Overall, while there does exist the philosophy of science, the term philosophy is a very large tent. And, so far, what I understand of it has little to do with changing matter. Now, physics and other sciences, perhaps.
On Jan 4, 1:26 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 4, 9:08 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In the context of "All Things" in the Universe, perhaps. However, > > concerning the atomic bomb, humans are Beings and the atomic bomb is a > > Thing. I'm sure Thoreau was not alluding to inanimate objects or > > monstrous creations of human ingenuity but more so to the natural > > order of ecological life and the impact of a changing environment. > > I know, I was just playing with words. > The particular reason I mentioned the atom was because generally when > change occurs it is usually a fact that matter rearranges, in a > nuclear explosion matter changes more fundamentally. > As for Thoreau - I understand that "things" are the eternal verities > like love, hate, jealously etc.. > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 1:43 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 5:44 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > People changed to create the atomic bomb. > > > > People are things too > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:30 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The atomic bomb is an example of things changing. > > > > > > On Jan 4, 4:12 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree with Thoreau: "Things don't change, we change." > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:44 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 4:36 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Without meaning to take an apparently opposing view, I would > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > that philosophy will need to be brought ‘up to date’ when/if > > > > > > > > humans > > > > > > > > learn the true nature of everything and/or how to not die. > > > > > > > > Surely philosophy is the means by which humans continually > > > > > > > re-invent > > > > > > > the nature of (every)things, which is ever changing and > > > > > > > modernising. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 11:49 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well as for literature, Homer may have been the greatest for > > > > > > > > > hundreds > > > > > > > > > of years but he was surpassed. Shakespeare is damn hard to > > > > > > > > > beat and I > > > > > > > > > don't think either Doyle or Dickens have managed to do it. > > > > > > > > > Doyle, in > > > > > > > > > particular is populist by comparison. The point is that > > > > > > > > > Shakey, as a > > > > > > > > > contemporary did do better than Homer as a person of the > > > > > > > > > past, so it > > > > > > > > > is possible that history may well find a new literary genius. > > > > > > > > > > As for philosophy there is a thread of progress (ugh! I hear > > > > > > > > > you say). > > > > > > > > > Really, Plato's time is over and although we may still rely > > > > > > > > > on him for > > > > > > > > > things he was the first to say, most of his work is no longer > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > or relevant. None of the philosophers "outclass" contemporary > > > > > > > > > philosophers as they no longer have the power to respond to > > > > > > > > > up to date > > > > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31 2008, 4:06 am, Archetypal Columnist > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The prolific writers Charles Dickens,Sir Conan > > > > > > > > > > Doyle,Shakespeare and > > > > > > > > > > whatnot is exquisitely intellectual in their > > > > > > > > > > enterprise,which,we,the > > > > > > > > > > contemporary humanity is revering them of their optimal > > > > > > > > > > repertoire. > > > > > > > > > > > Confucius,Lao Tzu,Homer,the philosophers,had outclass us in > > > > > > > > > > light of > > > > > > > > > > ethics and morals which we hitherto assimilate them.I > > > > > > > > > > perceive I am > > > > > > > > > > marginally inferior,like having penury and being destitue. > > > > > > > > > > Vying with the past is apparently downright inimitable.- > > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
