Why do we need to philosophize and can’t we just observe the world and act ?

Why do we need to philosophize and can’t we just observe the world and act ?

Many people are embarrassed by the idea of ​​having to philosophize. They feel as if they are being asked to adhere to a religion with arbitrary, indisputable, unjustifiable precepts, coming from outside their experience and which are completely useless to them. The complexity of reading philosophers seems to them to prove that these theories are just splitting hairs without ever drawing any concrete advantage from them for the resolution of any problem. They tell themselves that we will never be able to agree with any philosopher and that philosophy, unlike other areas of knowledge, does not advance, never concludes anything and never settles anything. It is therefore a gratuitous and pointless exercise, at least in their eyes. Do we have to read all of Hegel, all of Kant, all of Bergson, all of Kierkegaard, etc., only to end up falling flat on our faces ? Let’s try to show that they are missing the point...

Those who defend this aphilosophical thesis claim that it is enough for them to examine reality directly without appealing to any philosophy. This seems to them sufficient for living, for responding to the problems that arise for them. They claim that they have no presuppositions, no a priori, no philosophy between them and reality.

We will show that all of these people have a philosophy that they follow without realizing it, without discussing it, without even knowing that they are following it and therefore without being able to make it progress.

Yet, without this philosophy, they could not even live. And it is very far from sticking to the facts, to what is proven, to what can be certain. They base their actions, their thoughts, their lives on many other things than established facts. They believe they are free from any a priori philosophy while they follow a philosophy that seems obvious to them and that comes from the heritage of the species, tradition, education, sex, age, social environment, the state of the world, professional activity, etc.

Why couldn’t we do without philosophizing ? Because, for most of the questions we are led to ask ourselves, we cannot have a certain answer, based solely on established, proven, indisputable facts. We are all forced to live according to a philosophy and not certain facts. We leave our homes in the morning thinking that in the evening we will find our home again, but in fact, we are not sure. We have no proof because none exists. But we cannot focus our attention on this risk. We have in mind a plan of the region where we live : the house, the street, the transport, the orientation, the map... We are not certain that this plan will remain valid. But it is absolutely necessary for us to think that we will be able to take each morning the street that leads to our transport, to our work and then back home. If we had to constantly check that everything is in place by going back to see if it has moved, life would become impossible...

We want to be convinced of it, but we actually have no certainty. The only proof is that, day after day, it is the case, but that proves nothing about the future. This is the philosophy of habit. As soon as we establish it, we no longer question it because that would weaken us. It would polarize our brains on questions that would distract us from our daily activities.

It is on this philosophy of habit that we base ourselves to believe that the sun will rise every morning, that life will resume as before after each night, that our loved ones will always be there, that they will recognize us and love us as the day before… We have no proof of this but we need to think it because it would be extremely destabilizing to constantly fear losing our bearings, our loved ones, our self-confidence. The first of these essential thoughts consists of thinking that we will remain the same….
This philosophy that is transmitted to us in our early childhood is that of non-change. Do not say that this is reality but only that it is rare that it is found at fault. But sometimes things change suddenly and nothing that made us habitual no longer works…

There are other unconscious philosophies besides that of habit. There is also that of fear inhibition. Of course, you are like me and you are not afraid, normally. At least, you don’t admit it. Just like me. But let’s agree that life is very, very scary... Even for those who pretend otherwise and insist on convincing themselves that they are not afraid of anything !

We all have a fear mechanism and a fear-inhibition mechanism in our brain. We absolutely need both of these mechanisms to reflect, think, react, feel, and live.

The outside world is no longer that of the virgin forest, of course, and yet it remains very disturbing for human beings because social life is complex and disturbing, and no matter what man does, he feels the need to question everything and also the need to inhibit these questions so as not to be invaded by them. And also because there is no certain and definitive answer to these questions. Those who allow themselves to be invaded by these questions quickly lose their minds... There can be no answer. There is no other way to reassure oneself than the inhibition of fear. Just like the philosophy of habit, the inhibition of fear requires a certain amount of training. Training is not only physical (sport, music) but psychological. Even in athletes and artists, training is first and foremost that of the brain. The brain has a plasticity that allows it to promote neural circuits that have been used a lot.

These philosophies operate automatically after early childhood, so we are no longer aware of them and do not necessarily know that we are employing them.

Human beings worry a lot. They have multiple sources of fear : existential, physical, moral, familial, relational, moral, professional, social, etc. But fundamentally, all these "causes" have nothing to do with it : fear is necessarily inscribed in our brain functioning and can be inhibited but never extinguished. To deny it is only to ignore it.

