the natural sciences and applied sciences too. So, really, it sits right at the intersection of philosophy and science... or science and philosophy. It's both.

swiftcobra15 said:We just haven't clarified who actually means what when they use the term "the whole."

My perspective is rooted in the fact that modern science now grapples with the concept of the whole, much like philosophy does. We are actively investigating the origins of the universe, its overall structure, and the hunt for a single unified force, all while exploring the deep connection between matter and energy.

You see, there’s this one massive, universal phenomenon that touches everything and everyone alike—it encompasses the whole of existence—yet even our greatest American scientists and philosophers still can't quite wrap their heads around the true nature of magnetism.

I think we’ve finally hit on the heart of our misunderstanding.

When I speak about wholeness, I’m really referring to the Absolute as a single, unified entity.
The physical world is merely one facet of the Whole, yet you’re claiming it represents the entirety of it. Physics only deals with one specific layer of reality. Just one. Just like any other scientific discipline, studying the physical world requires us to be reductionist at our core. I remember my old physics professor at MIT used to say that if you can't break a problem down into its smallest parts, you haven't truly understood it yet.

The idea that magnetism "encompasses the whole thing" is just plain ridiculous.😉

crimsonjackal8 said:Scientists frequently forget that science can't exist without philosophy...

And that’s a problem.
😎

I’ll grant you that at the level of the most abstract, sweeping theories, science and philosophy become one—and philosophy definitely tackles those big-picture questions that go beyond raw data, looking at the very foundations of scientific inquiry and what all these discoveries actually mean for us. But—and this is a big but—

1. In actual day-to-day practice, most scientists don't interact with philosophy at all; a brilliant researcher doesn't need to know the first thing about Carnap, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, or Popper to do their job effectively...
2. Philosophers often don't really grasp the science itself. You see them offering interpretations of research results that are completely off base—sort of like someone getting drunk and making wild claims about a single study without having any clue how the entire field actually functions.
3. There was a time when philosophy actually led the way, feeding scientists new ideas, methods, and hypotheses. Nowadays, though, it feels more like philosophy is playing catch-up, trying to make sense of the chaotic flood of scientific and technological breakthroughs we've seen over the last century. Are they even succeeding?

Basically, I don't think we're ever going to see a grand reconciliation or a unified theory of "life, the universe, and everything"...

I could probably pull a mountain of examples from the fields of psychology and cognitive science to illustrate this—if I ever find the time or the motivation. 🙄

