2008-2-PHI130.Week01
Discussion
- What separates western thinking (as evidenced in its style of philosophy and science) from other ways of looking at the world (say, mythical and religious)?**
Expressions of science and myth are by necessity coded in some system of symbols, typically writing. In this regard they are similar. They are also similar in so far as they lay claim to knowledge of what is, or must therefore be, true; they are similar in that they seek to satisfy the question "Why?", by acquiescing to the question's implicit demand for an account of distinction and causation; they each engage in a process of distinction or objectification by their use of language in the service of communication; and they each invoke particular notions as intuitive conceptions that they then hold in relation and posit as a description for the state or nature of the universe.
As a consequence of their use of language as a serialisation or coding mechanism their expressions each gain durability and the prospect of becoming intergenerational cultural artefacts. They are both subject to a process of interpretation in order to have any effect in the world, and they typically carry some implication concerning suitable behaviour of an intelligent being who has understood their message. Certainly each could be understood as functioning in a political realm as rhetoric in a discourse of power.
As I understand it the word "reason" is typically used to differentiate science from myth, so the question "What is reason?" might very well be synonymous with the question asked. I would say that reason is a process wherein things which are held to be true can give rise to derived truths through some system of implications. On this view of reason, however, both myth and science could be considered equally reasonable. Perhaps then, in the context of reason, Western thought will champion 'doubt', while myth or religion will champion 'faith'. There is a constraint on the scope of science that myth is not subject to, for science has no ability to make claims it can not test. Perhaps the difference is that science will seek utility in physicality, whereas myth will seek utility in society, culture and the mind.
Scientific thought and its conclusions have a greater level of transience than those of myth or religion. Whereas myths are stories that are ostensibly immutable from the point of their first utterance, science is a process of uncovering what "seems to be true", on knowledge, and as knowledge grows its descriptions mutate. Perhaps the distinction lies in science's possibility of invalidation.
Or, perhaps the question is nonsense. Perhaps there is no way to compress what is considered science or what is considered myth. Perhaps the essential property is not intrinsic to the subject matter, but simply another result of the arbitrary judgements of people with a penchant for classification.