In seeking Method

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What I am doing this morning, is to lay out three different
positions, and I see them as three variations on a theme…

The first is a strictly philosophy/scientific problem:

This problem lies within a certain context, that according to
Paul Feyerabend, in his classic book, ‘‘Against Method’’…
that there is no such thing as method in science…The idea
of a ‘‘Scientific Method’’ doesn’t exists within science…and
Feyerabend clearly doesn’t have a problem with there being
no such thing as a ‘‘Scientific Method’’… now as I have been
deeply engaged in exploring these two ideas, science and
philosophy… in my readings, I am looking for whatever connection
exists between science and philosophy…
Can we philosophers learn something from scientists about how
to go about our business as philosophers within how science itself
works…What can science tell us about how we practice philosophy?
How does the practice of science work for or within philosophy?
Can we use the ‘‘Scientific Method’’ for philosophy?
among some of the questions I am seeking while approaching
philosophy from the scientific standpoint…What can science tell
us about Philosophy?

So, if there is no such thing as the ''Scientific Method?", then
what does that mean for philosophy? some of the tools that
philosophers use, such as logic, rational thinking, comparing
and contrasting, are these tools ‘‘invalid’’ tools for a philosopher?
If there is no such thing as the ‘‘Philosophical Method’’ then how
does philosophy work, as an idea…

this is my first thread…

Kropotkin

1 Like
2

So, you call yourself a “philosopher”, but then go on to ask other people, “How does philosophy work?”

Which appears very hypocritical and contradictory to say the least.

1 Like
3

In seeking Meth,

Find first the dealer.

1 Like
4

Philosophy already has a wide range of methods and generally people don’t use the term or idea of The Philosophical Method. Science in the 20th century was often described as having a singular overriding method and Feyarabend was rebelling against that using historical examples of progress that came using methodologies that did not fit with the supposed only method.

Dialectical reasoning and the Socratic method

Logical deduction and formal systems

Simple blunt assertions of the truth after reflection

Phenomenological description of lived experience

Conceptual analysis and linguistic clarification

Thought experiments and intuition pumps

Hermeneutic interpretation of texts and traditions

Transcendental arguments regarding conditions of possibility

Existential reflection on the human condition

Deconstruction of binary oppositions

Axiomatic construction of metaphysical systems

Pragmatic evaluation of utility and consequences

Reflective equilibrium between principles and judgments

1 Like
5

They want to turn philosophy into a cooking recipe.

But that this cannot be done is itself philosophical proof against the prevalent faith of the mechanical omnipotence, omniscience and pure love.

Socrates the First notwithstanding.

You might as well ask: what is the Method for capturing a woman’s heart?

It might not hurt to start by manning up.

1 Like
6

Philosophy is an immense cavern with many secret doors. You can tell the quality of a philosopher by how many of those doors they never reveal.

That is how we know both the extreme quality of Socrates and his dishonesty.

1 Like
7

Ultimately there is no objective or universal purpose to life beyond simple basic survival where that is how everyone runs into problems for every kind of philosophical thinker.

For progressives the question becomes, progressing towards what exactly? Followed by the next question, why?

The universe and cosmos doesn’t supply human beings with an end goal, all encompassing solution, or final fate, we do this ourselves unguided chasing after our own shadows.

:clown_face:

8

in further comparison between Science and Philosophy,
one notes that Science doesn’t have a final goal or purpose to it…
It isn’t like we do science until we are finished with that final goal,
cause there is no final goal within science…
but in Philosophy, especially within the System builders,
Hegel and Marx for example, the system itself creates part of
the goal or purpose of philosophy…the system itself is the
goal or purpose…system as the method used in philosophy…
but as we have learned, that systems are not infallible, and that
comes from the fact that within a system, any system, we cannot
include everything necessary to create a viable understanding of
the system…we cannot include every aspect of the system enough
to make sense of that system…
we cannot include everything within a system that is necessary or needed…
it is incomplete, and there is nothing we can do to complete any system…
all systems, are by their nature, incomplete, especially open systems…
and how do scientists and philosophers engage with us? what method
can they use to explain existence?

it is by the creation of a model or paradigm… think of the solar
system, the sun in the center and the planets revolving around the
sun…That vision in your head, that is a model or a paradigm…
every description given in science is a model/paradigm…
now models/paradigms are everywhere in our world…
the descriptions within the political, communism, democracy,
oligarchy, they are all models/descriptions of political systems…
or Marcus Aurelius in his writings, practiced and preached
the Stoical systems… Hegel system building is the creation
of a model/paradigm… and yet, we have noted that systems
are unable to hold all aspects of that system within it…
No matter how hard we try, we will miss aspects of that system,
no system, can be completed or finished… it is, by its very
nature, incomplete…

Now we shift gears a bit… what is the goal within both
Science and Philosophy? What are people looking for?
we hear it all the time, that science/philosophy is the attempt
to find unity, completeness, a ‘‘Theory of Everything’’ TOE…
we find ourselves, in various degrees, incomplete, unfinished,
half not whole…and the search for science/philosophy,
and even theology, is to find a system we can become whole in…
One hears soldiers saying they joined the Army because they
were looking for something bigger than they were to become
part of… part of a whole… but what if, what if that there was
no center to be part of, as no system can be completed or finished,
it means systems, are not and never will be complete, or whole…

We are looking for a model/paradigm that will complete us as
people…but there is no system or model that can completely
include all aspects of it… thus it is incomplete…can there be
a TOE? I would say no…or said another way,
there is no model or paradigm that is able to include all aspects
of existence, or our lives…

We human beings are ‘‘doomed’’ to be incomplete, we are part,
never whole, we are not ever going to be part of the universal,
Which is why people like/want religion or god in their lives…
it ‘‘completes’’ them… it makes them universal…
it takes us from part to whole… but therein lies a problem,
what about the aspects of life and science, where it is
about luck, probability, chance, randomness…the very
heart of say, evolution, is randomness and chance…
the creation of life itself, seems to be random, within laws
laws of probability… Entropy, perhaps the most important law
in science, within entropy lies the secret of the universe…
that we can never be unified, united, complete or universal…
if there is no possibility of creating a model or paradigm that
is actually universal, then perhaps we should stop looking for
the universal, within us, within our models, within our paradigms…
The fact that randomness/chance is an essential aspect of our
universe, puts an end to the idea of either a philosophical or
scientific TOE…if the universal is out of our reach, then
what should we be doing either philosophically or scientifically?

Kropotkin

1 Like
9

That we have three ways or means of understanding the
universe/reality… one is theology, one is philosophy
and the other is science…(of course, these three are not
the only ways to understanding, but they are, at present,
the best way) and the first way is theology… which is to say,
matters are taken on faith, evidence or proof is not necessary,
and here assumptions do exist and are taken as evidence…
if we take ‘‘a priori’’ (before any evidence/proof) that there is a god,
we have accepted as ‘‘reality’’ that a god/gods do exists, and this
forces us to accept the idea of god before we have any facts or evidence
showing us the existence of god…and this automatically limits us
in our search or seeking what is reality…the very idea of a god,
changes or limits us in our search for reality…the assumption of
god changes how we seek out reality…by forcing us to accept
unprovable assumptions which changes how we understand our
place within the universe…the very act of accepting an assumption,
changes in a substantial way, how we approach and accept reality…
the assumption creates a blind spot in our viewpoint of reality,

the second way is science, and here we step away from some assumptions,
but not all assumptions… and the primary assumption within science comes
all the way from the Greeks…that the universe/reality is capable of
being known, it is rational, logical, and discoverable…that the universe/realty
can be known and understood, rationally…We might not know it
today, but with time and effort, we can rationally know and
understand our universe/reality… that is the Greek method…
that we can rationally know our universe…we can divide up
scientists into two factions, one is the theorists, and the other is
the one who conduct experiments… for the most part, the Greeks were
theorists, as Aristotle was a theorist… which is why much of what
he wrote about the natural world was flat out wrong… but because
they were mostly theorists, the Greeks never noticed just how
wrong Aristotle was…During the Medieval period, Aristotle
was considered to be the ‘‘Authority’’ in science…and was taught
as such, well into the 17th century… Oxford/Cambridge for example still taught
Aristotelian science in Newton’s time… decades after Galileo…
In basic terms, the Scientific Revolution was simply the
overthrowing of the Authority, Aristotle…
and the method used was new, they used experiments,
testing, measurements, time, and speed to overthrow the old
Aristotelian science…for that is what science does, test,
measure, time, scale, comparison and contrast, to reach
conclusions, not based on prior assumptions, but found new
and fresh…Science succeeded because it overcame
old assumptions, with new thinking and a new/fresh viewpoint
and mindset… with theology, there is no need to explore
the old ideas because they are part of the operating assumptions
that people have that becomes the truth… why search for the truth,
say theology because we already have the truth in our hands
because of the Authority of the bible/god/the church…
why challenge that, when the authority already provides
us with the truth…and science says, let us find out for
ourselves…Which was the entire message of the Enlightenment…
don’t trust authorities, find out for yourself…

And philosophy has the same message… don’t trust
authorities, find out for yourself…but the tools of philosophy
are different than the tools of science… science practices
the ''Scientific Method" which is to measure, time, weigh,
analyze, especially movement…which is exactly what
every scientist did from Galileo to Einstein… science was
the act of measuring movement…What is the “theory of
relativity?” it is the theory of movement of objects,
independently and together… in space, there is no
central location from which we can use as a means
to measure moving objects… everything is relative,
measurement from each other, with no space acting as
the center of space, from which we can use as a location
from which we can measure everything… which is
different from the Aristotle theory in which the Earth lies
at the center of the universe… and these are the scientific
method, working out the measurement of objects and their,
if any, motion…

but that isn’t philosophy… science tells us the how something works,
philosophy tells us the why… there is nothing to weigh or measure or
time in philosophy… How would you measure values like
Justice or peace or love? The tools that work in science don’t work
in philosophy…because we aren’t engaged in measurement
or in motion in philosophy…

based on this, there is really no way we can turn philosophy
into a science-based project because philosophy has a
different agenda… it is about the why, not the how…
and science and philosophy are simply, as they have two
distinct languages as they work out different aspects of reality…
this is called ‘‘incommensurability’’ which is to say, they,
science and philosophy are unable to communicate with each
other because they use different words, language and
mindsets and a different agenda… science can tell us one
thing, and philosophy can tell us something else…
Which is to say, that we cannot turn science into
philosophy or philosophy into science… they do completely
different things with completely different methods…

and within philosophy, what is our goal, our purpose?
mind you, it seems to be quite clear that there is no
final goal or purpose given in life… exactly as it is
with science, evolution, history, economics, politics,
biology, and of course, philosophy… in each of these
disciplines, there isn’t any final goal or purpose found within
them for human beings…

But Kropotkin, you haven’t said anything that moves the needle
or changes anything…but this tells us something else…
that given the lack of a final goal or purpose in existence, it
doesn’t really matter if we were to travel, work, wear dresses,
or love one or the other sex, or both as some people do…
the lack of a final goal, frees us to finding meaning in our
day to day lives… and if we find meaning in cross-dressing
or in loving someone or the same sex…for the simple reason,
that for morality to work, it needs a final goal or purpose…
why be moral if it has no final goal or purpose?

But Kropotkin, this means that anything goes, that there are no rules
within a state or society, because all rules are relative to each other,
with no point or purpose…and thus we end this post on a
cliffhanger, how are we going to escape this dilemma?

same bat time, same bat channel for the answer…

Kropotkin

10

Peter Kropotkin:
But Kropotkin, this means that anything goes, that there are no rules
within a state or society, because all rules are relative to each other,
with no point or purpose…and thus we end this post on a
cliffhanger, how are we going to escape this dilemma?

K: when last seen, we were face with a conundrum… if rules
are only relative to each other and there doesn’t seem to be
any point or purpose to those rules, then anything goes, right?

The answer lies within human nature itself… we are living
beings, which means we have needs to meet, of breathing,
of eating, of education and health care and shelter…
and given that we are unable to gain these needs through
our own actions, we, to survive, must have the help of others…
just as we help others meeting their own needs…
it really does take a village for us to meet our own biological
and psychological needs… without a state/society, we are simply
unable to meet our own needs…and thus rules, are there to
help maintain our village which allows us to meet our own needs…
Hobbes ‘‘State of Nature’’ is not conductive for us to meeting our
needs, either our physical or psychological needs…the rules
function as a means to keep and maintain our state/society which
in turn allows us to meet our own needs…But Kropotkin,
this isn’t very firm or solid, it feels rather stretchy and ‘‘ad hoc’’
and that is kinda the point… we are not on very firm ground
in dealing with the state/society and where we fit into that…
the truth of the matter is that we human beings live on rather
thin ice… we try to pretend that we exist on good old solid
earth, but the fact is that we are simply dancing on thin ice…
this uncertain, unpredictable universe we live in, where
we live within a chance, random and haphazard universe…
and the trick is not to deny or run away from this accidental
universe, but to embrace the uncertainty…
to know that any or all plans made can be upended by chance
and randomness… the trick is not to find a philosophy of
certainty, but to find a philosophy that accepts, even celebrates
randomness and chance… not to end the chaos, but to embrace
the chaos… this requires us to have a vastly different mindset,
one that isn’t focused on finding certainty, but accepts chance
as a familiar aspect of existence…