Asterix, that was an excellent response and some great commentary. Here’s my take on part two:
PART 1
I’m following the thread of your suggestion (let's think about this):
I’m not entirely convinced that philosophy serves as the foundation upon which the roof of science rests—nor am I sure that one holds any inherent superiority over the other, whether we're talking about philosophy or science. To me, they feel more like complementary ways of mind—two different lenses used to investigate the exact same thing. Ultimately, philosophy and science intersect and merge within phenomenology when addressing those big-picture questions: Where did we come from, where are we going, and why? What is the universe, what is its logical structure, how far does it stretch? What is life, why does it exist, and why is it specifically the kind of life we find here on Earth? Who is man, and why? And finally, why do we need science and where does it lead us? Why do we need philosophy and where does it lead us? What defines science versus what defines philosophy? Seeking and finding answers to these questions simultaneously is both science and philosophy. So, I see philosophy as the intellect that perceives the whole—it understands the matrix of existence, rather than just the transient, ever-changing parts—and ultimately, it grasps the UNIVERSAL, the all-encompassing *logos*, the matrix stretching from the vast cosmos down to a single hydrogen atom, or perhaps to Plato’s cell. In contrast, science is the intellect that structurally—that is, individually—uncovers and learns the same things as philosophy. Or, to be more precise: philosophy deals with macro-phenomena, while science deals with micro-phenomena. These two modes of thought are interactive and complementary, and when they actually meet, they become incredibly productive—at least, that’s my take!
In the previous post, there was talk of philosophy being the study of the whole and science being the study of the individual. I agreed with that, but I forgot to mention that philosophy has become just as fragmented and scattered as science has, specifically through these "philosophies of the individual." I tend to say that after the era of German ideology, philosophy splintered—it became "cellularized" into countless little philosophies that have absolutely nothing to do with actual philosophy! In this light, I don't believe in a "philosophy of science"—like a specific philosophy of physics, chemistry, or biology—but rather, there can only be a philosophy that absorbs and integrates scientific insights into the broader philosophical framework. For instance, one such scientific insight that is deeply and absolutely philosophical is the discovery of the structure and *logos* of the DNA molecule. Why that realization is purely philosophical is something I can explain later.
Let’s consider the view that "the philosophy of science (the science of science) is largely synonymous with the metaphysical discipline of epistemology. We know what epistemology handles, so let's just apply that to the science of science. It examines the principles of scientific inquiry, the paths of scientific knowledge, the verification of hypotheses, theories, and the very problem of how science "grows"... "
Every attempt I’ve made to answer the question "What is science?" has failed. On the contrary, I’ve just found a series of perspectives suggesting that nobody actually knows what science is—not even the scientists or the philosophers!? It’s the same story with philosophy. There simply isn't a clear answer or a definitive definition for either! Opinions and interpretations are controversial, and it’s not rare for them to spiral into pure absurdity...
It seems to me that all these doubts and controversies are addressed by your sentence, which essentially says:
"Physics had a massive influence on the development of the philosophy of science in the 20th century, especially with the emergence of quantum theory and relativity; subsequently, its growth was fueled by breakthroughs in psychology, then sociology, and from roughly the mid-20th century, the rapid advancement of molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and genetics."
So, I completely agree with you, but that’s not the end of it. You also have fractal theory, holistic theory, the rise of computer science, nanotechnology, and the sudden breakthrough into both the micro and macro worlds with converging insights. Only once we recognize the reach of intelligence within these various modern "packages" of knowledge can we trigger a NEW philosophy—one capable of tackling old and new philosophical questions using today's level of intellect, rather than relying on the levels of Socrates, Kant, Hegel, Marx, or that foolish Feuerbach. The same applies to science! The intellect of someone like Copernicus or Newton would be a scientific anachronism today. A good example of where we currently stand is this: some newly minted scientist, trying to inflate his own academic status, wrote that Newton spent twenty grueling years thinking just to discover the laws of gravity. I told him, if that’s true, then Newton was pretty dim-witted if it took him twenty years just to figure out gravity!!? The truth is quite different. Newton discovered gravity thanks to an apple falling on his head—basically in a moment of hype, not through deep, agonizing contemplation—but it *did* take him twenty years to formulate the mathematical logic and rules necessary to express the law of gravity through formulas. (The level of mathematical development in his era simply didn't allow for anything faster!)

Regarding your point about how the philosophy of science examines the mechanics and scope of scientific inquiry, while the philosophy of nature turns its gaze toward the actual subject matter—which is Nature itself—I’d love to expand on that:
What exactly constitutes the focus of the natural sciences today? Back in the day—and honestly, I still find it incredible—there were those foundational biologists who spent their lives discovering, cataloging, sketching, and organizing life on Earth—you know, the whole flora and fauna thing. It was massive work, and frankly, some of it is still happening right now. Then you have the geographers who meticulously mapped out the world in granular detail... and don't even get me started on the biologists and medical researchers today. They aren't just looking at anatomy anymore; they’re pulling back the curtain on life at a nearly transparent level—moving past organs and systems down to cells, proteins, nucleotides, atoms, and even subatomic structures. Just another absolutely gargantuan undertaking, really.

