i don't know where to start..this is not going to be a structured train of thoughts
philosophy to me is unconstrained CURIOSITY to find out how and why we're here (not whatfor, but why originally), then to keep on bursting or walking spanish beyond the frontiers of what i believe to know, seek clear plausible answers to any well posed question about the 'whole'.
any problem can be lifted into philosophic 'heights'.
philosophy is necessary to science in order to keep science in its boundaries, to judge the truth of it, else its usefulness (do we really need to pain e.g. our cousins manapes, or dolphins, rats, mouses, even fruit-flies, for e.g. cosmetic stuff? - I'm no pure ecologist: a fur keeps you warm, ..why not occasionally kill for fur, if we kill for meat. man does and must care for himself at some level - [added later:] on the other hand i can wait till the furry dies by itself, without need for killing *.*). science can give life to an arbitrarily shaped clone, a human like any other, that'll grow 10-12 years old and ask for his mother and father.
world is bad. but not only and all bad. without any ethics we might all be carnivorous rats. no major person can want that.
not only ETHICS must give science its boundaries.
science depends on axioms, premisses, given suppositions, assumptions, prior conditions, geometry on 'virtually perfect' points, beams, coordinates (-systems), a (superficially looked upon..) 'indoubted' branch of science, mathematics, is no way given by nature itself, but by its perception, description, nameing through man: numbers, entities, coordinate-systems, operators, worded definitions and sentences, ..all of wich, in their validity, resting upon agreement about the meant. agreed systems of scientific discussion. (e.g. the comparatively young acquaintance of the "0" (='nothing') in algebra, or have you ever seen an inch, a centimeter? not of thread, just a centimeter by itself? ..they don't exist. nature doesn't measure itself as we do.) [1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple, ok, but what does 1 apple consist of? if we 'put' its x particle's, atom's, electron's, neutron's, proton's x masses together in 1 lump, there won't be much left of the 1 space it occupied before. the 'rest' of the 1 apple is % empty space, 'filled' with ¥inf. forcefields, and interaction-waves; ..or whatta you think 3 apples multiplied by another 3 apples equal to? 9, yeah! what? squareapples??
.. 1 potatoe + 1 potatoe = 2 potatoes, but you may imagine what becomes of them when boiled long enough to exactly 1 mash. ..then, where exactly (scientifically exactly) is the surface of any 1 thing? the surface of its last particle, before e.g. the first 1 air particle? do atomic particles have a surface?] there is no prior or essential 1 'entity' in 1 nature. entities are real for humans, and i guess they are for the whole world, but they are not 'sure' or 'god-given' in the way we handle them. they are a way to look at them, an aspect, not given truth or reality. myons, neutrinos, go through apples like they are (not: were!) nothing, ..now go try and explain to a myon, what an 'entity' is!
..then nowadays not only do we have wave-mass-dualism in waves appearance, but mass-wave-dualism in matters appearance (Einstein-Bose-condensive), and that's a fact (as far as we agree to scientific method, and we should). but can we really imagine or understand, what that means for the structure of waves, mass, or the universe, the whole? ..it's abstract somehow but undoubtedly real somehow aswell, and philosophy must draw the frontiers of what is real, what abstract and what is 'somehow'. propose and give definitions for "reality, truth, being, existence, perception, validity, fact, world, science, knowledge, essentials, prior condition, human, abstraction, method, evolution, nature, everything, definition, aso.", and not state these definitions forever to be right, but work on them by new given knowledge, adapt them, go on and on defining. in this, philosophy has very much to do with agreement on words, notions, what they are supposed to mean, and how they are to be used, where they are apt and where not, if they fit the 'meant' or if they don't. are found scientific truths childs of the methods they were found with, of the utter intention of the scientist to find them, or the human intention to find anything, are they real, are they theory, a bit of both? and if it's theory, is it a good theory, one, that explains parts or the whole? if its real, can we ever go there and check? will we ever know, is there a priori things, we (science) can never know? (well.. , if we don't, we can't. logic *.*)
science gives facts. it's up to philosophy to find a VIEW OF THE WHOLE, provide coherency of knowledge in its whole, and state the essential boundaries of what is 'known part of the world' to us.
state a red yarn to keep our view, notion, aspect, our part of world inhinged (for if philosophy don't state or at least proposes essentials or then at least states on what there is answers and on what not, there will be confusion of speech, ..and we all know what that means -
philosophy stateing the universal confusion of speech is its last).
and that makes philosophy necessary to sciences of language and speech.
and philosophy viewing the whole we know of world, viewing the whole world, as far as we know it, and philosophy watching sciences is not only essential to ethics, juridiction, social system, SCIENCES to flourish.
it might be for the whole social planet, for the forms of state people live in, for the social structure (or diversity) of the whole planet:
the mighty in history have usually recurred to what was valid philosophy, and they still do. they may have used religion to state their might (which I'm far beyond judging - its just the way it is and maybe must be in order to rule masses of billions). the mighty of all times (emperors and dictators as much as governments and constitutions) need a philosophy, or a credo, an far-term aim, a national long-distance intention, an impetus, an ideology, an ideal, even a wish (palestine), an illusion (all men are equal - they are, i think, but they don't always make it easy to believe. equally born - yes! but in real life for many this is but a glimpse) in order not to succumb to the course of history or mere decadence (which in fact is sort of bad philosophy): bad philosophies like the greed for richdom, gold, splendor (Bokassa?, Idi Amin?), like the belief in being a godlike ruler (Hitler?, Stalin?), the recurrence to providence (Hitler), .. don't withstand long-term course of time. philosophies, or forms of state, or manners of ruling, that give power to the nation, or the majority, last long, because conflicts are moderate (and anyway loosened by minorities, or the minority). longest lasting are states that give rights to all, the nation, the minorities, the opposition, the individual and/or bear high grade social spirit, be it of social security (europe) or an 'ant'-like [beg forgiveness to asia, but i don't know better] social selfunderstanding and patriotism (that needn't be democracy, 't can be achieved by a loved king, emperor, dictator asmuch - e.g. the 'unfallible' pope, in some way. not the form, the spirit does it.).
what kinds of philosophies and credoes the rulers or political systems might have recurred to is worth its own study. fact is, mere might doesn't rule.
philosophy is more than vague suppositions about the unknown, it can be the flag a people goes toward.
..and that goes not only for in this example the philosophy of POLITICS, but to my opinion it goes for philosophy in its whole:
..knowing (or believing) that the world is an egg with no way out surely has some impact on how, why, whatfor or where i lead my nation.
..knowing, believing, convinced, that unknown world surely has magnificent, surprising novelties, realities to be unrevealed, found, explored surely does too.
[my most recent novelty is e.g., that, as being here due to evolution, and evolution being guided aot by assertion and success, we can judge the validity of our view of the whole by comparatively judging our assertion and success as a species.. ok, turtles, crocos and other living fossils are better off, seen this way, but if man made it up to here, our theories, philosophies, sciences, view of things, can't be all wrong, not just a tricky illusion in our heads, and should be going the right direction in matters of gain of new knowledge whatsoever or a copy of what this world is essentially like]
[next below]
