Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T13:52:28.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Philosophy between Science and the Humanities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Young Ahn Kang
Young Ahn Kang*
Affiliation:
Sogang University, Seoul
*
Young Ahn Kang, Department of Philosophy, Sogang University, 1 Sinsu-dong, Mapo-gu Seoul 121-742, South Korea Email: yakang@sogang.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We hear frequently about the crisis of the humanities. The crisis of the humanities we experience nowadays is due to the economic logic of the capitalist system that everything is evalu-ated according to economic and social utility. Deeper reason for the crisis could be found in modern and contemporary humanities which lost their ideal of cultivating humanity for better life by nourishing human heart and mind. Philosophy confronts the same crisis by becoming a science, or the science providing ground for other sciences, and stopping to ask and reflect on the meaning of life. Other extreme is to make philosophy just a writing. At this point Kant is invited to suggest the way for philosophy between science and writing. Philosophy has at least three necessary conditions: human’s thinking ability (arguments and counterarguments), the practice of this talent on available texts, and a vast field of concrete life. Philosophy is not merely a science, a doctrine and not merely an edifying discourse, but also and primarily a way of life to control one’s passion, to rectify one’s heart and mind and to reflect on the meaning of life.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 58 , Issue 1-2: The Humanities Today , May 2011 , pp. 88 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Burms, A, de Dijn, H (1986) De rationaliteit en haar grenzen. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Cavell, S (1984) Themes out of School. San Francisco: North Point Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R (1978) Oeuvres de Descartes, IX-2, ed. Adam, C, Tannery, P. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Descartes, R (1998) “Discourse on Method”, in R Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Cress, D A. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hadot, P (1995) Philosophy as a Way of Life, ed. Davidson, A I, tr. Chase, M. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hadot, P (2002) What is Ancient Philosophy? trans. M Chase. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M (1954) Was heisst Denken. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M (1955) Gelassenheit. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M (1956) Was ist das – die Philosophie? Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1969) “Das Ende der Philosophie und die Aufgabe des Denkens”, in M Heidegger, Zur Sache des Denkens, pp. 61–80. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Husserl, E (1962) Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Husserl, E (1965) Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft. Frankfurt a. Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
IJsseling, S (1976) Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.Google Scholar
IJsseling, S (1982) “Heidegger and the Destruction of Ontology”, Man and World 15(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IJsseling, S (1988) “Das Ende der Philosophie als Anfang des Denkens”, in Volpi, F (ed.) Heidegger et l’Idée de la phénoménologie, pp. 285–299. The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jaeger, W (1969) Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. London: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Kang, Y A (1985) Schema and Symbol: A Study on Kant's Doctrine of Schematism. Amsterdam: Free UP.Google Scholar
Kant, I (1996) Critique of Pure Reason, tr. Pluhar, W S. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, I (2002) “Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics”, in I Kant, Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Lao Tzu, (1963) Tao Te Ching, trans. and introd. Lau, D C. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J-F (1979) La condition postmoderne. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Nagel, T (1979) The Mortal Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Nozick, R (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Nozick, R (1989) The Examined Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Peperzak, A (2006) Thinking: From Solitude to Dialogue and Contemplation. New York: Fordham UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H (1990) Realism with a Human Face, ed. Conant, J. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Saner, H (1967) Kants Weg vom Krieg zum Frieden. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Son, B H (1972) Science and Person: A Study in the Idea of Philosophy as Rigorous Science in Kant and Husserl. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Weiland, J S (1994) “De toekomst van de geesteswetenschap”, Tmesis 4(1): 48–59.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L (1980) Vermischte Bemerkungen/Culture and Value, ed. von Wright, G H, trans. Winch, P. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yao, X (2000) An Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar