| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Scientists with onorthodox views
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Scientists with onorthodox views

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Fintan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fintan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 13:44
Hello franciscosan

I know that for the common of people (where I am) it is no easy to Know the philosophy deeply, but there is authors that are much attractive for  yourself than others.

I have not red Comte, or I should remember it  surely (anyway I had to, but ....),  because I’m not and specialist and I was not interested in positivism , my line of thinking is a not – rational way, that begin with Baltasar Gracián (that was  born in Aragón as me), Goya (that come into the world in Fuendetodos, very near where my family is from ), Schopenhauer (not Hegel), Nietsche,  Freud,  and the filmmaker Luis Buñuel (also from Aragón), mainly. This way you can find an anarchist ( no political, but personal).

Then If you talk about the black-holes, you talk about “faith” ,inverted commas, and you are talking about science, then you are talking about religion. What is in the other side of the holes, if there is other side of course, that is the question-key some people can convert  “faith” in Science and viceversa.

I imagine August  Comte is in the line of Hegel, Marx, Descartes, is not my way cause they wants to force a perfect world (the state, by example), and the world is not perfect, as Einstein knows, I think.

In Summary, to have “faith” in science is deeply no-rational. I think. The Catholic Church (by example)  take Aristóteles and Platón  to learn to make God logical, and use the tautology to make  this "impossible" as perfect as possible. And this is not rational, I think, is irrational because you don’t have to prove God does exist. why? Cause Jesús say God does exist and is Word of God. And don’t believe in God Is the same kind or “faith” cause can you believe or not in something that  you know doesn’t  exists? In what exactly you don’t believe?

 

The problem you lay out with Miyomoto is in my opinion the same that I set out with my master of carpentry, he used the plane with the same skill. It is more inside the material matters than the spiritual matters. I think I have understand you, if not , say to  me, please.

The democracy is not perfect or imperfect, it is or not because is not a abstract concept, is a world that have an exact definition, because politics affairs can be understanding under a scientifical point of view. The same as oligarchy.

Are the layers (not you at all), that make it imperfect.

I don’t  want to be seen as doctrinarian. It is my opinion, that’s all.


Regards



Edited by Fintan - 25 Aug 2015 at 13:56
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Fintan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fintan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 14:10
Sorry, I meant representative democracy, not greek democracy (or direct).
In that soveraigny don't rest in people but in the nation through their elected representative.


Edited by Fintan - 25 Aug 2015 at 14:19
Back to Top
Fintan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fintan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2015 at 15:40
An example of what I mean: This is to talk about Angels' sex?, But something go wrong.












Edited by Fintan - 25 Aug 2015 at 15:44
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2015 at 03:59
The secret of explaining just about anything in philosophy, is relating to something else, et cetera, et cetera, until you get to something you know, and then explaining that.  You want to talk about Comte, well you know that he is _not_ Baltazar Gracian or Goya, or Bunuel.  Paint a picture through those, and then show how Comte ruins that harmonious masterpiece.  Of course, you do have to know _something_ about Comte (or his cohorts Hegel and Marx) to do that, but you don't have to know a lot, and you can substitute in others (for example, H or M) by showing that they're in the same league.

I think it would be nice if scientists had a notion of Schopenhauer's "World as Will and Idea," just so that would have some understanding of just how much we all (subjectively) bring to the "objective" world of science.  But if we are talking about unorthodox views for scientists, I think that Schopenhauer should be brought up as an interesting possibility. 


Edited by franciscosan - 27 Aug 2015 at 04:06
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.