Saturday
Nothing much new to post about. I spent a good part of the day Friday at the public library but i didn't really garner anything interesting to talk about. Their philosophy section is very limited. I have a note here telling me to look for Strawson's "The Bounds of Sense" but i forget why. I came home only with a text on the pre-Socratic philosophers ... an area that has interested me but that i know little about. I can name some of bigger names, but little depth in knowledge.
I don't know what i expect to find, my past excersions into ancient Greece have found very little. I like the notion of Aristoteleon "moral spheres", but little else have i pulled forth from that ocean. Perhaps it is because i am not among those that believe the old ideas and the new ideas are closely linked, even when (translated) the same words are used in both. I am very strict in keeping my discussions within their contexts ... be that ancient to modern or even, within modernity, across fields of study. (I do not believe th "Incomplete Theorum" or "Quantum Wave Packet collapse" or any of those terms have meaning outside the tight construction of the fields, especially the math, from which they originate. The same i find true of the ancients (and medievals and moderns for that matter) ... you can't just tie any two statements together merely because you think they sound like they might be related. The relationship, if you want to use it, must be shown/demonstrated, and the sphere of using the terms cross-paradigm must be tightly controlled.
Still ... like Heidegger and his lightning bolts, or Dennett's brainstorms, the images sometimes invoke new thoughts in my thinking structure. I try to be carefull, though, to not co-opt the words ... i will not say "God" when i know i do not mean God in the way my audience might expect me to mean it. If i do not mean "the thing in itself" i try to say it differently, or, at least, say it thusly and then explain how my conotation differs.
See ... i had nothing interesting to say, just as i told you. And i have said said.
I don't know what i expect to find, my past excersions into ancient Greece have found very little. I like the notion of Aristoteleon "moral spheres", but little else have i pulled forth from that ocean. Perhaps it is because i am not among those that believe the old ideas and the new ideas are closely linked, even when (translated) the same words are used in both. I am very strict in keeping my discussions within their contexts ... be that ancient to modern or even, within modernity, across fields of study. (I do not believe th "Incomplete Theorum" or "Quantum Wave Packet collapse" or any of those terms have meaning outside the tight construction of the fields, especially the math, from which they originate. The same i find true of the ancients (and medievals and moderns for that matter) ... you can't just tie any two statements together merely because you think they sound like they might be related. The relationship, if you want to use it, must be shown/demonstrated, and the sphere of using the terms cross-paradigm must be tightly controlled.
Still ... like Heidegger and his lightning bolts, or Dennett's brainstorms, the images sometimes invoke new thoughts in my thinking structure. I try to be carefull, though, to not co-opt the words ... i will not say "God" when i know i do not mean God in the way my audience might expect me to mean it. If i do not mean "the thing in itself" i try to say it differently, or, at least, say it thusly and then explain how my conotation differs.
See ... i had nothing interesting to say, just as i told you. And i have said said.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 11:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home