We need philosophy to overcome the uncertainty of tomorrow. It’s what leads us to plan ahead, to think ahead about what we’re going to do, to prepare for it. But, as is often said, nothing ever happens as planned. And yet, we need to think ahead. This need to plan ahead shows that we’re not satisfied with the facts. We don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but we try to place ourselves in that tomorrow to think about what we’re going to do, to prepare ourselves, to imagine our reactions, those of others, and the various possibilities.

A simple example that shows that people are not satisfied with established facts is that of a person waiting for a friend who does not come after a long wait. We do not know why he does not arrive and we have no way of knowing. However, we run through a series of possible explanations in our minds : a delay due to transport, a misunderstanding of the meeting, an anger...

We live by our assumptions, not just by facts…

Philosophy exists to fill the many inevitable gaps in our knowledge of the present, the past, and the future. Filling the gaps is the philosophy of the continuous. The philosophies of continuous time, continuous space, continuous evolution, continuous causality, and continuous history are assumptions we employ constantly, which we question with difficulty, and of which we are not directly aware. Like the philosophy of habit, of non-change, and of the inhibition of fear, these are automatisms acquired in early childhood and which operate without spontaneous questioning by consciousness. The whole of these unquestioned assumptions is called "common sense." And most people believe they cannot be re-discussed...

The philosophy of the continuous is no more the result of experience alone than the previous ones. Far from continuity, the universe is based on mechanisms of leaps, jumps, revolution. It is enough to observe nature, life, man or society to see it : brutal changes in very short time intervals of transformation relative to the characteristic durations of the phenomenon itself. In a very short time, a society tips into war, a volcano becomes active, a disease breaks out, a milestone is felt, a continental plate begins to move, a cloud forms or dissociates, water begins to boil or vaporize. The philosophy that stems from observation is by no means obvious and it is even less clear that it leads to the notion of continuity. If this is the most frequent among various authors, as among most people, it is because it is an unconscious a priori in adult man.

We believe that time is continuous, that space is continuous, that life is a continuum, that history is continuous.

Yet, science shows us exactly the opposite. The history of societies leads, for example, to shocks, to ruptures, often followed by real voids. It is by a priori that we then construct an evolution by taking continuity as a basis. We connect the peaks of what has been acquired to make it a progression. For example, we call evolution the sequence of evolved, differentiated, completely separate species, without interbreeding, whereas the transformation undoubtedly occurred from species that were not entirely evolved, still interdependent, inter-breeding.
Human civilizations seem to us to be a continuous line because we connect their peaks with a continuous line that exists only in our minds. In fact, it is not the same men, the same regions, the same human societies that produced these societies that did not follow one another without interruption but on the contrary with remarkable ruptures and that it would be essential precisely to note and explain !

The world does not evolve continuously at all. It stagnates and then, suddenly, it advances abruptly with an enormous leap. This is how the states of matter are transformed. This is how morals evolve, jumping from one mode to another, by generations. This is how the major stages of the Earth’s climate change. This is how emerging structures are formed and destroyed, etc., etc.

Let us take another example of a priori philosophy, generally used, never discussed or questioned : the philosophy of "I".

"I" is a free being, who acts according to his will, who chooses for himself, who discusses internally and alone, then achieves what he wanted through his own consciousness of being an individual, this is what this spontaneous or acquired philosophy tells us, the one that guides us in our time.

However, the reality is that man is collective, social, historical, depends on the mode of production, institutions, customs, traditions, written and unwritten laws, etc.

"I" is not a mere product of his own will. "I" did not even decide for himself what kind of human he could become, how he could live, for what purpose, with what objectives.

This does not prevent each of us from constantly seeking to satisfy a "personal goal" that he has set for himself in life and that he believes he has produced by himself without being influenced by the era, the environment, the past of society, its history, its origins... In fact, influences encountered by chance, family, education, the era, society have been determining factors in these choices but we are not necessarily aware of them.

Our "I" claims not to depend on animal determinism, not to obey instincts (when at most it only inhibits them), not to be heir to the evolution of the species, not to obey historical determinism, not to have choices, judgments, tastes, orientations defined by the historical transformation of human society, not to have social determinism, in short not to depend on all the battles that are fought within the brain as within society.

It is the philosophy of the positive that rejects that of internal struggle. According to the latter, our action is always carried out according to a goal that we have predefined, and therefore positively. And to understand the rest of the world, we pursue this image of the positive. We ask for what purpose did nature equip animals with wings and we answer : to fly.