and here we move away from our three viewpoints listed in the
beginning, of theology, of science and of philosophy…
understanding the universe requires us to understand
the role that chance and randomness has in our lives…
and then, then as it is in life, we, when necessary, change
our own mindset to match the new environment… we are never
fixed into one mindset, we must change and adapt with changes
within our world, our environment… we are constantly moving,
changing in our universe, our goals, our means to reach those
goals… we don’t need a theory of stability, but we do need
a theory that allows for change and adaptations…

Kropotkin

11

and then the most important ones, here left out, through direct experience and encounters with others.

And then theology - so few people study theology. It also leaves out the learning via religious practice. You can see the presumption that all religions and spirituality are faith-faith based, because the religion he does not believe in is Christianity. Though even in Christianity there are many strands where practices and the empirical is the route to believe in God. And then things like the various Hinduisms, shamantic/indigenous religions that are all about experience.

Very few people here do science. So what is it they do instead and that process of learning about science through non-scientific methodologies - reading, mulling, discussing perhaps, watching videos, taking courses, is not science but through that one can learn from science.

Einstein used thought experiments. Read: insight and intuition, then deduction.

.

Many philosophers weren’t just saying “think for yourself”; they were also trying to establish what should be thought—to build systems that others ought to accept. In that sense, they absolutely did function as authorities, or at least aspired to be

1 Like
12

In thinking about philosophy and science, perhaps we
can take some things from science and apply them to philosophy…

The notion of relativity… that this is not a fixed, set, unified,
universal universe…There is no viewpoint or mindset that is
universal or constant… the most common certainty that people
use to fix and set their beliefs in is within theology/god…
but any accounting of the world we live in leaves us with the
belief that our world is driven by chance and randomness far
more than any certain/set belief like god/heaven/or an ism like
capitalism…or said another way, there is no universal to find,
and now what?

that science believes in and operates in a world of motion is not
disputed, the question becomes can philosophy in some fashion
use any aspect of the science of motion to create some sort
of philosophical content… Galileo, Newton and Einstein,
all their theories were aspects of this question of motion
in the natural world…and motion you can weigh, time,
measure, and create mathematical equations to measure this
motion… for it seems to me, that if there was one word to describe
the universe, I would use the word, motion…another word that
can be used as it is the same as motion, the world change…
for change is motion of some sort…and all science does is
in some fashion, measure this change/motion…
and philosophers over the last 300 years have attempted
to create some sort of philosophy based on the scientific idea
of motion… but the problem with philosophy, at least virtually all
philosophy before Hegel, is that the philosophy presented, is fixed,
set, immobile, static… look at Plato’s philosophy… it is a philosophy
that is static, immobile, set… there is no motion within Plato
philosophy… His ‘‘Republic’’ is a universal idea, not an idea
that moves or changes… and ancient philosophy, Greek and
Roman, for the most part, is static, fixed, immobile… with a couple of
exceptions, and one is Heraclitus of Ephesus and the other is Lucretius..
Heraclitus, his philosophy was one of motion and change… summarized
best as ‘‘Everything flows’’… and Lucretius spoke about change and
part of what he describes is historical in nature… history is movement…
Who did what and when did they do it…
But most philosophers hold their beliefs as universals… timeless
and not changeable… but the world/universe is one of change, of
motion…is there any way to reconcile static/universal philosophies
like Plato, Spinoza, Kant into philosophies that better represent
the reality of our universe which is motion and movement…

One of the other problems with most philosophies lie in
their failure to understand the universe is not and cannot be
fixed into a philosophy…we have learned, from science no less,
that the is no way to create a system that has all the parts included
that make any system work… no matter how hard you try to create
a system that includes everything necessary within that system, you
can’t…systems are by their very nature, incomplete and partial…
there is no possibility of creating a system that includes every
aspect needed to account for that system…important details
will be left out, no matter how complete one tries to be…
and that failure must be understood before one can work out
a philosophy… because no matter how hard you try,
a philosophy by its very nature, will be incomplete and partial…
that is the very nature of philosophy…and that is why, in part,
that there has never been a philosophical system that is
understood because it leaves out as much as it explains…
there is no philosophy that is universal and applies to everyone…
and where does that leave us? Now what?