2.DIO
Look, you have to see that the natural sciences basically operate in two directions—one heading toward micro-phenomena and the other toward macro ones. This is exactly where the whole scientific narrative starts to fracture, isn't it? We’re left with this legacy from last century's science where the laws governing the macro world just don't apply to the micro world, and vice versa. But is that actually true? Is there a single, universal law that holds steady for both the tiny stuff and the massive stuff? To me, that feels like a heavyweight philosophical question—a genuine task for anyone trying to bridge the gap using actual scientific data. Since micro-science and macro-science have drifted so far apart, they've essentially lost the ability to use their own frameworks to solve the problems of the other side. They're speaking different languages at this point. So, someone has to step in as a "third party"—someone like a philosopher who can hunt for a unifying solution. Honestly, if that isn't the primary job of modern philosophy, I don't know what is.
But then you have this entirely different beast altogether—the field of applied sciences. It’s the one actually running the show these days, isn't it? It’s got all the power, it’s the thing cranking out the tech, manipulating the world, and basically deciding what our collective fate looks like. Honestly, wouldn't it be nice to actually read a "philosophy of applied science" for once? I’d love to find an author brave enough to tackle that without first having written a massive treatise on the "philosophy of killing machines." The thing is, it’s the applied side of things that really mythologizes science, not the pure natural sciences. I mean, when you look at the macro scale of the world we live in, the products coming out of applied science are lightyears beyond anything the theorists are doing in their labs. In that sense, it’s clearly the dominant force—yet philosophy seems to have no clue about it. Or perhaps worse, philosophy hasn't even begun to grasp where this whole trajectory is actually taking us?
Now we’re getting to the part of your text that actually matters—the good stuff:
So, what actually counts as the philosophy of biology? You won’t find a straight answer anywhere—not even in those textbooks that go out of their way to promise exactly that in the title. It’s all a bit of a mess. Even guys like Dawkins, Ford, or Kuhn don't offer a concrete definition, mostly because the lines between pure biology and ethics get blurred so often that you just end up with this hybrid concept called bioethics instead. Is there even a distinct field left, or is it all just one big overlap? Who knows.

So, why am I even typing this out—and what’s my actual point here? Honestly, I just want to say that philosophy needs to reclaim its seat at the head of the table. It ought to be back at the top of the hierarchy, acting as the foundational discipline—that core starting point from which every other field of study is forced to branch out.
We really shouldn't be letting this antagonism between scientists and philosophers brew—it’s completely counterproductive. You always hear the critics, right? They claim philosophers are just spinning their wheels or talking in circles—just pure fluff—while the scientist has a concrete, measurable objective. They’re in the lab doing the actual work, producing tangible, physical results that you can actually hold in your hand. But does that mean they should be at odds? Not necessarily.

Scientists often seem to forget that you can't actually have science without philosophy—it’s like trying to build a house without a blueprint, or maybe just trying to drive a car without a steering wheel? I don't know. It feels like they get so caught up in the data and the formulas that they lose sight of the actual framework holding it all together. Is it really possible to claim progress if you aren't questioning the very foundations of how you're measuring that progress? Probably not.
Why is this the most interesting topic? Well, I suppose it's because I’m "in love" with the philosophy of biology—and unlike Dawkins, Ford, Kuhn, or anyone else for that matter, I actually have a definition for it. Or rather, I’m convinced I do. My take? I have a definition of philosophy rooted in the logos of both micro and macro biology. Of course, I’d eventually need to demonstrate, explain, and prove all that—which isn't exactly feasible in a space like this—but that doesn't mean it can't be done later if someone actually cares to see it.
Regarding your point that philosophy needs to reclaim its primacy over all other sciences—I’d probably rephrase that a bit differently. Personally, I think philosophers urgently need to restore some dignity to the field by purging everything from their "philosophical body" that relies on that outdated, linear, three-dimensional Cartesian way of looking at the world. It’s just... it's stuck in the past. Instead of clinging to that obsolete framework, we really need to develop an entirely NEW philosophy—one grounded in non-linear, wave-based, quantum, and organic perceptions of reality. Only then can philosophy actually move in lockstep with modern science. That old-school, purely quantitative, scientifically materialistic approach died out along with mechanical physics—a fact our scientists (and, frankly, many philosophers) seem to have overlooked. This NEW MODERN PHILOSOPHY needs to address the origins of the universe and life on Earth, just as science does. And it has to be a "philosophy of origins"—not just some derivative school of thought named after one guy or another. I find myself agreeing with Jaspers on this: there are as many philosophies as there are philosophers, but most of them aren't true philosophies—they're just various attempts at philosophizing.
I’m totally on board with the idea that scientists often forget that science can't actually exist without philosophy... and honestly, that's a problem. To go a step further: it’s dangerous—really, truly dangerous. It provides us with a perfect subject for some deep philosophical digging, mostly because when we talk about things being "dangerous," we aren't just talking about a lab error; we're talking about the big picture—you know, the whole mess we call life on Earth and humanity itself.