The Vienna Circle (German: Wiener Kreis) of logical empiricism was a group of elite philosophers and scientists drawn from the natural and social sciences, logic and mathematics who met regularly from 1924 to 1936 at the University of Vienna, chaired by Moritz Schlick. The Vienna Circle had a profound influence on 20th-century philosophy, especially philosophy of science and analytic philosophy.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE VIENNA CIRCLE
22 May 2021
Is metaphysics just a bunch of nonsense? Is it okay to believe something you could never prove? Could logic be a solution to the world’s problems? This week on Philosophy Talk, we’re thinking about the Vienna Circle, a group of Austrian philosophers from the 1920s who debated these questions in an attempt to usher in a new era of scientifically grounded thinking.
While the philosophers of the Vienna Circle (including Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and the circle’s central figure, Moritz Schlick) had plenty of disagreements, they agreed on some general principles: science and logic are the best tools for understanding the world; a statement is only meaningful if you can test it using experiments and observations; and metaphysics is meaningless.
Many religious debates are meaningless by the standards of the Vienna Circle. Sure, it seems like everyone understands what you’re saying when you talk about God, but the philosophers of the Vienna Circle would disagree. God’s existence makes no difference to what we can see and hear and touch. The fact that we can’t disprove Her existence, any more than we can disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, is no help at all.
The Issue in the Vienna Circle - A Comparative Study of METAPhilosophy
Simply put, rationality. Where they realize that philosophy needs improvement to elevate it to the level of science.
This is where the confidence of scientists in their own observations, which I believe are mistaken, comes into play.
The issue of the 'Vienna Circle' actually parallels the emergence of METAPhilosophy.
In both the case of the Vienna Circle and METAPhilosophy, they arise as a consequence of observing the development of philosophy limited to 'asking many questions, engaging in many debates.'
There is much philosophical discussion, so bustling and lively, yet it consists primarily of questions upon questions, ultimately leading to a buildup of controversies. The result❓
On one hand, confusing questions are answered, providing tranquility, but just when one starts to feel at ease, another stack of questions is added, disrupting the initial calm. As a result, instead of philosophy offering tranquility, it becomes a source of anxiety due to the eager pursuit of questions without the ability to answer them. CONFUSION ACCUMULATES.
Forest of Uncertainty - Curiosity
That's what has been happening in the philosophy community up to this point—many questions. And it's not just within the philosophy community; social media also facilitates Q&A sessions.
What's happening is that the tranquility that was once quite strong is now tempted by curiosity fueled by social media. SO, IN THIS ERA, THERE'S A HEAP OF CONFUSION & A STRONG URGE FOR CURIOSITY EVERYWHERE.
That's why it's crucial which side someone joins on social media.
If there are many questions about politics, hobbies, and professions, it's easy to cultivate a great curiosity that aligns with the community's type.
The problem is, if you join a political, hobby, health, or non-philosophical group, even though there's much uncertainty, the direction is clear, and the matter at hand is obvious, making it easy to make decisions.
- 👉 Even though there's confusion and no solution yet, it won't be long before a solution or a decision emerges.
In the philosophy community, if we realize there's a lot of confusion, it's hard to overcome it because the direction is unclear. The confusion floats, hanging in the air. It's different from non-philosophical problems, which tend not to hang in the balance.
THE VIENNA CIRCLE & METAPHILOSOPHY
Once again, that's why there are meetings like the "Vienna Circle" and "proposals for the renewal of philosophy through METAPHILOSOPHY," so that❓PHILOSOPHY PROVIDES ANSWERS, ADVANCES, AND IS NOT JUST ADVANCED SCIENCE.
⭕️ They're thinking about what's wrong with philosophy❓THERE'S CERTAINTY IN SCIENCE, BUT NO TRANQUILITY IN PHILOSOPHY
📌 Philosophy is cool, isn't it? When many are afraid of facing difficult math, confused by disappointing politics, struggle to memorize physics formulas, baffled by historical facts, but still find more tranquility compared to when tranquility is stirred up by philosophy 😁
THIS IS WHERE THE CORE ISSUE THEY USED TO... UNTIL NOW, DIDN’T REALIZE WHERE IT WAS❓
Between Science, Philosophy, and Rationality
Who says scientists don't talk, don't ask questions, and don't discuss with each other? Philosophers do the same, but science is more advanced than philosophy.
"The Vienna Circle Meeting" discusses how philosophy can be made more rational. Isn't philosophy based on rationality? Yes, indeed. Does it require more than just rationality? Empirical? Scientific? Knowledge-based?
Is there a rationality that can be empirically proven? A rationality that can be observed? Wow, that's heavy. THE RESULT? Not successful!
