/lit/ - Literature

>>17244248
no, but it's very interesting.

Philosophy should always be close to natural philosophy (i.e. "science"). The idea that they are seperate domains is a very modern meme. Aristotles Physics was his longest work and attracted the most commentary. The problem is knowledge has expanded beyond the capacity of a single man to synthesise and forced us into rabbit holes of specialised domains, or doom us to be limp dilettantes.

>>17245468
It certainly is. I haven't reached the chapters on Kant and modern physics, but so far I've gotten a new appreciation for Descartes, Leibniz, and Locke.
>>17245566
Very true. When I was taught basic physics in school it was obvious that the pedagogues had done their best to remove as much philosophy as possible, so that only formulas and plug and chug calculations had remained, even though there seems to be philosophical impetus or background for many important discoveries of physics. This flawed approach to education probably explains the behavior of those stemlords who arrogantly claim "philosophy is dead".

Have you read E.A. Burtt?

>>17245950
Not really. Do you recommend?

>>17244248
I'm working through phofsci basics then going into phofbio but I have a good causation theory but I haven't studied the survey yet

bump

>>17244248

so what new insights did you gather from this, share with us anon.

>>17245566

mandatory post

>>17247327
>Why are nobel prize winners smarter than popsci writers?