Phi/105 Letter

Letter to a 20 or 21 deoxycytidine monophosphate Philosopher PHI/105 September 23, 2012 Letter to a 20 or 21 Century Philosopher I am writing this letter to John Dewey regarding his theory of pragmatism. I am choosing this theory because it interests me in the scientific aspect of your thinking. I know that you chose to ch tout ensembleenge logicians to answer the question of truth. This is a hard topic to sort out(p) and make real and true. Going up against some of the cadences most sensible thinkers and challenging them to come up with true answers was one of your strong points.I know that you were not totally contrasted to modern logic as you give way stated logic based upon the idea that qualitative objects atomic number 18 existential in the fullest sense. To retain logical principles based on this conception along with the acceptance of theories of earth and knowledge based on an opposite conception is not, to set up the least, conductive to clearness a musing that has a good deal to do with existing dualism between traditional and the newer relational logics. (Qualitative Thought1930) This averment to me means that you had maybe exhausted the traditional focusing of thinking that you had imagined.I believe that you had to reach for more than answers and antithetical ways to get those answers. Truth is a hard thing to come by and it is not slowly obtained. I know that you were a philosopher of science and that you used this to try and understand the world. From you research you did not corrupt the truth but rather examined all of the parts that could be explained by science. In figuring these things out you were able to coiffe if the phenomena that you were examining at the time were actually true or not.I find this interesting because thither ar many things in this world that are hard to explain. I am sure that thither were many questions left unanswered for you because the research technology was just not there for you at the time y ou were doing your research on different phenomenas. The scientific method that you chose to follow would be a base for all of the scientists that followed your research and I find it amazing that you are still known to this day. I can send off now by researching your history why you did not believe in religion. I would have to say this is ecause it is something that could not be turn offn. The phenomena that a being could exists and create everything is just too impossible to conceive. It is impossible to determine by science even to this day if someone such as this did or could ever exist. there is no scientific method that can prove the truth of this and this is why you did not believe it was possible. I would have to also agree with this point and if there were a way to research it scientifically and prove that such a being or person did exist I would believe that to be the truth.With no truth about certain things it is hard to put any kind of faith in them. The more I think about these things the more I believe the scientific method the best way for me to go about life and think about things. I believe that the other two schools are just as good as yours. I just lean a little more towards science then math or metaphysics. These other two schools are necessary as hale for the understanding of almost all things that are explainable. There is no one school that is better than the others and I would have to relate to all three of them.As for the things that are just phenomena I would have to agree with you in analyzing the facts and truths that we are able to prove and believe in rather than just making things up and believe in false truths. John Dewey you are truly someone to look up to and I have found in your readings some truth to this life that we lead. Many things go unanswered but in time many things that were unanswerable will get figured out and the truth shall be revealed. References practice sessionCh. 9 ofPhilosophy The Power Of Ideas. READIN GCh. 8 ofPhilosophy The Power Of Ideas. http//www. infed. org/thinkers/et-dewey. htm