This session was so interesting because we all travelled back to the origins of the problem. The questions move backward but the initiative moves forward...
I invite responses from everyone who can think of possibilities and alternatives for the problems posed here.
What is a concept? What is a category? How do we distinguish between the two? For instance, is money a category or a concept?
Is it that Human Sciences deal with concepts while Natural Sciences deal with categories?
Can the nature of engagement with a concept or category be represented as the subjectivity and objectivity polemic?
What is the primary distinction between the Human Sciences and Natural Sciences?
Causal explanations seem to be central to the Natural Sciences. Is it that Natural Sciences are about strict causal relationships while Human Sciences require only loose causal relationships?
Why do we assume that the human sciences cannot be explanatory? Or Natural Sciences cannot be introspective?
Why are we trying to integrate the Human Sciences and the Natural Sciences? What really is the necessity for this definition and delineation?
Why do we not try to integrate the different schools of Indian Philosophy? Why are we dealing with these Western Sciences?
If Natural Sciences concern themselves with explanation and Human Sciences concern themselves with interpretation, would integration bring intervention? Knowing and Being are not sufficient without doing. Should not that be our aim?
Is the ought question a part of both Sciences? Or is it a separate space?
No comments:
Post a Comment