The "positive goal" is a conception of the world which claims to explain everything that happens by transforming it into a "cause and effect" relationship, by pretending that every action is the product of a will or an objective to be achieved.

Here again, common sense tends towards this positive philosophy which states that, if something happens, it is the intended result. Far from what we observe in the reality of the world, it is a philosophy which maintains that there always exists a power which is above and has the upper hand over reality. We can see in it the philosophy of a humanity dominated by its dependence on nature and then its dependence on social forces which surpass it and on a social system which chains it, including ideologically.

Our positive philosophy is also an unconscious, undiscussed tendency that seems obvious to most people and is an integral part of what we call "common sense."

By citing all these philosophies that we apply daily without necessarily being aware of it, we wanted to show that those who believe they can do without philosophy are content to philosophize unconsciously without questioning the validity of these philosophies that are not discussed, not wanted, not verified, not confronted with reality.

Conversely, to philosophize is to question all these unconscious philosophies, to discuss them, to criticize them, to confront them with life, with observation, with the past.

However, for a large number of authors, as well as for people who do not claim to be thinkers, all these philosophical lucubrations are a waste of time and only lead to a dead end. They believe that practical, scientific, technical, economic, social, and political action has done more good than all these endless philosophical discussions. Many scientists, economists, and politicians claim not to have a philosophy. And this conception is particularly fashionable these days, without those who claim to be aware that they are thus linked to the particular situation of today’s ruling class, a class that is losing its footing. They assert that it would be to abandon reality to endlessly discuss unverifiable, unprovable propositions without any real foundation.

But is there a way to discuss reality, to question it, to draw lessons from it without concepts, without reasoning, without a method of describing processes, in short, without philosophy ?

Didn’t the quantum physicist Heisenberg explain that a physics experiment itself was not just a technical tool but first and foremost a way of questioning reality with presuppositions, concepts, parameters and relationships between them, which indicate what must be measured and why. He thus contradicted the belief in the objectivity of scientific observation and reminded us that science itself was a human activity requiring a philosophy. We only observe according to this philosophy and the advancement of understanding the world is a contradictory struggle between theoretical and practical advances, each advancing the other through incessant questioning.

But, you might say, is it not idealism (and therefore anti-Marxism) to consider that our thinking is not content to observe reality ?

No, not at all. Idealism consists in the assertion that the idea dominates the material world. One can have a conception completely attached to observation and develop an idealistic conception by affirming that what one has found would be reality itself when it is only a human thought about reality.

Materialism consists of the affirmation of an objective reality that does not exist only in the eye of the observer and of the necessity of seeking this objective reality by our limited and subjective human means. Idealism, on the contrary, affirms that the idea creates reality.

Religion is an example of idealistic thinking, but it is not the only one. The most common conception of science, including among scientists themselves, is today frequently of the idealistic type, even when scientists believe themselves to be materialists because they claim to limit themselves to describing experiments. Indeed, the belief in definitive, absolute, indisputable results of science assumes that we access reality itself through scientific thought and makes it an objective and not human thought. This leads to a conception in which scientific thought would dominate reality, an idealism therefore. Hence the notion of a law that nature would apply… In this sense, this conception that we believe to be scientific has often replaced religious belief. We would be dominated by this scientific fatality in the same way that we were formerly dominated by religious ideology, both indisputable. These followers of science "as sure as one and one make two" do not even realize the idealistic character of their purely mathematical and indisputable science.

On the contrary, scientific activity is based on human thought, subject to discussion, constantly questioned and permanently confronted with new experiments and discussions. It therefore requires, in the physical, chemical, biological, development, ecology, etc. fields, to publicly and contradictorily discuss the underlying philosophy, to make it criticizable, amendable, to allow oneself to deny it, to fight it and to contradict it in order to make it progress. Most often, scientists themselves consider on the contrary that science is presented as knowledge that is imposed without discussion, neither by scientists nor by the public. To realize this, one only has to see the reactions to the criticisms of the proponents of ropes, global warming and nuclear power to see that we are far from it.

For science, nothing is definitively certain.

It is not even certain that matter as we conceive it on our scale has a real existence and it is possible that the reality of the material world comes from a much more fleeting matter, composed of matter and antimatter not evolving in space and time as we conceive it, but in a discontinuous quantum vacuum.

This means that the foundations of materialism are still under discussion and not definitively settled.

The philosophy that emerges from quantum physics is opposed to the philosophy of common sense. It is discontinuous (quantum), contradictory (duality), does not obey formal logic (the whole is not the sum of its parts), non-local, non-linear, and is based on sudden change, on leaps, on jumps, on hierarchical levels of organization of matter.

The dialectical philosophy that is necessary for the scientific study of matter, life, man and society is indeed dialectical philosophy and this is counter-intuitive, that is to say not spontaneous, not favored by the social influence of the present world.

The discussion on philosophy is all the more necessary to understand the world and transform it...
The only way to detach ourselves, even a little, from our determinisms is to be aware of them.

It is therefore appropriate to break with the conception of the pragmatists, the pseudo-realists, of all the a-philosophers who claim that practical action does not need to rethink the world.

Far from the continuous, linear and positive conceptions we need to find a conception of the dialectic of opposites that coexist between the various scales, a discontinuous conception of space-time-matter constructed by the void, a conception of the emergence of structure that mixes order and disorder, a conception of History that mixes past and present, real and virtual, that intertwines the potential and the actual, etc.

This philosophy cannot be the product of philosophers alone, but of all those who need to think about the universe in order to act in it.

To refuse philosophical change is in fact to refuse the advancement of scientific knowledge because to change philosophy in connection with the most recent developments in science, for the scientific understanding of the world, is to make a leap….

We must rethink the struggle between materialism and idealism, between metaphysics and dialectics, between continuism and discontinuism, between order and disorder, between emergence and pre-existence, between holism and reductionism, between formal logic and dialectical logic, etc.

There is work to be done for those who do not consider that everything has been said and that they just need to get busy putting it into practice.

The world remains to be thought about, as much as it remains to be transformed.

Too bad for the pessimists who are the victims of the ideology of a ruling class that has given up studying the world because, quite rightly, it no longer believes in its own historical future.

What is philosophy and why is it essential in science ?

Friedrich Hegel :

"The name philosophy has been given to all that knowledge which has dealt with the knowledge of fixed measure and the universal in the ocean of empirical singularities."

The search for "what is universal within empirical singularities" is a definition of a problem that poses another problem...

Empiricism does indeed observe singularities. Two objects are always distinguishable. Two situations are never identical. An experiment cannot be repeated exactly. Those who seek laws want to emphasize that universal properties appear despite these singularities… This is science, but it is also philosophy. Indeed, we never have proof that it is the correct interpretation and it is rarely demonstrated that it is the only one. It is generally only “one” description, an interpretation that works. It may be consistent with the rest of what we think and believe we know and that is already not so bad…

But, let us repeat, this is philosophy...

Oh well, say some authors, then it is no longer science since what interests them in science are only the practical, technological repercussions : read here

Some people say that "Science is just facts" : let’s see what it is.

But many scientists are aware that they cannot do without thinking, without philosophizing : see here

In science, we must even think in a new, even revolutionary way : read here

But "What is revolutionary thought ?" we will be asked. We answer here

For example, how is Hegel’s dialectic revolutionary ? Read here

But is Hegel’s old German philosophy compatible with today’s brand-new science ? Here’s what we think.

"Is this dialectic really indispensable to science ?" ask the skeptics again...
The dialecticians of science respond : "Dialectics is life. To think about the world without the dynamics of contradictions is death..." : Read here

Does science dispense with theorizing and limit itself to observing facts, as the empiricists claim ?

Some people think it’s physics to say that matter is made of atoms, but it’s also philosophy...

"Should we really talk about the dialectic of matter ?" they ask us.

They also believe that it is physics to say that energy is also discontinuous like matter, but that is philosophy... Read here

Just as any discussion on the Big Bang, on elementary particles, on the wave/corpuscle duality, on the quantum vacuum, on time in physics, on entropy and so on is philosophical, and so are questions of science which are in fact philosophical problems...

To say this is not to say that one can think whatever one wants, that it is just a matter of opinion and everyone has their own. No, most often in the philosophy of science, the progress of knowledge leads to the necessity, for any scientific theory, to respond to increasingly restrictive constraints, to the point that the progress of Physics leads to fewer and fewer interpretations, of valid hypotheses, so much so that the difficulties of the constraints pose to the makers of hypotheses almost insurmountable difficulties.

Guessing how nature works is becoming increasingly difficult. The simplest processes have been guessed. The most astonishing and complex processes remain, and they resist the effort of human understanding.

