This blog post explores whether philosophy remains meaningful wisdom in the age of science or if it is a relic of the past that has served its purpose.
As Cicero already pointed out, the only thing to be found in a philosopher’s books is folly. Certainly, philosophers reject common sense and pursue all manner of wisdom. They are captivated by the desire to explore the principles of the world and the essence of human existence, sometimes attempting to transcend the boundaries of reality in the process. Yet, much of their philosophical soaring relies on the buoyancy of thin air. They occasionally drift too far from reality in their attempts to understand the world. Thus, while science always seems to be progressing, philosophy often appears to be losing its footing.
Why does philosophy waver like this? Because the problems it tackles—such as good and evil, beauty and ugliness, order and freedom, life and death—are profound and complex subjects difficult to resolve through scientific methods. These issues cannot be explained by simple formulaic statements nor proven through precise experiments. As an attempt to find answers to humanity’s most fundamental questions, philosophy is perpetually grappling with uncertainty.
Any field of inquiry that produces knowledge capable of precise formulation is called science. Science begins with philosophy and ends with technology; it also originates from the wellspring of hypotheses and flows into the ocean of accomplishments. Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation of the unknown or the imprecise. If philosophy is the frontline exploring the world of truth and science is the occupied territory, then our lives can be seen as the rear safe zone built with knowledge and technology. Science resolves uncertainty and stabilizes our lives, but in the process, it inevitably leaves behind philosophical questions. These questions exist beyond the realm conquered by science and remain subjects of inquiry.
Philosophy seems to stand there, at a loss. Yet, after handing over the fruits of victory to science, it advances into the unexplored, uncertain territory, carrying a sacred discontent. Philosophy seeks truth within this uncertainty and finds its meaning in exploring questions science cannot answer. Questions such as the reason for human existence, ethical standards, and the essence of beauty cannot be resolved through scientific methodology; they require philosophical thought.
Let us put it more professionally. Science is an analytical technique, while philosophy is a synthetic interpretation. Science seeks to break down the whole into parts, the ambiguous into the certain. Science does not explore the value or ideal potential of things, nor does it question their overall ultimate meaning. Science is content to illuminate the phenomena and functions of things, limiting its vision solely to the properties and processes of existing entities. The scientist finds fascination not only in the creative labor of genius but also in the legs of a flea. Yet, in the course of such inquiry, the scientist inevitably encounters ethical and philosophical problems.
The philosopher, however, is not satisfied with mere description of facts. The philosopher seeks to discover meaning and value by determining the relationship between facts and experience. The philosopher interprets things comprehensively. While the curious scientist disassembles the vast clock of the universe, the philosopher strives to reassemble it more splendidly than before. If science is the knowledge that observes processes and devises means, philosophy is the wisdom that critiques and regulates various ends. Facts have no meaning unless connected to purpose. Science without philosophy, knowledge without wisdom, cannot rescue us from despair. Science gives humans knowledge, but philosophy provides humans with wisdom. This wisdom can serve as a guide for the ethical, social, and existential problems humanity faces, and it is also essential for pursuing true happiness.
