Share
Explore BrainMass

Analyzing viewpoints influenced by philosophy

Many of us have strong viewpoints that are influenced by philosophy, often without realizing it.

What is your take either on politics, religion, science, culture, or even the media and entertainment—that might be observed as being associated to philosophy. What are your reasons for that belief? Do you have a specific philosophy figure that might have the same views which are similar or relevant to yours? If so explain? I am trying to understand how all this intertwines with today and past issues.

Solution Preview

Hello,

Thank you for asking BrainMass! What I did here is throw out a bunch of ideas that you can make coherent. It is largely about modern science and its assumptions. I used some of the arguments against nominalism, which is at the root of modern science. Since you really left this totally open, I went with a more abstract approach that you can make more concrete. Please view the attached document for the solution.

What is your take either on politics, religion, science, culture, or even the media and entertainment—that might be observed as being associated with philosophy. What are your reasons for that belief? Do you have a specific philosophy figure that might have the same views which are similar or relevant to yours? If so explain?

Let me throw out some ideas on all of this. You can then put it together into a coherent response.

Philosophy of (Modern) Science

Nominalism: the belief that only individual things exist. There are no universal entities such as "good" or "truth." All is based on how human beings (really, the elite) have sought to organize our world for us.

Nominalism is the death of art, culture, and truth. It says that there are no intrinsic connections among people, natural objects, or the cosmos as a whole. All is accidental and hence, meaningless. All that remains are cause and effect for no reason or final purpose.

Yet, what is an individual? Is it an object like a tree? Well, the tree might be considered a single thing, but we all know it's not. It has chemical, genetic, molecular and physical (visible) parts. Why take the tree rather than the branch? Why separate the tree from the soil that surrounds it, or the ecosystem that holds the whole system of nutrients the flow of energy together? Hence, there are no individuals, there are no "species" except as empty constructs that connect to nothing real. There are culturally defined objects that are arbitrarily taken out of their environment.

So what is the truth of the matter? Is not the very existence of an ecosystem a rejection of nominalism? The system as a whole is the only thing we can call an individual.Yet, nominalism remains the standard "default" concept of reality ...

Solution Summary

The following posting helps analyze viewpoints influenced by philosophy.

$2.19