Talk:Logosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] VFD Result
The result of the VFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Logosophy -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
--Spharion 14:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) The article is saying Logosophy is a "Science". Probably something like "is defined as a Science by it's followers" would go better. The article says also Logosophy is "inquestionably" something while it is quite questionably that.
First paragraph of principles section is one long sentence. Needs to be split. Might need to merge some paragraphs in this section too. RJFJR 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Logosophy isn't a "type of science." It's not science at all. "Self-help with some New Age flavor" suits it better. I have not edited the actual entry because I lack the time and patience to make the language neutral enough, but I hope someone goes ahead and does it. 200.188.187.235 00:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logosophy and science
One can see implicit bias from several of Wikipedia's editor's in comments about this topic, showing a clear lack of knowledge of cross-cultural nuances and Philosophy of Science.
First and foremost, "ciencia" in Spanish and other Latin based languages such as French and Portuguese still keep the original Latin etymology of Scientia as "organized body of knowledge". If you would believe Merriam-Webster, the same would be true in English, but it seems that the indoctrination of scientificism in US public schools has made everything but hard sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) a candidate for pseudo-science classification, even Sociology, Psychology and other humanistic disciplines (see their own topics and you will know what I am talking about).
When Freud, Jung and others decided to create Psychology and its variants from scratch, if they had to wait permission from Academia and Encyclopedists to allow it to exist only after ratifying they were a legitimate science, we would be waiting until today. For that matter, even Aristotle, who is touted as one of the fathers of the scientific method, would be outcast by the simplistic definition of science embedded in pop American culture and imaginaire. It is only necessary to mention Paul Feyerabend's work (for instance, Against Method) to remind us that what is and what is not science is not a clear-cut picture.
Second, although Logosophy may not fit the Academic definition of Science (I would still dispute that in view of Feyerabend's ideas), it nevertheless supports and encourages Academic scientific research through helping its practitioner's in internalizing and living a scientific attitude:
- It recommends systematic observation as means to attain knowledge;
- It recommends that you should not believe in Logosophy (nor anything else) no matter how true its statements may seem. You are supposed to gather evidence on their reality in your own life through experimentation;
- Before you adopt a new concept, you must experiment with it and gather evidence in your own life that the new one is better than the current one you have;
- Concepts are bound to evolve as well;
- It is not true what cannot be individually verified through experimentation, and you need to be able to verify it repeatedly, not just once;
- The word belief must be replaced by the word knowledge, "because it is by knowing, and not by believing, that man becomes truly conscious of the management of his life; in other words, what he thinks and does;" in Initiation Course into Logosophy, §76;
- Occam's razor: Logosophy summarizes and simplifies a great body of human experience by solely postulating thoughts as living entities (which, by the way, has recently become sort of a fad with memetics; however, Logosophy had stated it since 1930);
- Thoughts are observable through the indirect consequences of their actions (in the same way you don't "see" atoms, you know about them in an indirect way such as Brownian motion, as Einstein showed in 1905, later ellaborated by Jean Perrin);
- Logosophy provides a more thorough definition of knowledge. According to it, cognitions (pieces of knowledge) emerge in the mind from the application of theoretical concepts to reality through experimentation; everything else just information about a topic, but not real knowledge of it.
In summary, it seems that Logosophy makes a "scientist of the mind" out of its practitioners. For that alone I would say that Logosophy is auxiliary to any rational endeavor, specially the one proposed by Stephen Hawking:
"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
---Brief History of Time (page 233, Expanded Edition, 1996)
There are other facets to the topic "Logosophy", which I might elaborate in the future.
By cmendonca
[edit] Logosophy does not fit the New Age definition from Wikipedia
As of June 16th 2006, the Wikipedia article on New Age says: "The term New Age describes a broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration." By "eclectic", it is explained later in the article that "New Agers typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of world religions, and also including shamanism, neopaganism and occultism."
Logosophy does not fit this New Age definition because:
- The Logosophical Foundation exists since 1930, so it was created long before the "late 20th century" date for New Age movements;
- It has no such "eclectic approach to spiritual exploration". As González Pecotche explains, "[i]n bringing to light the cognitions which emanate from its own fountainhead, Logosophy discards all known theories. It does so deliberately, for two essentials reasons: first, because its own originality demands it, and secondly, to avoid the confusion which would interfere with the free development of the mental domain as a result of the intermingling of seeds of distinct origins, because that kept in the "granary" of Logosophy is selected specially to produce the richest crop in the shortest time." in Logosophy Science and Method, page 2, Philosophical Library, Inc. 1959
The classification of Logosophy as "New Age" is therefore incorrect. However, it is not clear which classification to apply. Some might think that "Spirituality" would be a fit, but the current religious connotation of this word would be at odds with Pecotche's support for scientific research principles. "Philosophy" would be another option, but even better would be "Humanist psychology", a category that exists in Spanish Wikipedia but not in the English version. "Humanism" is the better choice in English.
Pecotche himself recognized this classification difficulty: "The very fact that totally new cognitions are involved will make it evident that they cannot have any common point of contact with anything known. They form a family of thoughts of such a special nature that it will be very difficult, if not utterly impossible, to establish a kinship between them and the rest." in Logosophy Science and Method, page 85, Philosophical Library, Inc. 1959
Logosophy probably defines a category of its own. As mentioned before, "Humanism" might be a fit. However, since there is no category stub for "Humanism", I am dropping the "New Age stub" classification for this article until it is not a stub and can be classified as either "Logosophy" and/or "Humanism".
--cmendonca
--64.140.1.226 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logosophy as Humanism
Further research into Pecotche's writings show that the best classification of Logosophy is Humanism:
"Differing therefore from the generalized concept of humanism, our humanism starts from one's own sensitive and thinking being who seeks to accomplish within himself the evolutionary process that all humanity must follow. One's accomplishment in this respect will inevitably contitute later a true example of what each participant within the great human family can achieve". -- The mechanism of concious life, Chapter XII: "Humanism as the innermost aspiration of the individual. The nature of logosophical humanism.", page 103
Therefore I am dropping the "Science stub" classification that Amalas applied, and also removing the NPOV marker that Mtiedemann applied. Mtiedemann comments were simply "not a science", with no further explanation, so I assume he/she was under the same implicit cultural bias as mentioned above in "Logosophy and science".
--cmendonca
--70.112.146.196 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Advert'
The article, as written, appears an uncritical POV advert for logosophy, presenting it as an established academic subject. I have therefore added an 'advert' tag. Mtiedemann 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article outline
I am planning the rewrite of this article in NPOV. If any of you has a suggestion for an outline, please post it here.
--70.112.146.196 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tentative outline
As a tentative outline, I have been thinking about this one:
1. Introduction
2. Theory of Knowledge
3. Moral and Political Theory
4. Relationship to Philosophy
5. Relationship to Science
6. Accomplishments and Influence
7. Suggestions for Further Reading
I have also been trying to find external references (magazine and newspaper articles, books that refer to Logosophy) in English. There are plenty in Spanish and Portuguese, but not many in other languages. Please post here the ones you might have from publications in the English language.
70.112.159.168 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
