1

Given the below paragraph:

Complex Systems Theory involves the systematic, scientific and mathematical study of complexity itself, as it is found throughout the natural world. With a view to dealing with complexity, this approach looks at the nature of complexity rather than trying to simplify a situation in order to process it.

Would it be correct to say that in Philosophic terms, this approach to processing complexity sounds like the study of essence rather than matter and form?? Essence being the attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and without which it loses identity. Form being "the external shape, appearance, or configuration of an object, in contradistinction to the matter of which it is composed.

Improve this question
9
  • 3
    The quote from your question is an example for the type of question characteristic for theoretical science: It prompts to investigate a phenomenon and to search for its explanation. Why do you think to gain any insight into the phenomenon of complexity by clothing the approach into the old terms from Aristotelian metaphysics? I cannot recognize any benefit from doing so. Could you please explain a bit your intention.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 18:50
  • 1
    Don't think I have a full answer for this question, but it seems possibly useful to think about it this way. One of the main concepts of complexity is not to break things down "too far," eg not to say that because you understand chemicals well you understand how people work and therefore you understand how people in a town interact.
    – James Kingsbery
    Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 19:44
  • I think it's a definite possibility: denying ontological reduction to a flat ontology; hence allowing other forms of causation other than upward.
    – Mozibur Ullah
    Commented Sep 23, 2015 at 21:00
  • @JoWehler I'm interested in using complexity research to gain philosophical insight. I want to analyse Schelling's organic form of philosophy; part of this is about the ability to dynamically philosophize or develop ideas. Without knowing the intricacies and success of all different philosophies, how could anyone attempt to effectively 'philosophise' (develop ideas/mental constructs into truths) effectively?
    – DVCITIS
    Commented Sep 24, 2015 at 21:34
  • 1
    As I note below, you intentions remain "wildly groping"...meant in good humor. Many philosophies from Heraclitus to Badiou rest on an irreducible principle of dynamic chaos, usually "ineffable." If, however, your intention is to reduce the "complexity" of philosophy itself in some "scientific" manner, that is social science not philosophy. Can be done. But philosophy itself is "historical" and reinterprets its old texts, complexity and all. There are no short cuts or "royal roads," as Euclid scolded Ptolemy.
    – Nelson Alexander
    Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 13:43

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
1

As I now understand your comments your intention is to consider philosophy as a whole and to investigate the characteristics of this discipline. Such enterprise belongs to the domain of philosophy of science.

I would break down your original question about the essence of philosophy into the following subitems:

  1. What are main questions philosophers deal with?
  2. Which methods do philosophers employ to deal with these questions?
  3. Which theoretical terms do philosophers introduce to investigate these questions?
  4. Which answers do philosophers propose for these questions?

I think one needs first a sample of examples. The following works are my personal candidates for such sample:

  • Plato: An early dialogue, e.g. Ion or Euthyphron
  • Aristoteles: Metaphysics, book A
  • Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, Quaestio 1
  • Descartes: Meditation 1 and 2
  • Leibniz: Monadology
  • Kant: Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction to the second edition
  • Hume: A Treatise on Human Nature. Introduction
  • Nietzsche: Thus spoke Zarathustra, book 1
  • Popper, e.g., Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach.

To process this sample I do not expect much benefit neither from Aristotle's concept of essence (ousia) nor from system theory. The latter deals with dynamic physical or sociological systems and the interactions of their components via agents. But philosophy is a theoretical domain with many conflicting subdomains. It is not a system which settles the conflicts in a stable balance.

On the other hand, if your question aims at the philosophy of Schelling, it would be helpful to edit the question such that this restriction becomes clear already from the title.

Improve this answer
1

Firstly, Complexity means approaching a problem from a higher-level (i.e. higher-order) perspective, much like economists look at the economy: detached and analytical. Unfortunately, it's prone to the same problems of that field -- excessive application of purely mental modes of understanding.

Secondly, Complexity expresses an interest of how complexity emerges from often simple and hidden inputs or rules. This is your essense sense also the one that is associated with (and likely derived from) "chaos theory".

I've seen both uses, even though they are completely different.

Improve this answer
1

I am responding in a general way to your question and subsequent comments. Though I am not sure how well defined "complexity" and "systems theory" really are, one philosopher who may interest you is Nicholas Luhmann. He develops a "systems-based" ontology in which his fundamental terms are System/Environment. He employs this largely in descriptions of social systems, and considered himself a "sociologist" in the broad manner of the Frankfurt School. He is a strict constructivist and his outlook seems to me not unlike Leibniz's monadology. Very interesting.

