Archive for the ‘Filosofia’ Category

Olavo de Carvalho comenta Hawking e Darwin e a Matrix/DNA responde

terça-feira, junho 4th, 2019

xxxxx

Minha resposta, sob pseudônimo de Pablo Fonseca, vai copiada abaixo:

Hawkings foi desviado da Razão Universal devido sua doença ter interrompido seus sensores biológicos e substituídos pelos sensores mecânicos ligados a um cérebro eletromecânico que foi abduzido pelo sistema mecanicista astronômico que assim interpretou o Universo como uma maquina. Newton foi influenciado pelas teorias esotéricas as quais foram elaboradas por um cérebro humano recém formado e portanto virgem que era povoado por flashes da memoria dos nossos antepassados astronômicos e atômicos, portanto estas teorias sugeriam a verdadeira mecânica astronômica. Darwin não abordou a real evolução natural que é universal, apenas estudou a evolução biológica. Mecanismos vindos desde a evolução cosmológica, como entropia, auto-reciclagem que se torna perpetuação de especies biológicas, equilíbrio termodinâmico, que ainda atuam e se somam aos mecanismos de Darwin revelam que a evolução natural enquanto universal e muito mais complexa do que os darwinistas pensam que sabem. A nova cosmovisão chamada Matrix/DNA decifra este mundo natural de forma surpreendente e muito mais racionalmente natural.

Marcelo Gleiser: Premio Templeton Foundation, Videos no Brasil, debates, etc.

quinta-feira, maio 30th, 2019

xxxx

https://www.templeton.org/news/marcelo-gleiser-awarded-2019-templeton-prize

Marcelo Gleiser Awarded 2019 Templeton Prize

Marcelo Gleiser was born in Rio de Janeiro to an influential family in Rio’s Jewish community and received a conservative Hebrew school education.  He began college majoring in chemical engineering but soon shifted to physics, receiving a Bachelor of Science from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in 1981. The next year, he earned a master’s in physics from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and, in 1986, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from King’s College London.

xxxx

Meu comentário postado neste vídeo:

Congratulations. Prof. Gleiser I think you could do a great job for humankind. Look to this people in Rio now – the majority in favelas, surrounding few rich communities. None of both sides are interested in the rational enquiry of the meaning of Cosmos, life, and evolution of humankind. With this people we go nowhere else than extinction. Only a new strong discovery about real Nature could bring on a new world view able to change this suicidal, chaotic, animalist or mystic neuronal configuration. So, I would appreciate you spending a few time on this suggestion at http://theuniversalmatrix.com They found a new meaning for Cosmos, life and human existence when searching the evolutionary link between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution, a different theory about life’s origins. As a man of Science you need to wake up for the fact that separating Universal Evolution into two separated chapters without an evolutionary link can not be rational. It is the first cause humans in Rio and elsewhere are alienated from Nature and behaving as suicidals.

Livros de Marcelo a ler:

The Dancing Universe ( 2005) ( kindle – U$ 17,00)

https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Universe-Creation-Understanding-Technology/dp/158465466X

xxxxx

Debate no Peaceful Science sobre Marcelo Gleiser:

Being an Affirmed Atheist is not Scientific

Conversation – May 30- May 31

 

I’m sure there is an older thread on this same topic… but frankly, I think this is worth another look…

Professor Marcelo Gleiser, recipient of a Templeton grant, writes this:

From the Salt Lake Tribune :
|563x63

A Dartmouth College professor who says he is a religious agnostic but whose work has focused on the links between science and the mysteries of creation is the winner of the 2019 Templeton Prize.

While Gleiser describes himself as an agnostic, he is an avowed critic of atheism.

“I see atheism as being inconsistent with the scientific method as it is, essentially, belief in nonbelief ,” Gleiser said in a 2018 interview in Scientific American. “You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent.”

xxxx

Louis_Morelli – 5/31/19

“Marcelo Gleiser was born in Rio de Janeiro to an influential family in Rio’s Jewish community and received a conservative Hebrew school education. He began college majoring in chemical engineering but soon shifted to physics, receiving a Bachelor of Science from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro in 1981.” – Templeton Foundation

I think this explains everything. Marcelo had his psiche formed under indoctrination to believe in God. Science must have fight the indoctrination, so, while he try to be naturally rational by the scientific world view, he can not destroy his subconscious program. This is bad for a scientist, because he will unconsciously choose his issues for research trying to understanding the mind of God.
Geiser says to himself that he is an agnostic, he believe in that, but he can’t to be real agnostic. A real scientist must be impersonal, neither theist, neither atheist, a real agnostic. We have this big problem of modern Science not working for the good of all mankind and being limited to our sensorial dimension because it is a feedback process between natural phenomena and ideology. The scope of research is chosen by ideology instead pure natural rationality and honest wish for knowledge. And the scientists aligned with theism goes in the same wrong opposite way.
Why is this my opinion? Against the two “team” in control of human sciences? Because I have a different experience with Nature, living almost seven years in the jungle when I was reduced almost as a half-monkey, perceiving Nature in a different way humans do. As result was born a third world view, where each natural phenomena is interpreted in a new way, and this world view is suggesting that the scientific world view is very incomplete and its theories are very wrong.
The atomic system model is incomplete, the most important fact in an atom – its vital properties principles – is being ignored. The astronomic system model is totally wrong. The meaning of biological systems – aka, life – is totally wrong. The darwinian theory is merely half of the real cosmological evolution process. And so on…
Ok, but… opinions from wild salvage half-monkeys does not account, I know that. Even that half-monkeys are indoctrinated only by pristine pure mother Nature…

xxxx

John_DaltonAgnostic Atheist- 5/30/19

One can only hope he did something else to win the prize than make this incoherent statement

xxxx

Louis_Morelli – 5/31/19

John, only the total world – beyond this Universe, and beyond what can be grasped by our limited and few sensors plus our limited and few technological tools – could say that there is no God. After searching at each smallest and biggest space/time of its own body and not finding any God. And… still, such world could not be authority when saying that there is no God, because still can be dimensions beyond and outside it, where God could be hidden. I think is not rational to believe in humans’ ideas of God, I myself think that all these humans gods are wrong, but… let’s wait humans sciences reaching this total world for having a rational opinion about. Are you agnostic- atheist?! Agnostic is “I don’t know…” and atheism is “I know…”. You can not be the two things at sametime…

xxxxx

“atheism”, which is much broader in scope in fact.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A deity is a supernatural being considered divine. In religiondivinity is the state of things that are believed to come from a supernatural power. The concept of the supernatural encompasses anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature but nevertheless argued by believers to exist.

Ok, an example of something that still is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of Nature is… counsciouness. Consciousness is an issue for Neurology, but Neurology still does not know how neurons to relate with thoughts, so, ir is far away from undesrtanding counciousness. We need to remember that from bacterias to monkeys, no animal have ideas about God. Ideas about God is a human production. What is the difference between humans and all ancestors animals? We can’t say that is counciousness, because we don’t know what counciousness is and if some animals have it.

Man is supposed to have descended directly from the animal kingdom by means of the same processes involving the same evolutionary factors which caused animals to evolve. For this reason, the differences between man and animal are not regarded as fundamental, but as a difference in degree only. Man has only developed to a higher level.

The essential difference between animals and humans is the ability to self-reflect. A chimpanzee, our closest genetic relative (around 99% similar in DNA), can be taught to do basically everything a human can, though of course at a more generally primitive level. But no chimp can self-reflect, that is, take that mental and spiritual leap of stepping outside of himself and seeing himself from an alternate perspective, or realizing consciously that he is alive, that his heart is beating, that he is walking the planet, that he will die someday, and that the moon is overhead.

Man possesses the faculty of speech. Only man is fully bipedal. Only man is able to express emotions.

