I once supposed science was the 'more practical' and that we might find formal languages in it that would ensure we could talk about what matters, maybe even like Georges. I was never up to it though and now I'm not up for it either. I found this recently whilst looking into a guy called Prichard, as I have some sense of an independent world of knowledge. It's corny, but hits a few nails on argument: "Wittgenstein came to speak in Oxford in 1947, just before Prichard's death. He had said he did not want to read a paper, but was willing to respond to a paper given by some agreeable student. O. P. Wood, who was still an undergraduate (at Corpus Christi) was set up as the fall guy, and read a paper on the Cogito. Wittgenstein, using the paper as a springboard for his own ideas, responded at length. Prichard made several interventions, on each occasion very deliberately mispronouncing Wittgenstein's name as Whittgensteen. Finally he rose again and said, in his high reedy voice ‘Mr. Whittgensteen, Mr. Whittgensteen, you have not answered the question. Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. Is it true, Mr Whittgensteen, is it true — I think therefore I am?’. Wittgenstein, exasperated, turned very icy and replied ‘I think this is a very foolish old man; so I am — what?’. (This story comes to me from Peter Hacker, who heard it from two people who were there, J. O. Urmson and H. L. A. Hart. Hart thought that Wittgenstein's reply was brilliant repartee; Urmson thought it unforgivably rude.)" (from a Stanford EP article)
Prichard (Harold Arthur) left some room for people to do some decent things and be valued in moral action. In a way, I see enlightenment as as about valuing people in some practical way and not getting consumed by totalities and lack of humility. I just think something like this is all we can cope with for now, and of course that we aren't coping. Most people I know can't cope with academic or scientific argument. What would be more practical for me is some kind of forum that prevents the worst of what we do through our politics and religious madness. In the sense of this we need tor recognise democracy is just another form of human resource management and find a more acceptable form of control in which representation protects rather than dominates through representatives. The technology is lying around through which to build something transparent enough. Most people can't build cars, but they can learn to drive them - that sort of level. I read Lyotard long ago. The phrase everyone regurgitates, 'postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives' is preceded by 'over-simplifying to the extreme'. I just notice no one ever knows what a metanarrative is, let alone what the dominating ones are. I suspect, that rather than being linguistic, they are more genetic - as seen in packs where only the alphas shag, perhaps especially in those fish where the alpha male and female shag and if that alpha female dies, the alpha male becomes female and another of the subjects becomes the alpha male. I suspect, as Lyotard did, that we have a libidinous economy, but as you know, this will only lead some to think I believe people are fish. Good points as ever above, though I note some current students are describing their work as about how bacteria think. They must be seeing too much of me. I must say, the little bastards (insert student or bacteria to taste) are brighter than I thought. They are trying to interfere with bacteria communication systems to cure disease. My last words, taken literally by one, were about GPO gene-therapy. On 19 Jan, 23:54, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > I suppose that something more practical is science. The trouble seems > to come when (and it always does) it bursts out of its little physical > box and wanders into the realm of the metaphysic. > That's one thing the Foucault looky-likey Armand Marie Leroi mentioned > with Aristiotle with some ironic pleasantry only gently mocking > Aristotle's mistakes not being able to "believe" in petrified trees > because of the need to believe in an immutable universe, but I bet > when it comes to escaping his own scientific cage he also will not see > the wood for the trees too. > Leroi also did a good programme on Darwin last year, and almost > managed to avoid the teleology - nearly completely. But you could > still feel the immense presence of Dawkinsian universal Dawinism > ratttling its science cage to spew its metaphysical crap all over the > TV screen. > Science is good when it stays in its cage, but it is easily lured > outside by a tasty tidbit of metaphysical hypothesiszing and then what > do you get? -- selfish genes, and intentionality from inanimate > objects - purpose from the purposeless. Well it attracts more funding > from government don't it? if it were too sciencey it would not WOW the > funding bodies. > > On Jan 19, 10:48 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well it was better than reading for once. The key trick is iteration > > in equations. I don't know why they harped on about Newton and the > > end was well over-played. Relating the weather to oscillations in a > > petri-dish was OTT! The more you plug into the philosophy, the more > > you turn up possibilities like Duns Scotus and even Ockham being > > 'deconstructive'. Like Carlos, I don't like the word enlightenment. > > All sorts claim it, just more and more complexity and cascades of > > action. > > I used to wonder, doing chemistry and biology, what more there was. I > > haven't found anything. Frank Zappa said they'd keep funding the > > illusion of freedom until it wasn't profitable, then the set and seats > > would disappear and we'd see the brick wall at the back. I just end > > up with conditions for existence. Everything has some kind of > > convention in it, but this doesn't put all arguments on the same > > footing. This leads me to suspect argument itself. We need something > > more practical. > > > On 19 Jan, 19:45, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I saw Jim Al-Kalili on Chaos. Like most mathematicians they tend to > > > valorise, even mythologise the ability of maths to explain the > > > universe, when it seems more clear to me that > > > what they are actually doing is modelling it -describing it by > > > applying the a priori to the a posteriori. There is another TV > > > mathematician, that also seem to keep overplaying his hand as if maths > > > is a universal language of reality - I don't see it. In this they > > > cross a conceptual divide from an induction to a set of hypothetical > > > metaphysical propositions. This is no different from Aristotle and > > > Eudoxus putting all the planets in a nest of crystal spheres because > > > they don't see how they can move without being in contact with each > > > other. They were filing up the gaps between the numbers as AL-khalili > > > filled up the unknown with an overarching and universal explanation of > > > "self organising matter". It's like "gravity" did it!! It is commonly > > > (and I mean commonly ) accepted that gravity is the "cause" of > > > falling bodies, when we all know that gravity is what we call the > > > phenomenon of the tendency for bodies to fall - What are the > > > boundaries between explanation and description - is science anything > > > but description? > > > > However I did enjoy the programme and it freaked me out a bit. I was > > > taken back to 1980 when I used to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos - normally > > > high on Pot. Those were the days! > > > > I thought his picture in a picture, in a picture with unpredictable > > > patterns was nothing more than an indication of unpredictable but > > > determinable factors - wholly determined by the equipment and the > > > parameters of light but only unpredictable because no one has actually > > > taken the trouble to do the maths - the possibility of which in the > > > earlier part of the program was demonstrated by the Turring stuff. He > > > was doing a bit of smoke and mirrors to wow the crowd - a cheap trick > > > I thought!! > > > > On Jan 19, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Interesting in many ways John. I'm not personally convinced by > > > > enlightenment arguments. I've read quite a bit in the area out of > > > > boredom with my own teaching field and what passes for literature and > > > > entertainment. I was an academic too long to have much respect for > > > > the academy. It's often struck me that most people going back 2,000 > > > > years by time-machine would be useless because they have no knowledge > > > > to take back. The majority are hardly enlightened now and never have > > > > been. I can't explain this well, but I feel fashion has a lot to do > > > > with it all, and how boring is fashion to the non-vapid? Plagiarism > > > > rides along somewhere in all this 'fortunate class crap'. Why are > > > > most of us such nerks that we don't escape our myth of origin > > > > cultures? Who gets to claim to be enlightened and how? Both links > > > > touch a bit to my disorganised questioning. > > > > A current BBC documentary on 'Chaos' (BBC iPlayer is the easiest > > > > access on BBC4) is better than most of its science programmes and hits > > > > at some E questions indirectly. Chaos is for once explained in terms > > > > of self-organisation and we get a hint of thinking that might just be > > > > turning a lot over. I was taught most of it as an undergrad around > > > > 1970 and was shamefully incapable with it all, despite being much > > > > better then at maths than I am now. There is a certain 'E' in > > > > realisng one has been a fatuous adolescent git and somehow 'developed' > > > > into an old fart! I can see now that much I took as science was not > > > > up to the mark because I was rejecting much of the lying authority > > > > around me (church, parents, peer groups etc.). I knew I was not up to > > > > the mark when I started postgrad work, but was good enough technically > > > > to survive. Some people had things going on in their heads that I > > > > don't experience, abilities with numbers, spatial super-impositions > > > > and stuff - a long way different from piss-wittering postmodern text > > > > engines. One poor sod used to tell me he didn't see what all the fuss > > > > about light was because he saw black lines in it - he was cabbaged by > > > > 25, but was so good at some of the stuff we did I suspect maybe he did > > > > see this reality (light is not what we see of it, has 'holes' and can > > > > be 'knotted'). Nash said his loony tune moments came from the same > > > > place as his maths. > > > > Thanks for the links and your piece above John - it's encouraging and > > > > has me 'off on one' (hence the disjointed stuff above). I can say I > > > > think it's a mistake to think we have rejected religion (not 'cos I > > > > want any of the vile stuff) but because of its likely continuing > > > > influence in screwing up what we can think and maybe because the > > > > godspot could have some sensory use to us if it was just part of being > > > > controlled or rendered insane? > > > > > On 19 Jan, 02:57, jonbenn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I though this link may add a little light to the > > > > > subject.http://www.scrye.com/~station/dissertation.html > > > > > > There was a definite change in the world view, in the outlook of the > > > > > West, starting with Kant, of course. This was picked up and amplified > > > > > in different ways but to the same general effect by Hegel, and the > > > > > other German Idealists, and Schopenhauer. > > > > > > So its pretty clear that one general trend of thought, effecting the > > > > > whole of western culture, was replaced by another with the Kantian > > > > > revolution. There was a progression of world views from the 17th > > > > > century forward from Christian Theism, to Deism, to every kind of > > > > > atheism, and pagan, or naturalistic religions. Quite simple there was > > > > > a deification of nature that occurred with the rise and fall of the > > > > > Enl. > > > > > > While the Enl grew out of Christian theism, and its belief in > > > > > revealed truth, over and above reason, this changed with Locke who saw > > > > > reason as primary. The modern world then came into being on the cusp > > > > > of two ages. And each age, and its metaphyscial outlook and its > > > > > epistemological stance, grew directly out of its theology-on it > > > > > understanding of God, even when God was denied. > > > > > > This is especiall apparent when you look at Hegel and the other > > > > > Idealists, who were all trained theologians and intentionally set out > > > > > to define a new relationship between the infinite and the finite, the > > > > > Creator and the creation. Every thing else that has come since, has > > > > > been the result of this new orientation in philosophy which was > > > > > founded on a new undertstanding of theology, and the relationship of > > > > > the Creator to the creation. > > > > > > Derrida, Focault, Godel, the pragmatists, you name em. They all issued > > > > > from this great historical re-alignment from a dualistic world view > > > > > based on Judea-Christian thought, to a monistic world view based on > > > > > Greek neo-paganism, neo-platonists, and from Schopenhauer to > > > > > Nietzsche, and even Heidegger, a world view based on Hinduism, eastern > > > > > thought, the Vedas and the Upanishads. > > > > > > But the point is that the Enlightenment, the basis for it was > > > > > origially the Bible. Hegel thought he was rationalizing, or > > > > > demytholigizing, the Bible. Rendering its content and insight, and > > > > > revelation in rational terms. And this is where we see the transition > > > > > from Christian theism, and a Biblically based metaphysics, > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