As another reference, the Nobel chemist I. Prigogine and the philosopher I. Stengers have collaborated on a number of books introducing the philosophical ramifications of chaos and complexity theory, most notably "Order Out of Chaos." These may be works that would help you get your bearings.

However, you seem to want "apply" complexity theories to philosophy itself. This would not be philosophy per se but perhaps "sociology of philosophy." Philosophy cannot treat itself scientifically because it is "historical." It retains and reinterprets its own history, its internal temporality. It cannot (with apologies to Logical Positivism and the Tractatus) redescribe itself in "timeless" mathematical equations or make "discoveries" that render prior texts useless. There are, of course, many books like Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" that attempt to lay out "the essential issues."

On the other hand, if your aim is to look at the issue of "essence" in terms of "complexity" that may be interesting but is very broad. The reduction of "essence" or "substance" to some form of dynamic multiplicity is a huge theme in philosophy from Heraclitus to Badiou. But I am not sure about your equation of complexity to Aristotelian formal cause or whatever, so here I'll leave off. Not an answer, but helpful I hope.

Improve this answer
3
  • Much appreciated! Luhmann sounds very interesting and I'll definitely look into it. I've only just begun to look into philosophy. I currently define philosophy as a rational conceptual discipline and the ability to philosophize, as the skill with which we can logically refine our ideas and mental constructs (think) into truths. The term truth meaning something worthy of belief. To simplify prior comments: we think in a social, physical and economic environment. Complexity theories are applied in sociology, physics and economics. Im looking for parallels.
    – DVCITIS
    Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 17:23
  • Grateful for all general comments/pointers/book recommendations. Thanks!
    – DVCITIS
    Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 17:24
  • Hope it helps. I find Luhmann very interesting. But he is not well known in this country and is very eclectic, very difficult, and outside the philosophical mainstreams, both Analytic and Continental. I'd start with a gloss text, there is a good one by H.G. Moeller.
    – Nelson Alexander
    Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 18:21
1

Given your interest in conceptualising Systems Theory, you might find investigating the notion of autopoesis worthwhile:

An auto-poetic machine is a machine organised (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components, which (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realise the network of processes (relations) that produced them.

I had associated with the Chilean biologists Maturana and Varela; but given N Alexander's excellent answer, it appears that Luhmann applied this in his own work in Systems Theory.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Yes, Luhmann definitely uses Maturana and Varela's autopoesis in his idiosyncratic bundle of concepts. But good that you mention them. And von Bertalanffy should be mentioned as well.
    – Nelson Alexander
    Commented Sep 25, 2015 at 20:41
0

There is an existential problem with the so-named "Complex Systems Theory" : it has no reason to be, except for commercial + academic reasons (money, status, marketing). That is my personal point of view, which is included in my next book.

  1. There is no precise meaning of the term "complex system". If any, a "complex system" is "something we don't understand" (silly? Just Google for it). Either the popular definitions fall into the traditional systems category or either they point to "non-understandability".
  2. The systems theory deals about ALL systems, including equations, rocks or ideas. The "complex systems theory" addresses moreover biological systems (although physical systems can exhibit biological behaviors: depending on the definition, rocks can feature reproduction, the big issue with biology is the lack of a precise definition of life) . Feedback, emergence, adaptation, competition, etc. are not systemic behaviors, but physical/biological. On the contrary, entropy, causality, networking, fractality, recursivity are systemic features, which "complex systems" completely forget. Features like non-linearity are not exclusive of complex systems, but common to all systems (e.g. considering that money is just social debt, put a coin on the coffee machine and you will get coffee! Is coffee somehow linear with a social debt? coffee machines are systems!). Any topic regarding biological features is part of biology / biological systems.
  3. A category of "complex" is usually justified by subjective qualifiers. "High order?... How high? "Big number of systems"... How big? "a large number of relationships/interactions"... How large? (funny: a friend said the number is 100, and then he realized the fallacy with a big laugh) The systems theory allows dealing with any number of subsystems (Systems-101 is called systems thinking).

The classical systems theory is not a theory of "simple systems" or "less than 100 systems".

The systems theory was created precisely to deal with 1) things/problems we don't understand; 2) all types of systems, not only biological systems; 3) problems having small or large numbers of issues, by methodologically splitting problems (systems) in parts (subsystems). There are no boundaries in nature, it is us who create them (called systems) in order to interact effectively with them. The systems theory is just a formal approach to such problem. So we can address biological or any other type of systems.

All this problems raise from the fact that the systems theory is incomplete, and it is not easy to understand. There are no "complex systems". There are just systems. The problems addressed by the "complex systems" field fall into the categories of biological systems or classical systems theory.

Having said that, the contents are worth to explore. But I'm no biologist.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .