I think you overstate the case pessimistically. You can develop a theory and implement it. It may be logical and functional and creates the reality it defines. But unlike natural laws it will not be universal because it always relies on subjective experience whereas an objective instrument can verify or falsify a natural law.
As for peace and love these are always defined by power. The Pax Romana was not a result of everybody suddenly getting along but was due to imperial power and the threat of suppression. wc ________________________________ From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:46:48 AM Subject: RE: Architecture and Philosophy Frances momentarily digresses... The classification of those global objects called the arts and techs and sciences by some kind of categories is seemingly an ongoing and unending work in progress for thinkers. There remains little consensus of opinion on a lot of stuff that has been posited. The same can be said of aesthetics and of architecture, and from positions that hold them as either art or tech or science. It is unclear to me however whether this says something mainly about the problems of classes or categories or objects or thinkers or theories. Considering all the learned persons that exist in scholarly academia, it should be expected that some reasonable agreement would emerge, even if only tentative. To me this current state of affairs in regard to a lack of rational intelligent ability is confusing, to say the least. If philosophers, let alone artists and technicians and scientists, cannot deal adequately with psychical things like art and theory, then it is not surprising that they cannot deal with physical and practical things like peace and love. This casual observation of mine may overstate the issue with too much gloom and doom, but it does seem that philosophy, given its legitimate interests is art and tech and science, is in some trouble.
