I meant Nietzsche went mad hugging the horse.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose
wrote:
> I am very glad you are bringing this down to earth. You are right to flag
> evil and injustice. Neither is the strong suit of academic philosophy.
> Sadly
I am very glad you are bringing this down to earth. You are right to flag
evil and injustice. Neither is the strong suit of academic philosophy.
Sadly I could "out" Peirce and Wittgenstein, neither of whom were without
filmclips that would make them worse than Nietzsche who after all went man
I agree, but before everybody can pursue beauty, truth, and enlightenment, everybody should be granted to have a life. Some days ago, a participant of the education outfit I work in has been expelled with her family from Germany to Montenegro. She neither has a german, nor a montenegronian
I am gratified at this understanding which indicates to me the relevance of
the triadic approach. I am still a babe in the woods regarding this
thinking though I know how it started. At this point if I had a large
pedestal I would make room on it for Peirce, Berkeley, Wittgenstein and
Nietzsche
I see. In your post you also spoke of information as the basic stuff of the universe. So perhaps "spirit (or mind) - matter - information" might be seen as a triad?
To see matter-mind as a dyad brings a bout the hen-and-egg-problem, as realists see matter as primordinal, and mind as its
Realism appears to me to the basis of dominant science -- deriving truth
from material. Idealism rejects that. If opposition is conceded they form a
binary that triadic thinking questions (perhaps as you do). But my
conclusion would be to try to see what unifies them and what if anything
would
