New answers tagged

0 votes

Does this difficulty with philosophical enquiry compared with natural sciences still exist?

When I am at a loss to know the effects of one body upon another in any situation, I need only put them in that situation, and observe what results from it. But should I endeavour to clear up after ...
user avatar
0 votes

"You never know until you try"?

I would argue that the saying is not completely correct. We can know if we like things without having to try them by ourselves. For example, by valuing the consequences on others who have tried them. ...
user avatar
  • 543
0 votes

Why is this a parallel to natural science?

Well, first of all, it isn't. Husserl admits as much himself through the use of the universal get-out-of-metaphysical-jail-free card which is his preamble, "It is by no means clear..." What ...
user avatar
0 votes

"You never know until you try"?

"Never try, never know" is not a philosophical trueism, it's a attempt to coerce people to try something outside their comfort zone. It can be categorized as a statement belonging to ...
user avatar
  • 1,941
0 votes

A question on Husserl and animals in relation to psychology

The history of psychology has principally been the science of being mean to rats.. It sounds like he is expressing doubt about our access to the interiority of animals (top-down psychology, as opposed ...
user avatar
  • 9,987
1 vote

"You never know until you try"?

Whether theft is wrong or not is irrelevant. You can truly never know what it is like to experience something until you have experienced it. I believe there are no limits to the underlying nature of ...
user avatar
2 votes

"You never know until you try"?

You kinda have to define what you mean by "you (never) know" in that statement. Like if you go to the abstract logic then there are things that you can know without trying them. If you go to ...
user avatar
  • 303

Top 50 recent answers are included