Reflection on Philosophy
The phrase “weigh the fish” was raised by Charles II who asked philosophers why a fish weigh more after it has died. To interpret, Mr Pasnau elaborate the conditions of modern philosophy development as well as the comparisons between science and philosophy.
Based on the background of “dying philosophy” of modern world, author questioned that a significant decline of humanities might occurred, of course I partly agree this point. Regardless the real situation, the well incidence of Thales is impressive because of the ridicule subject of philosophers. Truly it was ridiculous in a certain degree but should not be disregarded it since those are the great souls that were founding figure not just for philosophy but also for science (stars were studied in this case). Therefore, the debate between philosophy and science of whether we should outweigh one over the other or not turned critical. What’s the point of philosophy? Does science had turned completely “non-human”? or that could be the very reason why philosophy exist, because we have to make ourselves more human?
Personally, the discussion of how science and philosophy related to each other gave some inspiration. The development of science enjoyed a significant growth which questioned the philosophers even harsher why don’t just weigh the fish? Personally, what scientists ignored was that science is physical study of matters that do exist while philosophy is more “theory” type of study that explore the “why” part of science as well as the nature of humanity. By raising the doubt, my point of view is that philosophy directs science by its abstract reasoning while as science develops a better platform for philosophy to keep directing science, of course as well as human life and nature.
Also, from another perspective of my understanding, in order to bring some cross-era inspirational minds and thoughts, philosophers tended to be in a solitary condition rather than having communications with other philosophers. “Philosophy in its highest forms seems intently solitary and often damaged by the presence of others”, quoted from the first article which also emphasized “…need an audience, and an intelligent listener who could criticise and help him focus his thought…”. Two of these sayings appeared to be conflicting but I think the emergence of an idea demands a vast extent of imagination then it proceed to a socializing phase where debates exchange of opinions take place in order to turn the “immeasurable” to a or some common sense that the majority of the population would be able to understand, further more, they will finally determine those as philosophy.
This point of view may not be correct but “there are not trivial questions we are discussing here, we here discussing how to live”. of course, the quote itself it’s a philosophical question that is worth to discuss.