Yes, of course, it failed because the foundation of rationality does not cover all areas of knowledge acquisition.
Criterion of Suitability - Positivism Logic
They want philosophy to become a system of thought that can be scientifically tested. A philosophical system that can be used to analyze all fields of knowledge.
IN THE END, there was a limitation where they considered METAPHYSICS not a part of philosophy because it cannot be scientifically tested.
📌 This is called POSITIVISM LOGIC, making rationality more scientific.
The Unseen Intersection
It may be forced in any way between philosophy and science to align, but fundamentally they are already considered separate, even though they are merely different. This means that because of their differences, they can actually complement each other.
Both use rationality, but philosophy seems unable to be scientifically tested. So where is the intersection❓
There are at least 3. If you find others, be grateful.
- 1⃣ Observation
- 2⃣ Rationality
- 3⃣ Consistency
If only these three points, then where is the unseen❓The unseen is when both sides are equally flawed. What they claim they violate themselves, and it's not a problem if there are imperfections in reasoning, but don't limit the scope of reasoning.
In a way, if you feel complete, it's natural to say, "this is unnecessary." But if one is incomplete themselves and limits others, it's as if scientists understand the matter. The problem is, they can't be blamed either because they don't know where they went wrong.
Intersection of Philosophy & Science - Observation
Science claims that what is scientific must be empirical. The question is, how empirical is something❓
If, according to science, everything empirical is through observation, touch, or in any way we observe. Then where does spiritual experience, experiences in the realm of dreams or wherever the experience may be, fall under the category of unobservable❓
Here lies the disparity in science, and here the advantage of philosophers in accepting what science deems subjective.
Later, we will see where the unseen disparities in their intersection lie.
For now, let’s first understand the disparity in science in limiting the concept of "observation," which actually occurs not only in external domains but also internally, where the concept of "observation" can take place.
Intersection of Philosophy & Science - Rationality
From observation, we can draw conclusions. Deduce logical consequences.
Similarly, science does the same, but science considers its conclusions testable through empirical observation - not dogmatic.
The question then arises, why does science rely on mathematics, whose rationality is accepted without proof❓Wow
WHY DOES SCIENCE SEEK ASSISTANCE IN MAPPING ITS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH MATHEMATICALLY❓In the end, science, grounded in mathematics, doesn't require empirical proof but is simply accepted❓No❓Yes, scientists can argue, 'I use mathematics to guide the direction of my research, which will ultimately be tested scientifically.'
- 👉 It's the same, still requiring rational analysis without the need for proof at a certain point in the analytical process, although it must be tested eventually.
BUT WHY DOES SCIENCE STILL ADVANCE FASTER THAN PHILOSOPHY❓In building civilization❓
Intersection of Philosophy & Science - Consistency
Although science requires rational analysis without the need for proof at a certain point in the analytical process, BUT WHY IS SCIENCE STILL MORE ADVANCED THAN PHILOSOPHY❓In building civilization❓
That's because science bases its observations and rationality on❓CONSISTENCY❗️
Scientists pursue consistency. They hunt for consistency. They hunt for predictions with high probability.
That's what sets science apart from philosophy. Scientists have models consistent with empirical observations and the ability to predict repeatable outcomes.
HERE LIES THE CORE OF THE ISSUE. SCIENCE HAS CONSISTENT MODELS, WHILE PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT. It's as simple as that❗️
Science & The Truth Model - Consistency - Formulation
That's how science is shaped. It begins with small-scale research. Then it discovers postulates - truths. Yes, it discovers small truths.
There are formulas for speed, gravity, energy, Planck's constant. Concepts like energy quanta and more.
Likewise with mathematics. It has a plethora of formulas. Starting from triangle formulas, parabolic, inverse, calculus limits, and so on.
Subjectivity
NOW, IT'S YOUR TURN TO ASK THE PHILOSOPHERS. DO YOU (PHILOSOPHERS) HAVE FORMULATIONS TOO THAT WE CAN USE?
The philosopher says, "Yes, I have them. These are abstract truths, these are subjective truths," and so on...
That's as far as philosophy goes, a contribution of subjectivity exacerbated by the increasing ambiguity that leads to one polemic after another.
If philosophers defend themselves with "hey, we may not lean towards objectivity, but subjectivity is needed to shape flexible wisdom." Okay, but don't lead to polemics (solving problems with problems).
The Revival of Philosophy - Philosophy's Identity
This is where the need for a new philosophy arises. That's what philosophers around the world are saying. We need METAPhilosophy. However, they are confused themselves about how METAPhilosophy should be carried out to keep pace with the advancement of science❓
In the end❓The concept of METAPhilosophy is stuck. The "Vienna Circle" meetings also experienced setbacks. UP UNTIL NOW❗️No matter how much progress philosophy makes, the contribution of science to civilization remains greater.
