ArOnIL

Science seeks to know more and more about less and less until it knows everything about nothing.

Philosophy seeks to know less and less about more and more until it knows nothing about everything.

How many of you can agree with these...statements? Or just this line for that matter?

I buy the first one, in where science is meant to find out more about something, until all has become revealed. But where philosophy seeks to know less about more? I feel it contradicts.

First let us understand what is philosophy. A combination of two greek words. Philo means love and sophia means wisdom. Hence you get philosophy = the love of wisdom. The meaning base on www.dictionary.com = "The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics; Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

To not get to studious here. Already it explains that philosophy is the 'investigation' of the subjects stated above, then how can it be considered to be knowing less and less. If one loves wisdom, how can they seek to know less as compared to knowing more. In other words i don't agree with the statement on philosophy, stating in the end they know nothing about everything.

Maybe if one were to make the statement "That person has his own philosophy", and if that philosophy to begin with is rather premature and nothing, then yes you can say that philosophy for 'that' person is redundant and he knows nuts about anything. Ok so fine maybe my opinion here is rather shallow.. feel free to sue me.

Philosophy is considered to be the irrational and science the rational, because it claims to be objective since they do not involve theology or the mercy feelings for the perceiver. Does tha tmean we think therefore we are considered to be irrational? If anything, we think and therefore we become logical and rational because it involves everything, from facts to the human feelings. Science however diregards human faith, emtion and thought, so actually they are not really objective either..just int he discoure of science they are considered to be. They've put up a barrier that goes "Ok that is theological, we won't have that kinda talk while we do our rational and serious research." Philosphers questions and answers base on their surroundings and the relationships around them. Science is more of an empirical structure.

My whole point? Well i don't know .. maybe it's because i'm thinking less and less now on more and more of the subject therefore, i have come up with no point.

I'll say this. Science may fail when there is no one to think up of the theory,philosophy will fail when no one continues thinking of the theory. Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind.