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

Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Mary, 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
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 22, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      "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."

      Response: I should probably have narrowed things from the very start in order to better locate the issue. The philosophical questions are many, as is obvious from the responses and objections. I am concerned only with the specifically ontological question, the one that Adorno marks as the inaugural question of metaphysics or first philosophy: why is there something? This question is not, or is not merely, why are there things, or time, or space. I am citing the 'that things are' aspect of the question which, were I able here, would have the "things" crossed out. I had shortened this to "IS", but that seems not to have been as transparent as I had assumed.

      This question is the most basic. All others, as it were, beg it. Science doesn't address it, but that does not disqualify it as a non-question. The Nothing that inhabits the question, "why is there something?" (which is thus also sometimes appended with, "rather than Nothing") is not the same as that of nothingness, or nihilism, etc. Those are the existential aspects of Dasein, not the first, enigmatic lacuna of ontology.
      -----
      "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 appendix."

      Hegel saw the general approach that, today, we identify as "scientific" as the discourse of the Understanding. It thus falls, like religion and ideology, to what he called "picture thinking" (Phenom., last sections). But I do not think that science should have to shrink from the speculative, in Hegel's sense, since, as you hint, science's contradictions (shortcomings in this case) are precisely what leads to that broader 'context', (a la the negation of the negation).

      There things we may never fully grasp.

      Wil









      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Mar 22, 2013 4:34 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing





      Wil,

      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 appendix.

      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.

      Mary

      --- 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.










      [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
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream







        -----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.

        h.

        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.