Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Again, science isn't about virtue and morality. And given we humans conduct war after war I would ask to what degree do the classics, history and philosophy actually serve the problems of virtue and morality? Why should you have such expectations of science when the classics, history and philosophy are largely impotent as guiding lights informing our behavior.
The problems associated with virtue and morality are part of the natural state of what it is to be human. Literature gives us insight into those problems and has yielded some remarkable steps away from the barbarism you site.
From Hammurabi to Jefferson to Foucault, philosophers have been dealing with issues like war and governance.
When Jefferson says , “We hold these truths to be self evident,” you can thank philosophy and literature. It’s a statement that offers little from science.
I agree science has nothing to do with morality, but science requires morality or it becomes a monster, and that morality is a function of the humanities.
One of the important issues here is simply striking a balance between science and the humanities and in striking this balance perhaps a view of the humanities as more than just entertainment and falsehood.
“The greatest ideas are the greatest events”
Nietzsche
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Fish Food for Fish Thought
While the animal species of Homo sapiens of which we are,
Might ride on a bike, pilot a rocket, or drive in a car,
We would pillage and cheat or murder and rape to promote our own end,
While believing effacing a planet of life would be want to defend,
We would puncture the hull of our craft to descend to the lowest of bar,
As the monuments built to ourselves to deepest of depths would descend,
We'd proclaim that its fate and won't have any part for our soul would transcend,
Leaving others to suffer as darkness creeps in is the worst rub by far.
-bushman
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
But it's alright, ma......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 4, 2015 - 11:22am PT
|
In the hands of those who want to ignore everything else and "get back to calculating," "traditional wisdom" will often be equated with old wives tales, superstitions, and silly religions doctrine that has since been updated - to all but the outright montebank - by the proper measurements .
To others, traditional wisdom is the stuff found behind the words of sages like William S. and Wallace Stevens. But you actually have to STOP calculating to ever hear it as such.
Scientism is the belief that this last statement is false, and that anything but calculating results in fool's gold masquerading as "traditional wisdom," that anything Faust ever said could be more accurately and efficiently stated by way of numerical representation, and that nothing real is beyond or outside its purview.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
You over-emphasize the importance of calculation in science, JL.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Why should you have such expectations of science when the classics, history and philosophy are largely impotent as guiding lights informing our behavior.
It is true that no amount of enlightenment can prevent the more egregious onslaughts of humanity against itself. Before WW1 there existed an entire generation reared on the diffuse wisdom of the ages-- and yet no amount of wisdom gleaned from great books and great art could stop them from marching off willingly to the slaughter of the trenches.The peace that ensued was largely negotiated by learned rhetoricians who bungled the aftermath just severely enough to lay the causa belli for a second round of mass suicide.
Science,in and of itself unconcerned with moral impulses, mindlessly provided the new and improved tools for mass death on a scale undreamed of just a generation before--culminating in the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At least for now this unthinkable horror seems to have provided an on-going stalemate in the ever-divisive need by large states to engage in anything but internationally refereed conflicts and small wars.
How long will this uncertain modus vivendi last?
The world powers since WW2 have subscribed to a "doomsday" scenario brokered by the contributions of science as explained above. This state of affairs,uncertain at best, may be coming to a close as the "nuclear club" continues to expand.
We are now perhaps faced with the possibility of theocratic states, governed by strictly religious motives, acquiring nuclear weapons.
What is unprecedented in this new situation is the introduction of a hitherto novel mentality, unconstrained by western realpolitik, viewing its new found power in ways other than what has hitherto been the "mutual destruction scenario". In fact, such powers might view a nuclear holocaust as eschatologically preordained by its God in order to bring about a new order upon Earth.
There is a bit of an irony in all this (there always is in human affairs; Hegel would have described it as a dialectic) in that the primary force operating in perhaps catapaulting the world into its next severe crisis of mass suicide will once again be driven by a form of deep traditional wisdom and ethical calculation-- enabled by a morally disinterested science.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
There is a bit of an irony in all this (there always is in human affairs) in that the primary force operating to perhaps catapault the world into its next severe crisis of mass suicide will once again be driven by a form of deep traditional wisdom and ethical calculation-- enabled by a morally disinterested science.
And so the philosophical arguments against such ethics and wisdom have to be strong.
What else is there to do? The greater irony is that those arguments must come from a philosophical/wisdom base whether practical or esoteric.
Philosophy has to be strong, relevant and obvious. And ultimately we're forced to rely on that power to stop the unnecessary mass suicides. The key is in the power of ideas: there are "good wisdoms" and bad "wisdoms" and we shouldn't be afraid to point out the difference and continue to strive for the good and even define the good, that the good is a transcendent notion and not culture bound. And the difference between the good and the bad should be tested in the crucible of philosophical discussion
There are good religions that, in fact, serve the needs of people and religions that have turned to the service of power and politics through oppression.
