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

Correction

Expand Messages
  • Jim Stuart
    I d like to retract the following sentence from my last posting: I agree that as one moves up from basic physics to chemistry, then to biology, then (perhaps)
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to retract the following sentence from my last posting:

      "I agree that as one moves up from basic physics to chemistry, then to biology, then (perhaps) to geology and psychology, the laws become 'less strict'."

      Please replace it with this one:

      "I agree that as one moves up from basic physics to chemistry, then to biology, then (perhaps) to geology, the laws become 'less strict'."

      I feel the use of the original sentence gives a misleading impression of my position with regard to psychological laws. The sentence implies I may allow for the possibility of psychological laws applicable to human beings. In fact I hold to the view that it is not possible for there to be psychological laws which apply to human beings. The reason is that the concepts we use to characterise our mental states and actions are not the sort of concepts which are suitable for inclusion in natural laws.

      When I wrote the original sentence, I was thinking that perhaps there were psychological laws which were applicable to non-human animals, e.g. laws which described and predicted the behaviour of e.g. rats in mazes and cages. I think these sorts of laws are also highly dubious, but there may be laws of this sort.

      To summarise: I think that the minds and behaviour of human beings are of such a nature that natural laws cannot be applied to us as individuals. This is not to deny that the physical, chemical and biological micro-events inside our bodies do obey natural laws.

      Jim



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • j15300
      The supreme problem of culture is that of gaining possession of one s transcendental self, of being at one and the same time the self of oneself [self to the
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        "The supreme problem of culture is that of gaining possession of
        one's transcendental self, of being at one and the same time the
        self of oneself [self to the second degree, or beyond the
        material/body temple]. Thus it should not surprise us that there is
        an absence of feeling or complete understanding of others. Lacking
        a perfect comprehension of ourselves, we can never really hope to
        know others." Novalis. Christ Jesus read/knew minds/others, from
        the perspective of reflecting Mind, Plotinean Oneness.

        "Why do you play at hazard in matters of the utmost moment? If you
        find the principles of philosophy entertaining sit down and turn
        them over in your mind all by yourself, but don't ever call yourself
        a philosopher." Epictetus, "Discourses" (3.21.17), on the occasion
        of dealing with the surround Nietzsche aphorized as "There are no
        philosophies, only philosophers."


        --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart"
        <jimstuart@n...> wrote:

        > I feel the use of the original sentence gives a misleading
        impression of my position with regard to psychological laws. The
        sentence implies I may allow for the possibility of psychological
        laws applicable to human beings. In fact I hold to the view that it
        is not possible for there to be psychological laws which apply to
        human beings. The reason is that the concepts we use to characterise
        our mental states and actions are not the sort of concepts which are
        suitable for inclusion in natural laws.
        >
        > When I wrote the original sentence, I was thinking that perhaps
        there were psychological laws which were applicable to non-human
        animals, e.g. laws which described and predicted the behaviour of
        e.g. rats in mazes and cages. I think these sorts of laws are also
        highly dubious, but there may be laws of this sort.
        >
        > To summarise: I think that the minds and behaviour of human beings
        are of such a nature that natural laws cannot be applied to us as
        individuals. This is not to deny that the physical, chemical and
        biological micro-events inside our bodies do obey natural laws.
        >
        > Jim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.