Monday, November 27, 2006

Dot Org
Dot Com
Dot Net
Dot Info
Dot God?

Why isn't there a .god?

This is just to say
check out the website
Dot Edge

The founder is John Brockman.

John Brockman is one of the finest philosophers of the XXI'st Century. 2 books in particular: BY THE LATE JOHN BROCKMAN (1969) & 37 (1970) . These books comprise a kind of TRACTATUS, in a Wittgensteinian sense. That is, they summed up philosophy to that time. However, whereas Wittgenstein moved into a second phase of philosophy, thus becoming "the later Wittgenstein," or, the author of PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS; Brockman, on the other hand, truly left philosophy behind and became a literary agent.

Brockman became something so rare in philosophy that he has almost no peers amongst philosophers of today: that is, he became useful.

Brockman has worked to create forums for philosophical concepts to be discussed in what was formerly referred to as, The Republic of Ideas.

All philosophers dream of this: Charles Sanders Peirce, Ludwig Wittgenstein, William James, Karl Marx, Billy Ray Sartre. But how often has it happened?

John Brockman mans the barricades. He is working to create the possibility of modern thought.


Blogger john hanson said...

former former of what was once formed now it is deformed
and the former former
has relinquished his ties
to forming forms of any form

i weigh in somewhat presumptuously

i am not aware of the name john brockman
but i have scanned the web material
and what more is needed
in these times
indeed why read books
when you can scan the web

brockmans statement which concludes a wittgensteinian series of tractates

"nobody knows; you can't find out"

which is meant to raise the bar as it were
to the unspeakable mystery
that scientifically cannot exist anyway

yes let us lend ourselves to the benevolence of science
the good and gracious discipline of knowledge
that does only good and reasonable things

there is an epistemological impasse
and perhaps brockman and others are there
i heard recently of a quantum physics academician exploring
what he called metaphysics
and it's possibility based on
the apparent limit reached
in that particular discipline
we've all benefitted so immeasurably from quantum mechanics

aristotle began with physics
of course he didn't have fancy tools
he used his senses
and described what he saw
he didn't dissect anything
that we know of
although it wouldn't surprise me
if he had
it was enough for him to simply take a long leisurely look at the world from a semi-empirical point of view
and simply describe it
loosely divided into
particulars and universals
there are things that are very alike to one another in this world
nearly identical
save for the fact that they are unique
as is everything in some way

but then he was aware of metaphysical questions like

and that there is a very reasonable approach to addressing
the "ideas" implicit in such topics

me thinks
most scientists do not
make adequate distinction
between the brain and the mind
no amount of dissection
will ever produce the thoughts
i am having in my mind this very moment

braindead - mindeternal

does the uniqueness of person
lend itself to any sort of

we are squirming under the
scientific presupposition
that the body is a machine
descartes is not dead
he is flipping the switches

the scientific world is being dishonest
for it will not broach the discussion
of how indeed we know what we know before we know what we know
as scientists
how does everyone come to know something about the world
before studying in school
or those who never study in school

logic is a discipline
logic is not philosophy
science is logical
and it is not philosophy

there was a time when a scientist had to show comprehension
of the major philosophical trends of western thought
it is no longer the case
to attain a phd

if all science were suspended for a year what would happen?

i will contend that the arguments
of our day are senseless
without first consulting
the convergence of
reason and faith put forth
by the early church fathers
basil gregory nazianzen
gregory of nyssa
john chrysostum
john damascene
ignatius of antioch
et al augustine of hippo


more modernly

jacques maritain

"the degrees of knowledge"

the dialectic suffers from ignorance
those who comment will not
acknowledge their ignorance

it is very possible as these men-
those who held the timbers
of christian faith
to greek philosophic scrutiny
-have shown
to speak of human experience in the world
and apply reasonable knowledge
of what has been handed to us
by way of revelation
and arrive at a coherent
approach to living life

scientific thinking accepts the limitation of a designed system
the data system
the hypotheses theory conclusion mechanism
some will break out of it
that is good
it does not make them philosophers

philosophy is the search for wisdom
science is the search for factual certitude
we are oppressed by science
for it has presumed to sit
on the seat philosophy once reserved for itself
philosophical thinking can accept the data of science but in no way must it feel confined by anything science produces

a philosopher is obliged to at least nod to the wisdom of his predecessors
thomas aquinas postulated that philosophy as a mental activity was
well nigh impossible much before the age of 50
thinking freely
and "humbly"
is the only freedom

knowledge is one thing
knowing how to use knowledge
may require some wisdom
we have plenty of information
and some will call that knowledge
the world is reeling from the paucity of wisdom
apparent in the public forum

i defy anyone to tell me that evolution has been observed
the closest thing i can come to thinking about it is the number of
species that have become extinct as a result of human and scientific inanity

the world has suffered before
from human megalomania
which posits human intelligence
as the superior force
on the planet
can't see why it shouldn't happen again

thomas held that
the human intellect is the lowest
form of intellect
in the heirarchy of intellect

theos being most high

2:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home