In fact, philosophy tends to be distant from religion. Philosophy also struggles to enter the realm of spirituality on its own.
Philosophers who can articulate mystical experiences are not independent philosophy but require the assistance of spirituality.
So, religion, spirituality, and science are becoming increasingly familiar, leaving philosophy spinning in intellectual pride, endlessly asking questions minute by minute, hour by hour, moment by moment, without enlightening unless only provoking doubts.
PHILOSOPHY REVIVAL - Objective Rationality
If a new philosophy is needed❓ That's what philosophers around the world say. Is METAPHILOSOPHY needed❓ Not really. In fact, PHILOSOPHY ALONE is sufficient to balance science. IF, AND ONLY IF❓
✅ If and only if philosophy can formulate equations like those in mathematics and physics
With the ability of mathematics and physics to present distinctive mathematical and physical formulas, this undoubtedly adds objectivity.
Rational (Logic) that is Objective (Positivism)
Likewise in philosophy, what❓If and only if it can present distinctive philosophical formulas, philosophy becomes more objective.
Not just rational but convincingly demonstrating to all that what was once thought of as rational but unproven to be objective (merely conceptual) now (with the formulas in philosophy] will further prove the rationality of philosophy that has been demonstrated to be objective.
🔰 This is the crux of the philosophical problem. Accusations of subjectivity or narrow rationality that lacks objectivity.
PHILOSOPHY REVIVAL - The Truth Module
The same should happen in Philosophy. It should be able to present not only rational but also objective expressions.
This is where the role of formulating knowledge with its unshakable and universal foundation comes into play.
This is what I call the "Truth Module" that can be used for modular reasoning.
It's similar to what exists in mathematics with its collection of theorems, or in physics with its "quanta."
So, through the formulation of absolute knowledge, it brings philosophy into a position of rational objectivity, positivistic logic or whatever it may be called, essentially stating THAT PHILOSOPHICAL TRUTH IS NOT ONLY RATIONAL BUT ALSO OBJECTIVE (which means it can be empirically tested).
❇️ That's the truth module in philosophy, sadly unknown in philosophy except in the realm of METAPHILOSOPHY.
PHILOSOPHY REVIVAL - Testing Logical Consequences
Then, if philosophy has been equipped with formulas of truth as modules of truth, the question is, can it be empirically tested❓
Certainly. Although initially limited to conclusions or logical consequences, it already represents an expression of cause-and-effect relationships, which means it can be tested.
Just as in science, which relies on mathematics to examine the direction of its logical consequences, the same goes for philosophy, which also reveals the truths of logical consequences that must be objectively tested.
Another question: Isn't philosophy often seen as subjective, dogmatic, belief-based, or faith-based? So, where is its objectivity❓
Cause-Effect Relationships
From rationality towards proven objectivity, it proves the philosophical accuracy that expresses the interconnection of cause-and-effect in the modules of truth.
Metaphysics
📌 Does METAPHysics have objectivity like that demanded by science❓
SYNERGY AMONG DISCIPLINES - METAPhysics
Does METAPHysics have objectivity values as demanded by science❓Yes❗️That is Con-sis-tency.
Whatever the value of objectivity. Scientific claims, empirically tested and validated, and the testing value through any means, all lead to one goal, which is SEEKING CONSISTENCY.
So, whether through the path of science, empiricism, observation, objective testing, laboratory experiments, or in the real world (outside the world of ideas), everything is evaluated based on its consistency. WHAT DOES IT MEAN❓
Even if it is an investigation effort through spirituality, if the results are consistent, then it is the best achievement in the quest for truth (philosophical, mathematical, physical, and others).
Consistent Objectivity
❇️ SO THERE'S NO NEED TO BE ALLERGIC TO OR LIMIT OTHER Philosophical or scientific disciplines, as long as they can express consistency, that is their objectivity value.
OBJECTIVITY
So, all forms of objectivity are not limited to empirical testing alone, but their consistency must be ensured relevantly, according to perspectives and contexts that allow it.
The keyword here is consistency. By achieving a degree of consistency in one or several conclusions from various disciplines, it becomes increasingly evident that there is universality of knowledge that converges across science, spirituality, religion, and philosophy.
🧩 THIS IS THE POINT OF OBJECTIVITY THAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN PHYSICS, MATHEMATICS, PHILOSOPHY, AND OTHER DISCIPLINARY FIELDS. THAT IS❓CONSISTENCY❗️
⭕️ The question is...❓Have you, through philosophy, found objectivity based on absolute truth❓
