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

Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    I doubt that it is valid to make such a sweeping statement. Science isn t just interested in mechanics with no thought. In fact, science used to be known
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 22, 2013
      I doubt that it is valid to make such a sweeping statement. Science isn't
      just interested in mechanics with no thought. In fact, "science" used to be
      known as "natural philosophy".

      I would suggest that science and philosophy seek answers to the same
      questions. The difference may be that science looks for answers which are
      provable by repetition. Which of course does not prevent them from


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:34 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing


      It's a philosophical question that can't be answered by science, because
      science isn't interested in the how of appearances. Science is concerned
      with mechanics but philosophy with thought. Their separate discourses
      utilize not only different language, as h. asserts, but different concepts.
      I disagree that science uses only math as its primary language, because it
      too is constrained by language and employs a less obvious philosophy.

      Hegel saw speculative reason as what they have in common, but I fear the two
      disciplines are farther apart than ever. Science ironically has become as
      dogmatic as religion, and philosophy has been resected like an infected

      I think a general discussion, showing the distinction between speculative
      and common reason, regarding appearance might be interesting with all our
      diverse perspectives. From Kant to Zizek, so to speak. Through natural sense
      perception to concept and back again.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

      So the question isn't even how something can come from 'nothing', but how
      anything can be at all.


      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • 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.