Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II by Giano Rocca
Chapter 22:
Philosophy: its transformation, with the scientific method, or persistence of function and of the ideological content
Already Spinoza had recognized as the plurality of ideologies, present in his contemporaneity, where there was a “Open Society” was, also, a symptom of a lack of knowledge of scientific truth (1).
The philosophers are unanimous in believing that the reform of the society (of any kind) must be accompanied by, or be consequent, to a reform of knowledge (essentially as acquisition of scientific methodology, for those who call the society sciences and human sciences) (2).
The philosophy can transformed into science, only identifying himself with the knowledge and awareness of the essence of structural reality and of the nature of human beings. Kant had stated that the human being, reduces, in the own ideological schemes, all reality, including the space and time, schemes which he defined as “the formation of schemes transcendental”. Such projects influence, indirectly, the object of knowledge. Kant had stated that, where a knowledge of the objects will be transformed , in order to be qualified as positive or scientific, there will be a acquisition (of knowledge itself) as reality common “to all in the same way” (3).
Filippo Barbano stated that the “functionalism” has been “extrapolato” (4) by the societies pre-statual, in which is better suited, applying it, inappropriately, to the contemporary societies of the mercantile phase of the structures statual (according the terminology of the our classification), where there is no “integration” between the base material and the ideal projection, but there is an elastic relationship between the two structural domains, such as to give rise to disputes between the same two, at least in certain moments of transition between the two historical phases or the their multiple social systems. He was opposed to the “theoretical functionalism”, because this would deny the historical evolution, but accepted the “functionalism pragmatic”, because this offers the functionality of the various structural moments, in a given historical moment, namely: the evolution would be functional to the needs of society in a given historical moment. In fact, although evolution is undoubtedly instrumental at the current structural reality (that is, essentially, at the universe structural statual), it is not "functional", certainly, to humans being, who do not voluntarily choose (often: not even a fraction absolutely of minority of them) the new society being formed, nor they are aware of the current change and of its nature.
The “Positivism Comtean” as well as the “Socialism”, they define the “Social sciences” as social facts, namely: theories to the service of the structural reality in act or evolving (5). Sociologists speak, then, of “socialization of science”, also for undertake the attempt of application of processed sociological to economic reality. They, for “socialization of science” mean the creation of a culture based on “rational values” where, however, with this term, means the creation of an ideology based on their sociology (already impregnated, by itself, of ideological elements). Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer have theorized a distinction between “progress in the civilizing" (“Zivilisation”) and the “progress in civilization” (“Kultur”), where with the first concept, they wanted to refer to the historical evolution, while with the second, they wanted to refer to the consider a certain society, that already existed, or in the nascent state, as an ideal of “civilization”. Since, however, the ideologies that they have propounded, have placed a given statual phase as the essence of their ideal of “civilization”, if it deduces that for “Progress in the civilizing” they intended to, in fact, the transition between the phases statual, while for progress in civilization they intended, in reality, the consolidation of a given historical phase, even if this is, in fact, regressive compared to the previous phase statual. Comte had deduced the “positivity” sociological of the social integration (namely: “consensus”), bearing in mind that integration was considered in the sense ahistorical, as natural fact and, therefore, regardless of its systemic valence. In history it is realized, in fact, a continuous integration process, now in favor of a given historical phase, now in favor of the historical phase that comes next, which is opposite to the first. These phenomena of the alternate integration, although elements constituting of the history, not are its own cause. Comte is considered, generally, the founder of sociology, since he has institutionalized and ideologized the his theory of historical evolution, although some detect that the sociology, if understood as a: theory of historical evolution, dates back to the philosophy pre-Socratic (6).
Luigi Pareyson showed as the philosophy to him contemporary, or philosophy of the crisis and in crisis herself, had sought the language with which to express themselves and did of this research, the most evident component of its crisis (7).
The philosophy fits in the various areas of research in the human science and changing itself in methodology of the same research areas (8). In this way, it can be transformed into the science of sciences, which, moreover, constitutes its principal aim.
William James stated that in each individual the acceptance of new concepts is subtended to the need “to assimilate what is new in its experience” (9), pivoting on the “basis of his beliefs”. The pragmatism of James him induced to consider knowledge as: “constitutive and determinant of the same their nature of facts” (10). The knowledge, to which he referred James is, in reality, ideology, which seems to determine the structural reality, in the specific social system to whom the ideology is fits, even though it is, in the fact, a simple ideal projection.
If it is true that the human being, as the whole of nature, in general, is not fully rational, however, the human being yearns at the full rationality and, therefore, there must be the opportunity to exist of a world that achieves this fundamental need, which consists precisely in the demonstrate, at least gradually, an ever more complete rationality. Karl R. Popper, noting how the theory of the correspondence of the theories to the facts, has been traditionally placed in difficulty, showed how philosophers are aware of the ideological content of the mechanism to match the theories to the facts. This awareness led Alfred Tarski to propose, to establish the correspondence of the theories of the facts, the use of a “meta-language”, namely, of a language different from that of the theory itself (11). The contrast that is generated with the structural reality historic, creating a scientific theory of the same reality, must be taken into account, with due precautions. Previously, it is necessary to detach itself from the structural logic, to decide which theories correspond to the real essence of the same reality structural historical. Radhakrishnan had stated that philosophers should be distinct from structural interests or links with the structural reality historical (Both in general both in its manifestation that exist) (12), in order to realize an investigation really scientific, of the same structural reality (13). He ended, however, to locate the emancipation from structural reality in renunciation to the physical needs (14).