Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Natural and the Supernatural

Expand Messages
  • William
    ... Thank you Jim, I accept your point of view explaniation. I do not agree but you sure should say what the hell you think. Bill
    Message 1 of 38 , Jun 2, 2011
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bill,
      >
      > You write:
      >
      > "Natural metaphysics is a contradiction of terms and there are no dogmas of science. Your post is a set of incohate suppositions. I have seldom been so wildly misquoted. Great fiction! It takes talent to miss by so far."
      >
      > By using the term "natural metaphysics", I was trying to use current philosophical usage – see for example, this section from Wikipedia:
      >
      > << Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity's various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all "supernatural" things as explainable in purely natural terms. It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future. Metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not a dualistic view of reality. >>
      >
      > Perhaps you Americans and Australians always associate the word "metaphysics" with something other-worldly. I was trying to use it in a neutral sense, similar to the word "ontology".
      >
      > As for misquoting, I was expanding on this sentence of yours: "How do you get to work, magic carpet? I bet you use some machine that is a composite of many scientific theories." when I wrote:
      >
      > "As Bill correctly says if you drive a car, go over a bridge, sleep above the ground floor, rely on a supply of electricity or gas to heat your home or your food, you rely upon dogmas of science, whether you consciously reflect on them or not."
      >
      > I agree I should not have used the word "dogma". I should have put something like "well-established theories".
      >
      > Jim
      >
      Thank you Jim, I accept your point of view explaniation. I do not agree but you sure should say what the hell you think. Bill
    • Mary
      Jim, As I wade through Zizek s How To Read Lacan, I also find this piece helpful. I realize it s a backward process to read Hegel, Lacan, and Marx through
      Message 38 of 38 , Jun 8, 2011
        Jim,

        As I wade through Zizek's How To Read Lacan, I also find this piece helpful. I realize it's a backward process to read Hegel, Lacan, and Marx through Zizek, but it's where I am. Here's another link for you.

        http://www.lacan.com/zizekchro1.htm

        I'm discovering a rich philosophical history behind socialism and delighted to regard Zizek as 'continuing' the work of Sartre.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Mary,
        >
        > Thanks for that. Reading a couple of paragraphs of Zizek makes me want to read more. In particular I would need to read more about the "original monstrous cut / excess" before I felt ready to comment on Zizek's thought in this area.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.