Phi/105 Letter

Letter to a 20 or 21 Century Philosopher PHI/105 September 23, 2012 Letter to a 20 or 21 Century Philosopher I am report 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 k straightway that you chose to ch all(prenominal)enge logicians to answer the pass of integrity. This is a securely thing to sort out and make veridical and true. Going up against some of the dates most logical thinkers and ambitious them to come up with true answers was one of your strong points.I know that you were not totally opposed to modern logic as you have utter logic based upon the idea that qualitative objects are existential in the fullest sense. To retain logical principles based on this conception along with the borrowing of theories of existence and knowledge based on an opposite conception is not, to vocalize the least, conductive to clearness a consideration that has a good accept t o do with existing dualism between traditional and the newer relational logics. (Qualitative Thought1930) This contestation to me means that you had maybe exhausted the traditional way of thinking that you had imagined.I debate that you had to reach for more answers and different ways to get those answers. Truth is a weighed down thing to come by and it is not easily obtained. I know that you were a philosopher of scholarship and that you used this to try and understand the world. From you inquiry you did not stretch the truth but rather examined all of the part that could be explained by science. In figuring these things out you were able to act upon if the phenomena that you were examining at the time were actually true or not.I find this arouse because there are some(prenominal) things in this world that are hard to explain. I am sure that there were many questions left unrequited for you because the research technology was just not there for you at the time you were doi ng your research on different phenomenas. The scientific regularity that you chose to follow would be a base for all of the scientists that followed your research and I find it astound that you are still known to this day. I can see now by researching your history why you did not cerebrate in religion. I would have to say this is ecause it is something that could not be designaten. The phenomena that a being could exists and name invariablyything 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 accept 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 most 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 look and think about things. I believe that the other dickens schools are just as good as yours. I just lean a weeny more towards science then math or metaphysics. These other two schools are necessary as well 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 believing 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 READINGCh. 9 ofdoctrine The Power Of Ideas. READINGCh. 8 ofPhilosophy The Power Of Ideas. http//www. infed. org/thinkers/et-dewey. htm