dmb said to Mary:
That's how James saw it. In the essay titled "Does Consciousness Exist" he
says, basically, that the Cartesian subject is a modern, quasi-secular version
of the christian soul.
Mary Replied:
Now I need to ask which (if any) philosopher has already come up with the next
logical conclusion I have drawn from all this; namely, that all of modern
science owes a big debt to monotheism and the attendant idea of the sanctity of
the individual for its very existence?
dmb says:
I don't know about that but it's probably safe to say. Deism springs to mind
here. This is the position of the enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Smith,
Jefferson. Maybe it could be described as halfway between theism and scientism.
Even as far back as Spinoza you'll see this idea that God IS nature, which is
echoed in Jefferson's phrase, "nature and nature's god". You know, this is the
idea that God created the universe the way a watch maker makes time pieces.
Once it's built, the creator just winds it up, gets things ticking and then his
role is done. This sort of imagery depicts reality as one giant mechanism and
then studying that mechanism becomes a way to understand the mind of the
creator. Scientism believes in the watch but not the watch maker. Einstein
famously said he believed in Spinoza's god. But I've never been able to tell
the difference between saying, "nature is God" and "nature is nature". In
Spinoza's equation the term "God" seems logically meaningless although it does
express a certain reverence for nature.
Mary also said:
As an aside, it's probably somewhat tedious for you to watch me groping along
in my ignorance and reinventing the philosophical wheel; while, to me, it's
kind of hilarious that I sit here and think up all these things that I am so
proud of only to learn that somebody beat me to it 100's of years ago. A
humbling experience. :)
dmb says:
You could just as reasonably be flattered to learn that some great thinker from
the past also arrived at the point where you find yourself. How far off track
could you be if others have found the same path? Even if it doesn't completely
validate your point of view, it does show that you're not crazy or lost.
Mary said to Ham:
Gee Ham, the "inherent freedom of the individual" is pretty much exactly what
I'm talking about! However, I didn't intend to "demean subjectivity" as a
"religious myth". It's been a very useful tool for Western Civilization, and
(as you just read above) I think is responsible for starting us down the whole
trail of scientific inquiry and objectivity. If we hadn't done that, you and I
wouldn't be conversing via computer today...
dmb says:
Good point. I think that's about right. Besides, the notion that there is a
pre-existing objective reality is a very handy idea, as I like to say,
especially in rush hour traffic. The autonomous individual is very handy in
court, during tennis matches and nobody ever complained about the notion when
it comes time to cash their paychecks. It has limits and gets us into all kinds
of fake philosophical problems when it's construed as a metaphysical premise
but as a practical matter, it works pretty well most of the time.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
