Prog and Intellect

 

@Paravion: please don't quote whole lyrics - there are copyright issues involved - just snippets will be fine.

I'll remember..

 

What you find incomprensible is that:  Each sciencie studies a kind of objects or range of phenomena, it starts analizing what may be called with precaution given data and then syhnthesize those elements into a theory that is aplicable to every of those phenomenon ( tendencie to universalization)....but this synthesis is not given in the data, not even the more hard of the positivist could argue reasonably that, every scientific great discovery is a theoric revolution and also a theoric jump-because you cannot be sure that generalization is valid as long as you dont hve all the objects your refering for testing it, this are the limits of induction, probability....... Also because experience  have only a vicary role in fact ...Copernico couldnt match the  mathematical results with the Ptolemaic ones, but he was convinced that the heliocentric hipothesis was  truth, so he keep on trying altering paremeters and also the theory itself of course...in anyway he didnt offer a really great advance for calculus he just said: the trayectories of the planets call be calculed as well by mine sistem of calculus than by Ptolemaic but my theory is much simplier". And that was a platonic scientific ideal.

So is not all about mathematics, mathematics are the formal lenguaje and logic in wich theoric intuitions are finally shaped for practical use and theorical clarity and necessity.

 

We been talking just of one sciencie...but what about the synthesis not of this given phenomena, but of all phenomena? Is it truly offered by sciencies? Or certain methaphisical hipotesis is just given for political reasons with a scientifical excuse, with a recurse to a suspicious absolut faith of modern man in sciencies?

By the way and in relation with that i  want to clarify ( i hope) something:

When i say ateism is negative religion, i think evrybody thought that im a kind of teological geek trying to return to religion good old days or something........nothing is further from truth.

Im spanish i know what Catholic church is, as well as im aware of protestantism excesses ( calvinism, etc)..but first af all what we may call laic institutions are founded structuraly in religious ones...and thats my point that can be seen very clearly in the fact that a ateist dogmatism ( a religion in the worst sesnse) is making exactly the same things Pro Status Quo that religions made ( and reproducting the same piramid of power)

Is a political piramid based on a biased and manipulative use of the authority of natural sciencies.

So its again a matter of false options: Old religions vs atheism, democrats vs republicans ( or psoe and pp in my country), Faith against science, Darwinsm vs inteligent design bla, bla, bla.

What about the voices in the middle that are constantly trying to make us aware that all this options are just injustificable reductions? that with the excuse of some truth in it falseness is delivered?

What of the ones that with all the reason that could be gathered are thinking by themselves and not accepting the prederminate fake options?

So thats my stand and thats why i love philosophy- because from these middle point, wich is thinking, always comes the incomfortable truth- Old monetheism wanted philosophy to be a vicary of theology, Modern atheism a vicary of natural sciencies....at the end is free thinking, a thought that in some points of its developement could have only very important ( and reasonable) doubts, what the power and identity structure is represing.

if not evrything is decided in theorical and political matters ( and in reality) is very difficult to have absolute authority and to decide for ever what is what- but thats precisely what the most pwerfull basement for political dogmatism is...and nowadays is being based on these use of natural sciencies, is not really important for the cunning of political interests as long as these estructrural reproduction keeps on.

 

For the fable, i was just saying that as long as you turned it upside down you misss that the fabule implies that the nature of the same question you were possing ( in the terms of the fabule) implies the fakeness of the will that is posing it, but as it was a joke.......then i suposse your phrase didnt have the specific content i thought.

 

And yes i been a litlle been harsh ( lets say vehement) and i apologize...specialy because i dont think your not able to understand them, what i really think is that your not really familarized with them. Philosophy a contraire of what people normally thinks cannot be aprhended by the sketchy generalizations that normally are displayed as philosophy- " the useless and out of time rancid academical discipline" wich of course i understand you hate....but and again the analogy: would you like a prog class made up by punks?...I would say: I know what you think is prog but not being totally alien to what your thinking, prog is much more than that, is not only( and thats the key word) that stupid cliche"

 

And for ending with a pure anti intelectual note  ...i think it goes all down to love...because i dont think at all that love makes you dim...it makes you open to the whole reality of the beloved...and that could be really a test! ( of course not only from the positive side)!!

So yes i love philosophy and i love prog...so at least we have a very important love in comun, so that kind of make of us at least a problematic comunity.

And after all im glad because it seems were having a philosophical discussion, and thats great!!!! 

 

Excuse my english and the longness of the "letter".  

Agreed