So, if philosophy cannot be universal, applicable to everyone,
where does that leave Philosophy? If there is no universal
goal or purpose that can be applied to everyone, what is now
possible for philosophy?

Kropotkin

1 Like
13

If we cannot create a philosophy that is universal, for everyone,
then what can we do? Perhaps an examination of our
place or situation in this reality might allow us to work out
some sort of philosophy…

ONE: That we are part of a state/society, whether or not we want
or desire it… one fact is that we as human beings cannot survive
without a state/society… if there was a non-negotiable for human
beings, is that we cannot live or exist without other human beings…
Biologically, cooperation is built in human beings… cooperation
is built into human beings by evolution… that is how we survive
the past million years…by cooperation… every single
institution built by human beings has as its basis, cooperation
at its heart… you and me, our very survival is predicated on
the building of institutions that allow us to cooperate with each other…
the creation of the state, of institutions within that state, are all done
to ensure our very survival…

So, step one, we must have institutions, the state and the
society that makes survival possible…but Kropotkin, our
very institutions are corrupt and vile… Perhaps, but we need them
for our very survival, so the answer is clearly not to wipe out or
destroy all institutions, but to reform them, to take institutions
back to their original point, which is to ensure our survival…
So, Kropotkin, how are we to return the state back to its
original function?

Within the words of the Constitution:

‘‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness’’

Within America today, we see something that violates the
very words of the founding fathers, that of the two tiered
system of government that exists today… that the rich, powerful
and wealthy get treated one way, one set of rules by the state/society
and the rest of us, we get treated differently and must abide by
another set of rules… this act of injustice is, in part, why
why our very state/society is hanging in the balance, we
cannot hold the center, if we have two different set of rules or
morals for two sets of people…that is not justice nor
is it fair or righteous…for a society/state very survival,
it must practice equal justice for everyone based on
one set of rules/practices…the more injustice is applied
to the state/society, the greater the risk that state/society
fails…think of it as an equation… as long as the equation
is equal, balanced, the equation stands… but once the equation
becomes lopsided, on one side or the other, comes a risk
of collapse… just as a house or a chair that becomes
unbalanced, it has a greater and greater risk of collapse…
a chair that has four legs in in greater balance then a chair
with three legs and a chair with two legs? a clear and present
risk of failure…

One can see the MAGA movement in terms of this balance equation…
Right wing media has proclaimed for decades, that the ‘‘elites’’ usually
meant to be liberals, have ‘‘gamed’’ the system to allow some to
succeed and some to fail, and according to the MAGA crowd,
it is minorities and immigrants that have been ‘‘gamed’’ to win,
and that is what the MAGA crowd holds to …the MAGA crowd
holds that they, as white people, have been forced down to allow
those minorities and immigrants to succeed…the MAGA crowd
holds that the system is unfair to them for being white… clearly
not true, but that is what the right-wing media has been saying for
years… your success has been coopted by liberals favoring
minorities, woman and immigrants… clearly not true…
but the real injustice has been done by this notion of
a two-tired judicial system that clearly favor those who
have wealth, power, or titles… that is the real injustice,
not the fake attack on minorities or immigrants…

Now one may claim that what I am purposing is ‘‘class warfare’’’
but I suggest that the wealthy and powerful have been engaged in
‘‘class warfare’’ since Ronald Reagan beginning in 1980…
over 40 years now…which means it is about time the those
who have been the target of this decades long ‘‘class warfare’’
begin to fight back… if you want a fair, honest, just society/state,
begin with getting rid of the wealthy, powerful people who right now,
dictate and dominate our state/society…they own the wealth,
the state and business, what is left for the rest of us?

