What drives this change? the same drive than in the ancient times: If A people defeat B people, then B people agree that A gods is stronger that B gods. The atomic bomb, the cloning, the magic of the computers are, in the mind of the stone-age brain of the humans, manifestations of the gods of modernity, and their priests are prominent political and scientific figures. If the moors had defeated the French in Poitiers, well all would believe in Allah.
2013/9/7 Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited > philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their > realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a > branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any > other way of thinking. That was so strong that that way of thinking became > THE reality. Like the fish presupposes the water. People, not even > scientist know that they are ferocious logical positivists. Since then, > biologism and computationalism, two other branches of positivism have been > of fashion since the cloning of Dolly and the popularization of computers. > > Before that, philosophy, or the philosophical debate, like before religion > was on the top. People killed one another in the name of philosophical > concepts. All the ideologies of the XX century invoked prominent > philosophers. > > That is not only fashion. IMHO this is religion. As Voegelin said, what is > in common in all these movements, branches and ideologies, from physicalism > to biologism to computationalism to comunism to nazism to ecologism etc is > the notion of utopy, that is the common ground of modernity. All of them > propose a end of history and a perfect state of things, or at least a > straigh path to eternal improvement trough knowledge and investment in the > particular things that they are promoting, while despise any other kind of > effort. The paradise is just tomorrow (if you follow me). You only have to > take a look at Scientific American or any other publication of this kind. > Behind these ideas they are the inmortal desires and hopes of religion, and > , more concrete, a kind of gnostic christianism. > > > 2013/9/7 <spudboy...@aol.com> > > I don't agree that philosophers do have a bad name, save that they don't >> employ falsifiability. Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I >> forget his name. Kark Popper! That's it! Also, many scientists by nature >> are logical positivists, even though this is a philosophical concept from >> the 19th century. On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what >> you love or hate. An example would be asking a person carried off and >> bounced along the ground by a tornado, "How do you like it so far? And the >> victim could reply, Ah! I could do better without it." the victim would be >> correct of course, but that is free will-having an opinion of yourself. >> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> >> To: everything-list >> <everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> > >> Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 5:39 pm >> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? >> >> I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that >> people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept which >> is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free will before >> you can ask the question of what it is. I think that it is the claim that >> we don't know or can't know what words like free will and consciousness >> refer to which are more of a distraction. >> >> In the days before computers, physicists and mathematicians spent decades >> poring over there slide rules and logarithm tables. Some made new >> discoveries, but most did not. I don't see any difference with >> philosophical debate. Not everyone wants to be limited to thinking about >> things which can be detected by inanimate objects. I wouldn't waste my time >> focusing so narrowly on that aspect of the universe, but I wouldn't >> begrudge someone else that right. Why should it bother me if people argue >> about esoteric terms or count blips from a particle accelerator? >> >> >> On Friday, September 6, 2013 2:34:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:This is >> what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have sent the >> following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to signifacantly >> contribute to global warming, >> >> * I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But >> if I do [blah blah] >> >> * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then? >> >> * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah] >> >> * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah >> blah] >> >> * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah] >> >> * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for >> free will to exist. >> >> * Are you maintain that the experience of free will does not itself exist? >> >> * Can you conceive of “free will” without introducing a subject in which >> it arises and is experienced? >> >> >> And so it goes, on and on arguing about if free will exists or not, but >> never once does anybody stop to ask what the hell "free will" means before >> giving their opinion about it's existence. People argue passionately but >> they don't know what they're talking about, by that I don't mean that what >> they are saying is wrong, I mean that they quite literally DON'T KNOW WHAT >> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> >> When he was a student at Princeton Richard Feynman had an encounter with >> philosophers, years later this is what he had to say about it and why he >> developed a contempt not for philosophy but for philosophers. I gave this >> quotation before but apparently it needs repeating: >> >> "In the Graduate College dining room at Princeton everybody used to sit >> with his own group. I sat with the physicists, but after a bit I thought: >> It would be nice to see what the rest of the world is doing, so I'll sit >> for a week or two in each of the other groups. >> >> When I sat with the philosophers I listened to them discuss very >> seriously a book called Process and Reality by Whitehead. They were using >> words in a funny way, and I couldn't quite understand what they were >> saying. Now I didn't want to interrupt them in their own conversation and >> keep asking them to explain something, and on the few occasions that I did, >> they'd try to explain it to me, but I still didn't get it. Finally they >> invited me to come to their seminar. >> >> They had a seminar that was like, a class. It had been meeting once a >> week to discuss a new chapter out of Process and Reality - some guy would >> give a report on it and then there would be a discussion. I went to this >> seminar promising myself to keep my mouth shut, reminding myself that I >> didn't know anything about the subject, and I was going there just to watch. >> >> What happened there was typical - so typical that it was unbelievable, >> but true. First of all, I sat there without saying anything, which is >> almost unbelievable, but also true. A student gave a report on the chapter >> to be studied that week. In it Whitehead kept using the words "essential >> object" in a particular technical way that presumably he had defined, but >> that I didn't understand. >> >> After some discussion as to what "essential object" meant, the professor >> leading the seminar said something meant to clarify things and drew >> something that looked like lightning bolts on the blackboard. "Mr. >> Feynman," he said, "would you say an electron is an 'essential object'?" >> >> Well, now I was in trouble. I admitted that I hadn't read the book, so I >> had no idea of what Whitehead meant by the phrase; I had only come to >> watch. "But," I said, "I'll try to answer the professor's question if you >> will first answer a question from me, so I can have a better idea of what >> 'essential object' means. >> >> What I had intended to do was to find out whether they thought >> theoretical constructs were essential objects. The electron is a theory >> that we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we >> can almost call it real. I wanted to make the idea of a theory clear by >> analogy. In the case of the brick, my next question was going to be, "What >> about the inside of the brick?" - and I would then point out that no one >> has ever seen the inside of a brick. Every time you break the brick, you >> only see the surface. That the brick has an inside is a simple theory which >> helps us understand things better. The theory of electrons is analogous. So >> I began by asking, "Is a brick an essential object?" >> >> Then the answers came out. One man stood up and said, "A brick as an >> individual, specific brick. That is what Whitehead means by an essential >> object." >> >> Another man said, "No, it isn't the individual brick that is an essential >> object; it's the general character that all bricks have in common - their >> 'brickiness' - that is the essential object." >> >> Another guy got up and said, "No, it's not in the bricks themselves. >> 'Essential object' means the idea in the mind that you get when you think >> of bricks." >> >> Another guy got up, and another, and I tell you I have never heard such >> ingenious different ways of looking at a brick before. And, just like it >> should in all stories about philosophers, it ended up in complete chaos. In >> all their previous discussions they hadn't even asked themselves whether >> such a simple object as a brick, much less an electron, is an "essential >> object"." >> >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> . >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >> . >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> . >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to >> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to >> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> . >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> >> . >> For more options, visit >> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >> . >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
