Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
At their base the two threads have more in common than they do differences.
The large questions: is there anything beyond the forms of sensibility? Is there anything beyond the material? Of course there will be drift from one thread to the other.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Paul, I have read most of the thread. I skip sycorax's posts, who doesn't, ha, ha.
Perhaps some here hold the opinions you ascribe to them but I don't. Do those you refer to really want to replace God with nature? Do they really attempt to point out a diminishment of humanity? I doubt they agree with you on your assertions of their opinions.
But you do ignore most of the questions I've brought up. It seems you'd rather respond to the more absurd notions. That's why I call it straw man argument. For example, foxx news finds some loud mouth who claims to be a liberal and demands free health care, free education, free whatever. They put that person on the TV and boom, gullible people believe liberals are all lazy free loaders. Then they argue, "why should those liberals get my hard-earned tax money...". Meanwhile a reasonable debate over free health care gets squashed in favor of the straw man rhetoric. Can you follow that argument?
Most of my posts had questions for you. Remember the Bible quotes I cited?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Just see how the poor gross materialists are always bewildered by the inferior gross physical, subtle material and superior spiritual energies.
All these are beyond your capabilities to fully grasp.
The foolish gross materialists are like children who still want to stick their fingers in a moving fan while completely ignoring the outcome.
Their attempts at gaining full knowledge are the same as licking the outside of the jar and sticking their fingers into a moving fan.
Yet that licking of the outside of that jar constitutes all that they know and claim.
The intelligent class investigates inside the jar which is only opened by the owner and can never be done independently like the gross materialists foolish attempts ......
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
the need to humble our sense of the importance of our own existence
This again is a strawman.
My life, my existence, my experiences on this spot of dust are all I’ve got, and so as I said, are supremely important to me.
But it is an unsupportable belief that an individual’s or a group’s or a nation’s grandiose vision of itself should be imposed on the rest of humanity, and our pale blue dot, that results in Third Reichs and Holy Wars and unrestrained global climate change.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
sempervirens If you have responses to any of my comments, I'd appreciate them.
paul roehl has been implacable in his stance, which is that those "scientists" that post here are under a Rousseauean thrall, romantics who believe that nature is "good" and humanity (and its institutions) are "bad." He often points out that these "scientists" are contradictory in their alleged belief because, after all, humans are a part of nature by their own reckoning. That the majesty of the universe understanding itself, as a part of the scientific view, should be exalted. He is disappointed that this is not the case.
paul roehl's posted poem which he describes as the "greatest description of a relationship to nature that I've ever read" shows him to be,
...
A worshipper of Nature, hither came
Unwearied in that service: rather say
With warmer love—oh! with far deeper zeal
Of holier love.
and we all know the difficulties of dissuading any one full of "holy love" from more sober discussion.
Of course this is not at all about your posts... in my experience, when scientists think about it, they are awed by the Universe and by our ability to comprehend it at all. And while we are that speck of light, the Universe is made oddly smaller by taking its measure, not infinitely big, not eternal, not inscrutable.
It is the wonderful privilege to toil at understanding the Universe that the scientists are most grateful for, and if their critical habits spill over to posts on threads like this, they can be taken, by those unfamiliar, to be criticisms of "holy love," as nothing is holy to a scientist.
Worshippers of Nature might take offense.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
paul roehl's posted poem which he describes as the "greatest description of a relationship to nature that I've ever read" shows him to be,
...
A worshipper of Nature, hither came
Unwearied in that service: rather say
With warmer love—oh! with far deeper zeal
Of holier love.
and we all know the difficulties of dissuading any one full of "holy love" from more sober discussion.
Seems I've touched a nerve.
Here's the problem: Romanticism in and of itself is fine, the worship of nature is fine, the scientific method is fine but when Romanticism taints attitudes in science to the point it diminishes our appreciation of the importance of the human mind as a structure in the universe that can and does know, and by propinquity that relationship is inclined to see those achievements in human life outside science as futile in the face of scale and transience, we have a sobering problem a deeply imbedded myopia .