Many philosophers and scientists are convinced that what science lacks are only new experiments and observations, and new mathematical equations. They are wrong : more often than not, what is lacking are adequate philosophical concepts and… ideas. Yes, scientists are often short of ideas because they lack the foundations for philosophical study, and the search for new ideas is a philosophical question, not just a scientific one. It requires imagination, because science is a vast work of guesswork.

Einstein, theoretically and philosophically, guessed far more ideas than he demonstrated, than he proved by designing experiments, than he justified the results.

What allows a theorist to guess is philosophical.

Philosophical choices may prove effective, legitimate, justified, but they are not definitive, assured, or indisputable.

For example, there may still be people who believe that one day we will question Einstein’s Relativity, Bohr’s Quantum and even the photon or the electron !!!

Nothing prevents Science from fundamentally changing its mind, and it has done so enough times so that such a possibility cannot be excluded...

Thus, in our M and R site, we defend philosophical points of view in science : point of view of discontinuity, point of view of deterministic chaos, point of view of leaps in nature, dialectical point of view, non-reductionist point of view, emergentist point of view, non-linear point of view, a set of points of view which are interconnected and give an overall vision of the natural functioning. However effective this point of view may appear, in its capacity to describe what we observe, there is nothing to prove that this overall vision will not one day be radically transformed. It is only a philosophy…

Hegel writes : "Only the concept can produce the universality of knowledge."

But perhaps the science of matter does not require universality and that it is only Hegel’s philosophical and dialectical choice that necessitates it ?

In "Do Atoms Exist", physicist Bernard Diu explains :

"It is crucial to understand from the outset that physical theory aims at universality."

And a little further on, he adds :

"Physical theory constantly obeys this tendency which pushes it towards universality, that is to say, to encompass ever more facts in ever more general statements. One can even say that it is condemned to achieve this, under penalty of being rejected as illegitimate."

The philosophical question of the universality of science goes far beyond the question of religions and metaphysical conceptions. In science, the process of verifying whether a remark made in a given area of ​​study could not be generalized to others, and of pushing each of these attempts to the limit, has repeatedly yielded important results. From this were born the wave and corpuscular conceptions, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, the quanta of matter and light of Planck and Einstein, as well as the de Broglie waves of matter. Parallels or globalizations of apparently dissimilar phenomena have allowed the generalization of methods of analysis, concepts, types of laws and means of treatment. Many fundamental advances in knowledge are based on these non-obvious generalizations, such as the use of the concepts of "matter" (assuming that the various natural bodies have the same basis and that the sky contains the same matter as on earth), of "radiation" (admitting that light, electric waves, magnetic waves and radio waves are of the same nature), of vaccine (assuming that the vaccination applied against rabies could be applied against other completely different diseases), or of "living" (affirming that we obey laws common to worms, trees, microbes and bacteria). The terms species, molecule, man are part of these generalizations, these abstractions, these conceptualizations which have opened a field of discoveries. These scientific revolutions were not at all obvious. To say that the nerve, the muscle and the blood are all made up of something common, the cell, was very difficult to accept. How astonishing it is that the DNA molecule is the same for all these types of cells. It was not easy to conceive that copper and hydrogen had the same types of components, the atom, or that all types of atoms were composed of the same electrons, protons, and neutrons. All of this is, of course, based on facts. But, at the same time, these abstractions require a philosophy, rely on it. It is a philosophical choice to speak of "man" and to isolate this category abstractly from the rest, from nature, itself an abstract category. We cannot do without these abstractions, but we must be aware of the philosophical choices we make. Through the concept, we connect, oppose, or isolate facts, objects, phenomena. The concept "matter" can isolate the concept "life" and "inert" from "living." However, the isolation of opposites is not absolute. It can be contradicted.

Recent advances in science have brought to light new universal concepts, those of change and dynamics, just as a previous era had introduced those of movement : energy, trajectory, dimension of space, speed, periodicity and stability, concepts which had also been used in various fields. Let the non-specialist not panic about these sometimes unknown terminologies, we cite some of the new universal concepts of science, such as "bifurcation", "quantization", "transition", "feedback", "diffusion", "punctuation", "percolation", "dissipative structure of non-equilibrium", "emergence", "nonlinear dynamics", "strange attractor", "scale interaction", "quantum jump", "order by fluctuations", "resonance", "renormalization", "negentropy", "bifurcation", "sensitivity to initial conditions", "inhibition of inhibition", "unstable punctuated equilibrium", "tree history", "order-disorder and construction-destruction cycles", "symmetry breaking", "regulation by positive and negative feedbacks", "spontaneous structuring of loop iterations", "fractals", "interactive rhythms", "self-organized criticality", "spontaneous structuring of cascade feedbacks" or even "deterministic chaos". These concepts, which we will explain as we go along, are far from being confined to the field in which they were discovered, but have a broad scope and allow us to develop numerous parallels between very diverse fields. They have the same universal character as the concepts of atom, particle, cell, and light photon, but they have a character that differentiates them from the old concepts. They describe processes, not objects.

