I've recorded it - I'll catch up on it later. Big issue is that the history of science has tended to look at the success as it leads to a teleological history of the modern day. New h of S tends to be more interesting. Like Galileo being a damn sight more interested in Astrology and the fact that he named his discovery of the moons of Jupiter "medicean stars" as they legitimated his patrons who claimed descent from Jupiter.; Newton was really a magician and theologican that took time off to do his hobby of looking at stars - most of Newtonian physics is nothing of the sort , being completely transformed from its original conception. As for Aristotle being the father of science? WHy the fuck did he not look inside any mouths to verify his misconception that men and women had different numbers of teeth??
I've noticed that George M has got pissed off that we are not talking about his 2nd Enlightenment!! On Jan 17, 9:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > There's a guy doing Aristotle on BBC4 at the moment Chaz. It was > quite interesting with a guy doing dissection as Aristotle did. > Wittering about the soul now (zzz) but back on track again with some > attempt to get into the eternalist view and how A missed fossils and > thinking without the next 23 centuries. Good to see a great mind > being treated in a 'getting it wrong' context and how evidence, even > from detailed examinations can lead us the wrong way. > > Georges - round the corner, a set of nerds are behaving in a very > unenlightened manner towards an Asian family. My grandson is being > bullied because he plays with their kids. There is no need for your > tone. > > On 17 Jan, 21:01, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Would you kindly, gentlemen, fuck off from this thread, as you don't > > twig the slightest of it, and kindly change the "subject" under which > > you dump your drivel. > > Respectfully > > Georges. > > > --- On Sun, 1/17/10, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: chazwin <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [epistemology 11193] Re: Second Enlightenment (S1,S2) > > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 7:34 PM > > > > The question of the Enlightenment is not so much how do we > > > know but > > > what the hell do we think it is. > > > > On Jan 17, 4:07 am, jonbenn <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > I haven' responded to this list in years, it got to > > > hostile. And I > > > > haven't followed the recent posts, but thought I might > > > just dive in > > > > here and as the obvious epistemological question-how > > > do you know? How > > > > do you know anything at all? Once you answer that > > > question then you > > > > can as whether or not there was such a thin as the > > > enlightenment, and > > > > other questions. First, how do you know. > > > > > The fact that there was once believed to be an > > > enlightenment, and the > > > > fact that it is questioned today, is because we have > > > changed our > > > > epistemology, as well as our metaphysics. But the very > > > fact that we > > > > now question the existence of the enlightenment, or of > > > any age, or > > > > absolute knowledge of any fact, is a direct result > > > from the > > > > epistemology that was ushered in by the > > > enlightenment. > > > > Err, well - nope! Diderot was consciously unmasking 1200 > > > years of > > > darkness, to a time when > > > he considered that restriction on thinking was much less. > > > Whatever the > > > E is, it did not usher in anything new. > > > What E is usually caricatured as is part of a revolution of > > > Science, > > > this was Baconian, Newtonian, but also Epicurean and > > > Stoical. > > > But that is only true oif you have a 50 year old conception > > > of the E. > > > The real difficulty is that the E is now so many things > > > that it has > > > lost coherence. > > > There is a Christian E now, and even an English one; its a > > > period of > > > time, its a process, its an event, its a set of values ad > > > nauseum. > > > I'm trying to put 5000 words together and I've opened up a > > > can of > > > worms. > > > > > Jon > > > > > Jan 6, 7:07 am, chazwin <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > It's all very interesting but was there any such > > > thing as a first > > > > > enlightenment? > > > > > > On Dec 30 2009, 6:21 pm, Georges Metanomski > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > ========== > > > > > > Reminder: > > > > > > > The present thread is destined to discuss > > > the rationality of the > > > > >> Second Enlightenment as well as to inquire > > > into the sources of > > > > > > the irrational manipulation of masses and to > > > look for remediation. > > > > > > Its basic structure is: > > > > > > > X1. Scientific Revolution > > > > > > X2. Ontology > > > > > > X3. Ideology > > > > > > X4. Social awareness > > > > > > X5. Establishment > > > > > > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second > > > enlightenment. > > > > > > We start by the first enlightenment as > > > guidance to the formulation > > > > > > of the second and warning of errors to be > > > avoided. > > > > > > ============ = > > > > > > Originally the thread was meant as a chain > > > of posts, but proved much > > > > > > too voluminous and I upload it progressively > > > to my site. > > > > > > The so far uploaded sections are: > > > > > > F1.Scientific Revolution and F2.Ontology of > > > the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F1_F... > > > > > > F3.Ideology of the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F3.html > > > > > > F4.Social awareness and F5.Establishment of > > > the first enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_F4_F... > > > > > > S1.Scientific Revolution and S2.Ontology of > > > the second enlightenment > > > > > > inhttp://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S... > > > > > > > Georges.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