Part of the problem is self doubt as the result of a pervasive relativism in western culture.... the equity of cultural wisdoms in the name of some kind of universal fairness and inclusion. Unfortunately, there are things/ideas that should not be included or even tolerated.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Philosophy has to be strong, relevant and obvious. And ultimately we're forced to rely on that power to stop the unnecessary mass suicides. The key is in the power of ideas: there are "good wisdoms" and bad "wisdoms" and we shouldn't be afraid to point out the difference and continue to strive for the good and even define the good, that the good is a transcendent notion and not culture bound. And the difference between the good and the bad should be tested in the crucible of philosophical discussion
I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that good ideas are better than bad ideas. Unfortunately, conflicts between humans, whether in the form of small groups or large nations, are a bit more complicated than a mere philosophical polemic. One has to get from point A to point B in establishing the framework for the ascendancy of ecumenically-based solutions to the mutual benefit of all concerned. Furthermore, the pace and the nature of contemporary events far outraces the tempo usually needed to establish the rational calm and reasoned atmosphere in the "marketplace of ideas"
Herein lies the rub. A set of solutions to a given problem of this sort requires either:a) the transpiring of events, not under any direct centralized control,producing a peaceful outcome that manages or appears to mitigate the matter. We saw this with the collapse of the old Soviet empire and the Chinese Maoist state and a subsequent rapprochement of a sort that produced a situation of reduced cold war tensions and new realignments,even if they now appear to have been temporary b) all out war, amounting to one side being rendered defeated, irrelevant, and powerless.We saw this with the defeat of Nazism and the Axis powers in WW2.
I suppose one could say that the philosophical arguing of ideas played a marginal role in "a" in the above. But not to be discounted or dismissed out of hand.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Hmmm... the defeat of Marxism wasn't basically a philosophical defeat? Marxism was defeated through the test of a philosophy's efficacy by trial in the (capitalist) market place. Wasn't it in large part as well the triumph of western popular culture that brought down the wall? I see the failure of marxism as the failure of a philosophy that was tested and found wanting.
With regard to Nazis, there was only one choice by the time Poland was invaded. I like Kandinsky's response, "They should have let him (Hitler) into art school, I would have made a much better chancellor."
I still see the battle/problem as the validity of ideas. Too bad the humanities have such an inferiority complex when it comes to science and its method.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Hmmm... the defeat of Marxism wasn't basically a philosophical defeat? Marxism was defeated through the test of a philosophy's efficacy by trial in the (capitalist) market place. Wasn't it in large part as well the triumph of western popular culture that brought down the wall. I see the failure of marxism as the failure of a philosophy that was tested and found wanting.
Yeah, I suppose Capitalism in general and the allure of western styled pop culture and consumerism played a role. I don't think it had as much to do with the decline of Marxism per se, given the timeline, and other factors. Marxism failed in China and the USSR chiefly because it was an unworkable system based upon all the wrong doctrinal assumptions as regards the intersection of economics and human nature. It didn't need all that much help in doing itself in. In the latter part of the last century it was instead an increasingly practical realpolitik that began to set the course for most of the communist world-- in other words, practical as opposed to ideological concerns-- domestically and internationally.
Furthermore,I'm not all that sure Marxism,despite its collapse into ponerological totalitarianism ( in those states mentioned) has been "philosophically" defeated in much of the contemporary world-- at least not to my liking. To wit: too much of American and European liberal progressivist DNA seems to be rooted in an all-purpose boilerplate Marxist analysis of economics and history, whether contemporary western liberals know it or not. Fortunately I see this phenomenon dissipating as the generation born immediately after WW2 passes on. Hopefully it will go the way of Freudianism and the other pampered intellectual fads of the early to mid 20th century. If on the other hand it somehow gains an unforeseen ascendancy in the West,more than it does now, then it will have no where to go but once again into the inevitable brave new totalitarian world that awaits.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Calculation is a useful tool in science and other fields, but making observations, making guesses about patterns and relations based on those observations, and coming up with ways to test those guesses are also essential to science. Experiencing and making sense of experience and finding meaning in experience is not that different in science and in the humanities. Calculation extends the power of science to make predictions but predictions can be qualitative as well as quantitative.
There was a segment today on the CBC Radio program Quirks and Quarks about learning in babies. 11-month old babies learn from experience, make guesses about patterns, and when those guesses are challenged by new observations the babies try to come up with tests to find out what went wrong.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/quirks-quarks-for-april-4-2015-1.3019735/surprise-leads-to-learning-in-babies-1.3019757
This was based on a recent paper in Science.
Are we going to accuse babies of scientism?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You people never consult the manuals?
Even after assuming and theorizing I have to read the manual on the vehicle electronics to ultimately know WTF is wrong and where.
Meanwhile you science zombies will be theorizing eternally .....
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
"I find that a duck's opinion of me is very much influenced by whether or not I have bread." - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Paul: I still see the battle/problem as the validity of ideas.
"On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées."
(Victor Hugo)
That is, . . .
“One can resist the invasion of armies; there is no resistance to the invasion of ideas.”
Hmmm, . . . perhaps.