Stephen Jay Gould writes in "The Structure of the Theory of Evolution" :

"Principles are outside of science. They participate in science, because they help to construct the theory. They are part of a philosophy of nature. To clarify the point, we will highlight seven of them :

• The world is intelligible ; it must be able to be described according to the requirements of mathematical formalization and according to a requirement of scientificity. This presupposes that we write general and universal laws. There can therefore be no pure chance - even if elementary phenomena can be random. The mathematical language of statistics is therefore suitable for representing phenomena recognized as random at the elementary level.

• The requirement of scientificity implies the self-sufficiency of the laws of nature in rational explanation. Science cannot recognize an external intervention that breaks with the natural course of transformations and energy exchanges.

• Intelligibility presupposes the universality of the laws and rules that govern the phenomena of nature. Past events must therefore be analyzed in terms of the laws established today and verified in present experiments. What happens in laboratories can be used to understand what happened millions of years ago or even outside the solar system.

• The universality of the laws that govern the universe means that the vital phenomenon is not only a matter of biology, but also of knowledge that relates to all natural phenomena - cosmic, quantum or sociological. A holistic point of view can be envisaged by placing the general history of living things in the broader history of the biosphere and even beyond in the solar system and even cosmogenesis.

• The diversity of living life forms is not irreducible. Living things must be studied by seeking a general explanation. This must place them in continuity with each other. This continuity is done according to a tree structure where beings differentiate themselves from a common ancestor, in a history of transformations.

• Human beings must not be excluded from scientific observation and explanation. The study of humanity falls within the competence of the biologist.

• The theory of evolution does not simply classify facts from the past. It proposes predictive research. The drawing of tree structures leaves gaps ; but research is oriented towards their exploration for which it is legitimate to propose hypotheses. This principle is constantly validated by both paleontological and genetic discoveries." (end of Gould’s quote)

We can conclude that the search for universality is a necessity in science but is already a philosophy.

And it has allowed great advances : unification of electrical, static and dynamic phenomena, unification of electricity and magnetism, unification of electromagnetism and light radiation, unification of electromagnetic and nuclear forces, etc.

Unification is a constant process in science, with notable successes such as those of Newton, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Einstein and so on...

However, the unifying conception in science is not self-evident and is the product of a philosophical conception called monism, while dualism is still common in our modern societies, among scientists and philosophers, and in common opinion. We defend here the point of view according to which there is only one world : read here

But dualism, or dichotomous views, is common, especially within Cartesianism or religious views : see here

There are therefore indeed needs for philosophical conceptions in science : see here

What questions does science pose to philosophy ?

Albert Einstein replied that it was not only this or that question but any important progress in science required asking the question of the philosophy of the world : read here

We must not only ask ourselves how man should philosophize about nature, but also and above all what philosophy is practiced by nature !!! For example, here is this way of proceeding in Hegel : read here

Of course, many authors are startled when they hear this type of statement : for them, it is simply animism : nature does not think and philosophy is only human thought, they say. Curiously, the same people believe that science is not only human thought !!!

Others ask, "Why do we need to philosophize and can’t we just observe the world and act ?" Read here

Still others ask : "In our scientific world, does Philosophy still have many questions to ask ?!!" Read here

Or again, "Can science do without ontology today ?" : read here

"We are now supposed to know more about how matter works and we should do without any ideological conceptions about it ?" say others...

In reality, there are worlds left to discover.

Physics still has many fundamental questions that it has not resolved : See here

Let’s take quantum physics, for example, one of the most recent advances in science. It has first and foremost posed philosophical problems : see here

Why does quantum physics pose so many philosophical problems for us ?

And she still poses…
Read here

"Philosophy or Science, everyone must choose the theme of their study and not confuse everything," say others. But we emphasize that Science and Philosophy are in a contradictory unity : see here

What philosophy of science can meet our needs ? Read here

But is this role of philosophy not already occupied, in science, by mathematics ?

For our part, we don’t think so.