什么是自然哲学?Philosophy of science? 我不记得国外这里的哲学系有这个分支,倒是有这方面的课。不过那是十几年前了。英美哲学本身就偏重分析哲学。根据你说的背景和爱好,也可以考虑逻辑学,philosophy of mind这类最后和neuroscience也会有很多overlap的方向。如果你从硕士开始,并不需要马上决定什么方向。不过比起读个学位,先阅读吧,看看是不是真的感兴趣。毕竟英文阅读、写作和输出的量很大;而且很可能还要至少再掌握一门外语。 PS:哲学的思维严谨不亚于理科。我觉得把哲学简单等同一般意义上的文科是对哲学很深的误解。
培根说过,哲学使人深刻。来到这个世界上,我们每个人就这么一次机会,一趟无法回头的旅程,就走这么一遭。吃喝玩乐得得再多也都是肤浅的。没有深刻过的人生其实很没劲的。相信自己的选择。 附培根名言:Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend.
培根说过,哲学使人深刻。来到这个世界上,我们每个人就这么一次机会,一趟无法回头的旅程,就走这么一遭。吃喝玩乐得得再多也都是肤浅的。没有深刻过的人生其实很没劲的。相信自己的选择。 附培根名言:Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend. shellfly 发表于 2021-04-08 23:09
回复 22楼sorasky的帖子 Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved.[2] To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature. UQ
<「為什麼該現象會發生?」> Q 81. Why 23.5 degrees? https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ4.htm#q69 ... But you wanted to know WHY. That I do not know, but can hazard a guess. All planets (except for Pluto, the runt) seem to orbit pretty much in the same plane (the plane of the ecliptic is a convenient reference plane for the others), in the same direction (counter-clockwise when seen from north), and the planets usually spin in the same sense, as does the Sun. Astronomers see that as evidence that all these objects started as a cloud of gas and dust, swirling in that direction, and conservation of angular momentum ensured that whatever they produced would swirl in the same direction. ... UQ
谢谢🙏
我是学物理的,也认真看过一些自然哲学和美学的东西。不是完全的心血来潮。
如果能够保证家庭经济和时间上的付出,挺好的呀。
我觉得哲学越深入越黑暗,压抑,尤其是德系。 建议先看看哲学书,论文。看自己能hold得住不。
哲学还是有老师领着最好,不然很容易就走上民科的道路了。 那些阴谋论,就是半吊子哲学。
当然前提是有悟性,有兴趣,对我来说这就是终生爱好,我也有同学无法get它的精妙,不是什么人都适合学哲学。
如果经济无忧,就去读吧。
这个世界,所有的科学,宗教,最后都跟哲学殊途同归,探讨的最终命题是相通的。
附培根名言:Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend.
“不亚于”。。 我不厚道地笑了。。哲学家去做科学研究绰绰有余好吗,反过来就很不一定了。
“文科”本身就被常人误解。理科sciences 学的是手段 (means),文科humanities 学的是目的 (ends), 你看哪个更深刻。当然学不学得好是另一回事。
来德国读吧
大学免费, 随便读
读 100 年也可以!!
没读过,政治哲学不是太感兴趣
是啊,有什么要求?必须要学德语吗?免费很吸引人
是的,中学时代最佩服的是磨镜片过活的斯宾若沙,简单质朴的生活才是我的向往,可在滚滚物质大潮中早已迷失了自己。我是不是装b?我想要一种在哲学思考的自我欢喜中过活,和喧嚣的世界有一个距离。
Q In his In Praise of Natural Philosophy: A Revolution for Thought and Life (2017), Nicholas Maxwell argues that we need to reform philosophy and put science and philosophy back together again to create a modern version of natural philosophy. UQ
Q Exploring our understanding of Nature, as well as the power and limits of modern science, in the light of human experience and rational inquiry
http://www.isnature.org/
我有个亲戚在国内的时候是哲学系教授,出了国拿了个哲学系博士,然后立即就转IT了,还很后悔没有早点转。
你这个IT转哲学必须是真爱吧,如果没有老婆孩子要养活,就转吧。
德语的 DSH 考试 或者 TestDaf 考试.
