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

Re: [existlist] Re: Question for Mary -- read ths one!

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Well, well, well. That really is something. I wish their families well. As to our current malaise, I have begun to articulate, in the secularist/atheist groups
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 18, 2013
      Well, well, well. That really is something. I wish their families well.

      As to our current malaise, I have begun to articulate, in the secularist/atheist groups that I belong to, an avowedly non-science approach to questions of rationality-atheism — not anti-science by any stretch, but a POV which knocks "science" out of its current perch. I have to be careful doing so, as the "science" thing has taken on a virtual fundamentalism of its own, a closed down thinking in the Heideggerian sense. I use two tactics.

      1) I invoke the late Christopher Hitchens, who not only was a friend of Lawrence Krauss and who was supposed to write the Preface to Krauss' recent book, a book that is one of the worst offenders (more of which later), but was also a big promoter of literature and art as 'the alternative' to religion, rather than "science". I always counter one of these neo-reductionist ditto-heads ("we're all just particles with no meaning, ...") with vignettes from Wilde or Sartre or Nietzsche or Dickens or Giordano Bruno, etc., as citations. I get blank stares often, but I occasionally get through.

      Science only answers questions that are appropriate to its purview. This was SJ Gould's actual intent behind NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria). Neurology only speaks about neurology, not about its foundational lacuna or its epistemic contradictions (a la Hegel's account of sense perception), etc. You will never account for the meaning of a melody in a Ct scan. So the reaction is to discount that there is any meaning to it. But ... there is.

      2) I rehearse the ontic/ontological problem that is chronic in Krauss' recent book (which I otherwise like), how he gets the philosophical question of Nothing wrong, and thereby misses what the philosophical urgency of the question is.

      I wonder if such might be a worthy starting point for something here?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 8:28 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Question for Mary -- read ths one!


      Yes, I think your diagnosis of the current malaise is spot on.

      Many of those nominally on the side of progress and rationality are reacting against the dominant irrationality of rampant capitalism and religious fundamentalism with the false rationality of reductionism and mechanical materialism. In this situation of false opposites, it is difficult to hear or raise the voice for what you characterise as a `person-oriented world'.

      Let us hope that that enlightened voice of existentialism can be heard here, with the wholehearted engagement of existential questions which Mary has spoken about.


      P.S. You asked about Dick. If you had seen recent posts here you will have seen that Louise had passed on the news that Dick has also died – coincidently on the same day as Bill, also from a heart attack. That guy (was he called Tom?) who used to post here and promote Carl Jung's theory of synchronicities would have had a field day with this coincidence.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18, 2013


        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)

        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.


        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        > Hello H,
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        > Wil
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        > h.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.