You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Tiberiusmoon June 09, 2021 at 21:16 2300 views 3 comments
When some philosophical subjects on humans are approached we commonly see signs of sociology, but further down we see neuroscience, then neuroanatomy, further we see nutrition biology and further nutrition.

These can all play key factors in understanding what we want to discover in philosophy; considering the fundamental nature of the field its easy to fall down the rabbit hole of having to study various fields of study to solidify an argument or philosophy.

As I see it you could take two approaches to this:
1. Is to study a neighbouring field in order to solidify understanding or confirmation in order to validate, but may require studying of other neighbouring fields in order to reach validation.
2. Is to study only the relevent subject matter in the fields that link to each other, but this lead to missing factors in the field or tunnel vision.

If a practitioner of philosophy has no specific fields then the latter is more ideal but requires a solid approach to how they learn or study and obviously if the philosopher has a specific field then the former is more ideal but can take considerably more time.

So what would be your approach?
Crawling through the rabbit hole? Digging it up? or some other method?

Comments (3)

Banno June 09, 2021 at 21:20 #548375
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
When some philosophical subjects on humans are approached we commonly see signs of sociology, but further down we see neuroscience, then neuroanatomy, further we see nutrition biology and further nutrition.


Hence philosophy is ultimately about eggs and coffee.
Tiberiusmoon June 09, 2021 at 21:45 #548386
TheMadFool June 24, 2021 at 10:00 #555959
I'm uncertain as to what the OP is getting at but smacks of reductionism (the whole understood in terms of its parts). That's what going down the rabbit hole means I suppose - layers of explanatory frameworks each level being simpler than the one above which it must explain. A classic example of the reductionist approach would be biology reduced to chemistry and chemistry reduced to physics with physics being the current last level any rabbit hole must ultimately reach. Here's where it gets interesting I suppose because physics seem to have mathematical foundations and mathematics is a mental construct and mind emerges from biology. As you can see, the reductionist method has looped back onto itself. Mind -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics -> Math -> Mind. How deep does the rabbit hole go?