Why „disappointment / disillusionment“? What does „disappointment / disillusionment“ mean?
I say: we are all too fond of deceiving ourselves; we rarely want to look the truth in the face. Especially if it is a negativistic truth: that we do not really know what is true and real (in itself), but also not what is good and meaningful (for us).
Precisely because we do not know (or only think we know) whether philosophy is a science. But we like to be mistaken about that and are disappointed when it is not true that we know it: when our knowledge does not prove itself, when it does not pass the test of time.
But why not? Why do we not know what is true and real, what is good and meaningful?
First, we do not know it because we are finite and thus historical beings, i.e. the truth itself is always a finite and a historical one.
So we would have to be able to stop the process of the continuous on-one-end approach, of this series of events, which is history, in order to be able to say once – not even once and for all – what is true and real, good and meaningful.
Secondly, we don’t know it because we are individual and thus intersubjective beings, i.e. the truth is always also an individual and intersubjective one.
This means that the process of the continuous on-one-end approach is a multiple, plural process: everything and everyone is approaching its end here, the individual in his community / his society, the society / the community with its individuals.
There is no stopping, but always something new, no pausing, but always new challenges, against which the old truths, what used to be meaningful and good, fade.
But, one might ask, isn’t science, precisely then, the only and only reasonable answer?
Far from it. For as it turns out, in the end every science disintegrates into a multitude of sciences, which all produce their own truths, which at a certain point – a point of no return – no longer communicate with each other, are no longer compatible with each other.
It begins with the soft sciences: with pedagogy and political sciences, social and cultural sciences, history, ethnology, etc., which disintegrate into schools and doctrines and are at best still held together by fashions and mainstreams, so-called turns: the linguistic turn, the cultural turn, the iconic turn, the body turn, the communicative turn, etc. (see here for an unironic description of a scientific description of such turns).
Then, at some point, the hard sciences will also be seized. Just think of the inextricable contradictions in physics about space and time, matter and energy, or of the so-called neurosciences, which can no longer get a foot on the earth at all and which we, the philosophers, have in our ears with „insights“ – they are only speculations – which have to be revised every two / three years.
Meanwhile I am almost ashamed to have taken part in such debates myself (fortunately only with inferior contributions; see my bibliography No. 30 and No. 46).
Everybody goes there, keeps his own little machine running and hopes to become part of a scientific community, pressure group or lobby to be able to help shape a small one.
What about what? Nobody knows that. Millions and millions of dollars and euros have been and are burned in this way – because it goes on and on – , dollars and euros, which could have been used much more sensibly in many places.
In other words, science has become our favourite activity for not changing anything and for not being responsible for anything, really for nothing at all.
Because: The sciences can only describe what there is. They cannot – and do not want to – change anything about being, or if they wanted to change something – but they do not want to – they would no longer be sciences. That’s it.