Philosopher Huw Price distinguishes between subject naturalism and object naturalism:
Object naturalism is what ordinarily goes under the name ‘naturalism’ in contemporary philosophy, namely the view that “all there is is the world studied by science” and that “all genuine knowledge is scientific knowledge”. Subject naturalism, by contrast, says that: “philosophy needs to begin with what science tells us about ourselves. Science tells us that we humans are natural creatures, and if the claims and ambitions of philosophy conflict with this view, then philosophy needs to give way.”
I agree, we can’t start with millions of arbitrary facts about rocks and society and persons, and build on that in a bottom up way. It’s not what we do. Rather, we start from ourselves, from our human projects, from our goals, from the things we love and value. From there, we ask, and try to answer, the questions, scientific and non-scientific, that matter.
Subject naturalism is great when thinking of placement problems (e.g., how moral or aesthetic values relate to descriptive properties that are explained by science; how linguistic meaning and intentionality fit into the naturalistic framework). How does the fact that ‘greed is bad’ relates to the fact that ‘the cat is on the mat’? Where do these non-descriptive, non-factual statements fit in our naturalistic web-of-belief? Object naturalism struggles to answer this, while subject naturalism starts by asking why we care about these facts and then figuring out what to do with them is easier. Why we care, is always a question we can begin to answer in a empirically-based rational way; we get insights into who we are. Insights about our biological origins, genetic makeup, physical functioning, health, social dynamics.
Despite this, I still find it challenging to determine what is worth pursuing and what is not. Science tells us so many different things. For example: that for some, science is a little bit like a joke. For some others, it’s very serious, not a joke at all; however, their lack of skills leads them to produce what more competent practitioners deem as junk science. Yet, for others, the things we do are unfalsifiable and inexhaustible, so ultimately of questionable importance. Others, of course, are competent at producing science. For some like Musk, it’s easier, or they think it’s easier; if we are rigorous about truth and honesty, we can understand the nature of reality, understand the universe.
Science tells us so many different and varied things about ourselves. There are no hard criteria to decide what to do. Maybe I should just listen to Paul Graham’s good but slightly tautological advice and get going:
The way to figure out what to work on is by working. If you’re not sure what to work on, guess. But pick something and get going. You’ll probably guess wrong some of the time, but that’s fine.