The "holy love" is not mine and the sober discussion is exactly what I'm interested in, but for someone who values the touchstone of reality I don't think you get it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Paul, that sentence is so long and drawn out I think you might have lost its plot.
I want names.
What "science types" here do not have an appreciation of the importance of the human mind as a structure in the universe that can and does know?
What "science types" see achievements in human life outside science as futile in the face of scale and transience?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Paul, that sentence is so long and drawn out I think you might have lost its plot.
Yes, but it's really good isn't it?
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Seems I've touched a nerve.
Here's the problem: Romanticism in and of itself is fine, the worship of nature is fine, the scientific method is fine but when Romanticism taints attitudes in science to the point it diminishes our appreciation of the importance of the human mind as a structure in the universe that can and does know, and by propinquity that relationship is inclined to see those achievements in human life outside science as futile in the face of scale and transience we have a sobering problem a deeply imbedded myopia .
Nerve?, meh, irrelevant.
So then those who engage in science without said taints and diminishments have not this problem of myopia? And aren't there scientists who may enjoy Romanticism and yet are able to avoid this tainting and myopia? If so, then, what is your position? See there, I have removed the straw man.
I too had to go to the good book (the dictionary) to understand propinquity.
HFCS has good questions for you too.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"...to the point it diminishes our appreciation of the importance of the human mind as a structure in the universe that can and does know, and by propinquity that relationship is inclined to see those achievements in human life outside science as futile in the face of scale and transience we have a sobering problem a deeply imbedded myopia "
whose importance?
whose achievements?
whose problem?
why, some lettered British gentleman, queue sycorax.
"...inclined to see those achievements in human life outside science as futile..." life in and of itself might be viewed as an achievement, and prerequisite to mind, and perhaps life will carry on even when life-with-mind ceases.
It isn't futile to enjoy our lives, as we have the capacity to do.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
whose importance?
whose achievements?
whose problem?
The individuals.
For instance, what is the importance of Shakespeare?
How does that importance resonate within the the structure of a finite human epoch and a seemingly limitless universe?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
maybe correct your punctuation, paul, for understandable sentences (which is at least a goal of posting to this thread).
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
human life outside science as futile
Who is actually saying this? Where? Attributed quotes please.
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
whose importance?
whose achievements?
whose problem?
The individuals.
For instance, what is the importance of Shakespeare?
How does that importance resonate within the the structure of a finite human epoch and a seemingly limitless universe?
Shakespeare is meaningful to many individuals. “Within the structure of a finite human epoch,” many individuals, across time and space can share how meaningful Shakespeare is to them, and other individuals can find that those insights “resonate” meaningfully as well. But if our spot of dust is destroyed somehow, before Shakespeare can spread throughout the “seemingly limitless universe,” then no, it will not resonate, and on that scale it will be meaningless.
But so what?
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
Who is actually saying this? Where? Attributed quotes please.
It's like the war on Christmas. It doesn't have to exist for people to fight against it.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
But if our spot of dust is destroyed somehow, before Shakespeare can spread throughout the “seemingly limitless universe,” then no, it will not resonate, and on that scale it will be meaningless.
Really, why? Ask yourself why eternity is necessary for meaning and if that isn't a vestige of the very religious tradition you oppose.
maybe correct your punctuation, paul, for understandable sentences (which is at least a goal or posting to this thread).
Too funny, ask yourself how many errors you can find in the above sentence and it's short!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
but you understood the sentence.
The individuals.
The individuals.
The individuals'.
The individual's.
would all seem to be possible, if you intended it as you wrote it that's fine, but who are they?
If
The Individuals.
then Hoboken
[Click to View YouTube Video]
or Chicago?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
eternity is necessary for meaning
I did not say eternity is necessary for meaning.
It was a dumb joke I made a few weeks ago, but you really can’t resist a straw man can you?
The individual is necessary for meaning. And even though that may be an illusion, it is not futile. A sense of meaning may be necessary for the thinking, feeling individual.
Meaning is not necessary for eternity.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!