But Kropotkin, what concrete, actionable actions can we
begin right now? there are several steps we can take,
one, the very act of paying taxes has been ursurped by
the wealthy and powerful… they pay virtually no taxes,
they get billions in tax cuts, and then use that money to
buy/bribe politicians to do their bidding… getting money
out of the political system is another great way to restore
balance into the system… remove the two-tiered judicial
system is another positive step toward returning America
back to being just and fair to all Americans, not just the ones
who can afford to ‘‘buy’’ verdicts, and political muscle with
the purchase of politicians and judges…
that to MAGA, we just return America to all Americans,
not just to the ones who can buy it…

but it isn’t enough to be engaged in the past, we must
begin to think forward, not back… what actions can we
take that can make America stronger? The future is the
focus, not the past… Where do we go from here is the path
that leads us to a new and greater America…all of these are
the beginnings of the possibility of a new America…
all we have to do is take a path and follow it,
are you brave enough to do just that?

Kropotkin

1 Like
14

@Peter_Kropotkin

Some things are universal, other things are not.

In the absence of globalism you have regionalism.

Where does that leave philosophy? In the realm of the experimental and theoretical until things can be proven without a doubt I suppose.

:clown_face:

15

@Peter_Kropotkin

The wealthy and powerful have been waging class warfare in this nation since its very historical founding.

But I do agree that it really kicked off with Ronald Reagan getting significantly worse with each passing decade ever since.

There are ways to make this nation better but I doubt your liberal pre-dispositions will like anything I have to say. While I am a Marxist I really have nothing good to say about political liberalism and you already know my skepticism towards democracy.

I am also significantly younger than you where that age gap might be too much for you to understand.

:clown_face:

16

MrAuthoritarian:
I am also significantly younger than you where that age gap might be too much for you to understand.

K: let me correct this statement:

I am also significantly older than you are, where that age gap
might be too much for you to understand…

you’re welcome…

Kropotkin

1 Like
17

But, like you pointed out “science” is based upon assumptions, exactly like “theology” is.

And, as I keep pointing out and explaining.

In say the last 2000 years, “What has “philosophy” told you about in regards to the ‘why’ of it?”

In the exact same way all of these things are “measured”.

True philosophy is engaged in absolutely everything.

But, then again, you use the word, ‘philosophy’, in a completely different way than I do.

In other words, based on your own interpretations and misinterpretations.

But, through ‘philosophy’ we can and do learn what things are made up of, how things work, and why things exist.

While we are here, I suggest that no one assume that the Universe and/or Reality can be known or cannot be known. When they discover what the actual Truth is, then, and only then, they will also hold the irrefutable proof.

By the way, what the Universe is made up of, how It works, and why It exists is already known. But, like all realised knowledge, it comes to everyone at different times. So, just because some of you people do not yet know what the answers are, that certainly does not mean that the answers have not yet already been discovered and realised by others.

In both ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’, language is used. In both ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’, the language used is deciphered by the use of words. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, ‘maths’ uses language and words. Although ‘science’ only works on or looks at and delves into only parts of the Universe, ‘philosophy’ looks at and delves into absolutely everything. Either way, the two very easily communicate with each other. That is, of course, only if one wants to. Again, the exact same words can be used in both.

‘Science’ may well only have a small agenda, relative to ‘philosophy’, but ‘philosophy’ has an overarching agenda over not just ‘science’ but 'theology’ as well.

Again, ‘philosophy’ can tell you everything that ‘science’ may well come to understand and know. In fact, because some people follow ‘science’ too much, or only, they come to believe Falsehoods, exactly like people who do ‘theology’ do. If, and when, is basing their views on previous assumptions, and those assumptions have not yet been proved irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then Falsehoods can way too quickly come to the surface.

In ‘philosophy’, however, this can never occur.

Just because you assume and believe things never makes what you are saying here true and right. ‘Science’ and ‘philosophy’ are two very distince different things. However, ‘philosophy’ always arrives at the Truth. If one arrives at a Falsehood, or has not yet arrived at the actual Truth of things, then they were not using the ‘scientific method’ Correctly. And again, if ‘science’ is based upon an assumption, then do not expect the Truth to ever be found. And, if one arrives at a Falsehood, or has not yet arrived at the actual Truth of things, then they are not using the ‘philosophical approach’.

What we have here is another prime example of one just displaying their own personal beliefs and assumptions, which are not based upon any actual proof at all.

What are you Really trying to say and express here?

Do you think that some things that you do and love, some others do not accept, but wish they would just accept?

Why do you believe that there is no final goal nor purpose for ‘morality’, itself?