Page History

SCANNED PDF

Isn't there an important distinction to be made between being a form of critical reflection, on the one hand, and being a science (even in the broad sense of the word), on the other?

...

The real key to the wanted distinction is the one suggested by my entry, Notebooks, 3 October 2002; rev. 28 November 2005. I argue there that merely being a matter of critical reflection, although a necessary condition of being a science, is not a sufficient condition, because also necessary is that the question constitutive of a science be an intellectual question about structure in itself, as distinct from an existential question about meaning for us.

17 May 2009

The above answer to the question won't do. There is no good reason to deny, as it by implication does, that a science, properly, can be pursued at the lay level as well a professionally.

The real key to the wanted distinction is the one suggested by my entry, Notebooks, 3 October 2002; rev. 28 November 2005. I argue there that merely being a matter of critical reflection, although a necessary condition of being a science, is not a sufficient condition, because also necessary is that the question constitutive of a science be an intellectual question about structure in itself, as distinct from an existential question about meaning for us.

17 May 2009