Ideas may not be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again when ideas themselves are at the center of problems. It may require a new consciousness to see that an (any) idea is simply one view. What instinct provides us, what our emotions provide us, what narratives or myths provide us, what mental-rational ideas provide us are all partial, different understanding of the One thing we call reality.
How can we put those different understandings together? Trying to shoehorn one understanding into a framework of another mode of understanding is impossible, untranslatable, not unlike making science moral or art scientific.
What we seem to have are unwinnable (culture) wars between different ways of knowing. Hegel suggested that the only way to “resolve” such problems is to transcend them and then subsume subordinate antagonistic understandings by transcendence.
That amounts to a spiritual realization, IMO. (But I suspect that will not go down well with this crowd.)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Calculation is a useful tool in science and other fields, but making observations, making guesses about patterns and relations based on those observations, and coming up with ways to test those guesses are also essential to science
Good try, Andy, but the arts and literature crowd has such a scant knowledge of science all they can come up with is "stop calculating." They have the impression that all scientists and mathematicians do is grind numbers without admitting it is far easier for a scientist to explore art and literature - and many do - than for literati to delve into science on their own - and many don't:
"To others, traditional wisdom is the stuff found behind the words of sages like William S. and Wallace Stevens. But you actually have to STOP calculating to ever hear it as such." Amen brother
Shameful . . .
|
|
Bushman
Social climber
Elk Grove, California
|
|
Putting all prophesying, conjecturing, theorizing, and calculating aside, what do we truly know firsthand of 'mind' that hasn't been already discussed here? What empirical knowledge do we have of it? Why to some does the essence of 'mind' appear so predictable and yet elusive at the same time? We all have our presumptions and preconceived ideas about the nature of it and would not likely be swayed from it by any argument here. From my humble experience, such is the nature of 'the will.'
But what direct firsthand experiences do we have with 'mind' that are untainted by drugs, alcohol, deep meditation states, mathematical formulas, scientific studies, philosophical treatises, literary interpretations, folklore, rumor, religious experiences, hallucinations, or other altered states and preconceived opinions?
I personally do not or have not acknowledged the existence of it outside of external influences, not that of 'mind' or 'soul' or 'spirit' or 'essence of being.' Try as I might I do not believe what I cannot sense or prove by experiment or mathematical formula. I can try to interpret my dreams or intuit information regarding social situations or family dramas. I can make light of, poke fun at, or wax poetically on the possible virtues of it. But honestly, sometimes I feel like the only kid on the sidelines of the parade when I point out the fact that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
I have never seen or met a person before they were born or after they came back from the dead. Are we so afraid of death that we would go to any measure or concoct any mythology in order to somehow escape it? It is decidedly a human quality. But in the matter of 'mind' ethereal, for ones so fortunate to have such a highly developed ability to reason, is it reasonable to believe in the existence of such a thing?
'Done is Done'
There'll be no spirits when I die
Upon the cold hard slab I'll lie
For life is life and death is death
No afterlife to occupy
There'll be no party where I go
Not ways to mend or seeds to sew
Long before I first began
I never was of this I know
There'll be no crying when I die
No last regrets or wondering why
I might've lived a better life
But o'er spilt milk I will not cry
There'll be no mercy where I go
Nor judgement day or proof to show
I'm worthy of such just rewards
As hell to pay in fires below
There'll be no laughter when I die
Or babes to bounce upon my thigh
No apparitions to behold
As ashes float to empty sky
There'll be no spirits where I go
But truth be told I do not know
I'll veil my fear with angry threats
Not brave enough for fear to show
There'll be no spirits when I die
Nor spirits to imbibe would I
Such dregs remaining from my youth
I drank away and cursed the lie
-bushman
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
"A poem needs understanding through the senses. The point of diving into a lake is not immediately to swim to the shore, but to be in the lake, to luxuriate in the sensation of water. You do not work the lake out, it is an experience beyond thought. Poetry soothes and emboldens the soul to accept the mystery.”
John Keats
Though it can also happen that the point of diving into a lake is immediately to swim to the shore.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
^^^^^^ This is true. I've had science/mathematics friends who never read a poem nor read, watched, or listened to fiction. And I have had literati friends who could not have solved a 9th grade linear equation. This polarization is unfortunate.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
This polarization is unfortunate.
True. But then again it's probably natural. Peoples brains function and are wired differently. I personally am not distressed over this fact --- as certain individuals seem to be on these threads.
I have never viewed the world of human experience and knowledge as being inherently organized into opposing camps, with the premise accompanied by claims ,that one type of learning and knowledge is superior to the other.
A level of acceptance ultimately must be extended to this state of affairs--- much like one accepts that along an assembly line there is a division of labor: one worker puts on a door, another a wheel.
This is not to say that I am not aware that there exists "bones of contention" over these rifts---such as the awarding of preferences in the doling out of resources in institutions of learning.
Ultimately the public doing most of the learning will decide---and much like voting,sometimes they'll get it right , other times they won't .
Nothing has really changed. Technical jobs generally make for a good living --while most artists and writers continue to starve in their ages long struggle against obscurity.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!