类似英语四级考试.
类比错误。 我没去问莫扎特,我问普通网友; 我没想create something, 我只想learn and know something with mentor's guide. 我也知道,我没兴趣和不可能成为Mozart。 呵呵
Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved.[2] To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature. UQ
当头一盆冷水。 的确,这也是我这种平凡无太高智商的普通人的担心,我努力想看到光明,最终还是在黑暗里耕耘的蚯蚓,估计也会失望,绝望到想死吧,虽然现在觉得只想享受学习快乐,哈哈哈
而且我不赞同33楼觉得学习哲学没法在前人的思想上有创新建树就是浪费时间,没必要太功利。不然很多人学个画画或者弹琴自娱自乐,当不成毕加索贝多芬就是白做吗。
我年纪大了一些之后,也觉得心灵的平静最最难得。哲学应该是比较系统化可以追寻人生答案/意义的一条途径。
http://www.isnature.org/articles.htm
The Questions Science Cannot Answer by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D. https://radicalacademy.org/adlersciencequestions.html
建议你在网上找一些课。这种资源应该很多。旁边有大学的,可以上个课之类的。上个学位就不比了,太繁琐,会磨灭学习的乐趣。
我自己对商业和医🈶️兴趣,一直在网上修网课。读的比较开心。
我一直觉得, 现在得时代, 如果 不懂相对论和量子力学, 说自己是哲学家得, 都是扯淡。
读博士吗,不知道GRE 还要不要重考。。。旁听几门课倒是不错
强RE!👍 当成个兴趣爱好去学学,挺好的。但哲学这东西,贫穷会限制想象力,自身的认知能力更会限制学习的深度。最后在五斗米的贫乏中思考人生的意义,在对车房钱等等实际物质的渴望中发现哲学给自己立的牌坊轰然倒地,意识到自己最终也不过就是一市井之人,除了可以侃侃而谈一些高深的概念,真正的探索之路没走出一英里远,那真是痛苦无比的一件事。
人生就这么长
想做的事情一定要去做
否则会后悔
你可以兼职读
The story of civilization 也是史诗恢弘的巨作。Will Durant真的太牛了。
https://www.thestandnews.com/philosophy/ 當代科學哲學的新發展/
結論
二十一世紀的科學哲學,不管在科學的知識論、方法論和形上學各方面,都對立於二十世紀科哲的主流觀念,甚至挑戰了一般的哲學知識論、方法論和形上學。當代科學產生的主要是「模型的知識」,模型不是命題性的信念,它既不真也不假,那麼,傳統知識論的「知識是證成真信念」的定義還能成立嗎?當代科學研究的不只是大自然的現象,還包括實驗室創造出來的(人工)現象,因此所謂「現象」也不是純感覺的或純觀察的,我們對現象的經驗也不全然是被動的。傳統經驗主義的方法論是否應該要修正了?最後,科學尋找的世界根源或最終原因可能不是所謂的基本定律,而是機制,機制比定律有更普遍的適用性。然而,機制的形上學意義是什麼?這是方興未艾的新議程。
UQ
Q 81. Why 23.5 degrees?
https://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ4.htm#q69
... But you wanted to know WHY. That I do not know, but can hazard a guess. All planets (except for Pluto, the runt) seem to orbit pretty much in the same plane (the plane of the ecliptic is a convenient reference plane for the others), in the same direction (counter-clockwise when seen from north), and the planets usually spin in the same sense, as does the Sun. Astronomers see that as evidence that all these objects started as a cloud of gas and dust, swirling in that direction, and conservation of angular momentum ensured that whatever they produced would swirl in the same direction. ... UQ