History Of Philosophy

Since the beginning of history, some of the main dilemmas raged back and forth between the intellectuals. Questions such as: is the story of an art or history is a science; It is actually possible objectivity, or are still trapped in the prison of our own privileged subjectivity, and it is impossible to achieve, should also be sought for? In my own personal philosophy, history as an art largely influenced by science and, paradoxically, can be studied objectively, but only through our own subjectivity.

Science uses empirical data as the primary source. By laboratory scientists use clear methodologies based on immutable elements strict laws. We have emotions and actions as deception, honor or revenge. When an ozone molecule is in contact with an oxygen atom are combined to form two common oxygen molecules (O + O3 -> O2 + O2), thus, once the ozone molecule disappears, the destruction of the layer of ozone. This is the law; the oxygen atom has no reason or a secondary agenda behind their actions. Science is based on the law and the formula to describe natural events. However, emotion and motivation can change, and therefore by definition can not be based on laws or formulas. When humans through the combustion and the combustion of coal and methane producing numerous dirty oxygen molecules, they destroy the ozone layer. Here, we find reasons, transportation, technology, civilization behind destruction. If you were to take a history of the ozone layer as a science, one would be able to see their scientifically destroyed in a chemical atomic level, whereas if you were to look artistically, to use knowledge of human reason, emotion and motivation to paint the picture rather than empirical data to dictate mathematical graphs, would be able to see as the effect of a civilization, industry and technology.

Knowing the level of growth of a civilization and its industry is only possible on a macro scale and on such a macro scale, civilizations tend to follow similar paths. Hegel showed this in his "formula" of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is a formula, but not scientific. It could be called an artistic formula. Therefore, proving mathematical and empirical data such as inaccurate if not banal synchronic, these data will be useful for a diachronic history of a civilization. The artistic history is your definition while science is one of your handy tools: history is an art that is perfect with the use of scientific methods.

In light of seeing history as a scientifically perfected art, we must decide if we are even able, or it could be much worse, allowed to study history. We must decide if we look at history will give us a distorted perspective through our privileged knowledge, subjective result, or if, leaving aside the mantle of subjectivity and the port of objectivity, it is still possible, if not, we decide whether we should even look to begin. For example, when the Roman Empire was fighting against Carthage, which usually subjectively and watch the Roman point of view since we know that they actually won the war and wrote a story about it. However, in our search for truth in history, we know that a war has two possible results and winners, so we have to consider both the results to find motivation in the very initial war; we left no choice but to order. The story is by using our subjectivity to choose to be objective; we are privileged to know the outcome of the whole story, and even with this knowledge, you can choose to set it aside. With knowledge of the result that we can choose to look in the light or not.

Everything has a history of philosophical thought, science, geology, religion, politics, and even history, all have teleological lines that lead to where they are today. Not to say that this teleology was predestined, but simply: all life themes have a specific story.