The Inherent Circularity of Science, Philosophy, and Art

This statement on describing the contemplation on the limits of our knowledge, arriving at a hypothesis and flowing into achievement is one of Will Durant’s most famous quotes. Durant continues with the description of science as an analytical description and philosophy as synthetic interpretation. Yet, Durant does not continue in the description of art other than it is used with knowledge to build our imperfect world. In this sense, Durant fails his reader by implying a linear relationship between the three: philosophy, science and art. The true nature between the three is cyclic. As science flows into achievements, art uses this knowledge to inspire thoughts. Art, therefore, seeds the questions within ourselves that beg new hypotheses and further science. Without this cyclic nature, our marvelous world may see art as an end instead of the perch onto which we view new philosophy.

This conflict of viewing art as the end of knowledge, not the beginning, has developed in aesthetics. Our society has been brought up in an era of “modernism”. In the simplest terms, modernism's aesthetic appeal is integrally linked with the future, technology, and perfection. This push from the 20th century has led our society into deep appreciation for technology, but bringing a constant search for human essence and its meaning. On the other side is an aesthetic known as Wabi-Sabi, which cannot be defined in fear it will lose its richness. An aesthetic integrally linked with the present, nature and imperfections. The Japanese founded an art form developed for the common man, an appreciation to the littlest of details, even those imperfect, within nature. This type of art form has re-invented itself with names like rustic, antique, and homely. Nevertheless, this divide between technology and nature pervades past simple aesthetics.

The industrial influence upon science and design formed substantial mental boundaries on the creation process. We were limited to a top-down approach where we made form or we created product. We never grew form as nature truly can. We used lithography techniques to create structures within computers, whereas nature uses self-assembly. We used milling, high temperatures, and harsh chemicals to form nanomaterials. Nature grows nanomaterials within organisms. Recently, science has embarked to change this mindset. Science has ventured into growing materials and physics behind self-assembly. Consequently, these mental boundaries have started to drop. Science is laying a foundation of knowledge on how nature see’s the material world, a very different view than our perspective.

I crave to sit at this forefront and view the spectacular possibilities of invention without mental barriers. I see a beauty in both Modernism and Wabi-Sabi. I see advantages to top-down and bottom-up approaches within engineering. But where is the junction? Where can we find an equilibrium between two opposite forces? My hypotheses lie in human kind’s view on technology. We can continue to make products as we have or we can choose to grow into a more advanced society. I want to lay the seeds that society can use to ripen into a healthy future, not to make a future that is bounded. I want to show society not to fear impending doom from technology. I want to show how society can create a mindset that appreciates our success with technology as the tool.