Adam was created “in the image of God” and quite apart from the land animals through a clearly distinguished separate act of creation. Only man received the breath of God – breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. In this way, he was given a spirit. Only when Adam was created, did God “use his hands”. Humans do appear to have the highest encephalization quotient. However, bear in mind there are several different ways to take the encephalization quotient  and encephalization quotients are still only a crude way to measure the ratio of brain over body. That finally leaves us with that most refined and very human Level of (1) Evaluation, (2) Logic and (3) Language, which animal cannot.

How is a human brain different from an animal brain?
It has to do with the RATIO of brain weight to the entire body weight. … So the braintakes up more weight in human beings than it does in other animals. Intelligence also has to do with the different components of the brainHumans have the largest cerebral cortex of all mammals, relative to the size of their brains.
brain imaging studies comparing the brains of humans to other primates show humans have a greater number of fibers connecting the brain regions involved in such human-specialized functions as language, tool making, reasoning, and social cognition. Understanding the evolution of these connections in the human brain is a major focus of my laboratory.

 

Filosofia: Online database de papers de filosofia

terça-feira, maio 21st, 2019

xxxx

https://philpapers.org/

PhilPapers is a comprehensive index and bibliography of philosophy maintained by the community of philosophers. We monitor all sources of research content in philosophy, including journalsbooksopen access archives, and personal pages maintained by academics. We also host the largest open access archive in philosophy. Our index currently contains 2,461,571 entries categorized in 5,433 categories. PhilPapers has over 230,000 registered users.

Filosofia natural, Ciencia Natural, e Ciencia: Diferencas explicadas no Wikipedia

sexta-feira, abril 12th, 2019

xxxx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

Newton and the scientific revolution (1600–1800)

By the 16th and 17th centuries, natural philosophy underwent an evolution beyond commentary on Aristotle as more early Greek philosophy was uncovered and translated.[51] The invention of the printing press in the 15th century, the invention of the microscope and telescope, and the Protestant Reformation fundamentally altered the social context in which scientific inquiry evolved in the West.[51] Christopher Columbus‘s discovery of a new world changed perceptions about the physical makeup of the world, while observations by Copernicus, Tyco Brahe and Galileo brought a more accurate picture of the solar system as heliocentric and proved many of Aristotle’s theories about the heavenly bodies false.[52] A number of 17th-century philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Francis Bacon made a break from the past by rejecting Aristotle and his medieval followers outright, calling their approach to natural philosophy as superficial.[53]

The titles of Galileo’s work Two New Sciences and Johannes Kepler‘s New Astronomy underscored the atmosphere of change that took hold in the 17th century as Aristotle was dismissed in favor of novel methods of inquiry into the natural world.[54] Bacon was instrumental in popularizing this change; he argued that people should use the arts and sciences to gain dominion over nature.[55] To achieve this, he wrote that “human life [must] be endowed with new discoveries and powers.”[56] He defined natural philosophy as “the knowledge of Causes and secret motions of things; and enlarging the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible.”[54] Bacon proposed scientific inquiry supported by the state and fed by the collaborative research of scientists, a vision that was unprecedented in its scope, ambition and form at the time.[56] Natural philosophers came to view nature increasingly as a mechanism that could be taken apart and understood, much like a complex clock.[57] Natural philosophers including Isaac Newton, Evangelista Torricelli and Francesco Redi conducted experiments focusing on the flow of water, measuring atmospheric pressure using a barometer and disproving spontaneous generation.[58] Scientific societies and scientific journals emerged and were spread widely through the printing press, touching off the scientific revolution.[59] Newton in 1687 published his The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, or Principia Mathematica, which set the groundwork for physical laws that remained current until the 19th century.[60]

Some modern scholars, including Andrew Cunningham, Perry Williams and Floris Cohen, argue that natural philosophy is not properly called a science, and that genuine scientific inquiry began only with the scientific revolution.[61] According to Cohen, “the emancipation of science from an overarching entity called ‘natural philosophy’ is one defining characteristic of the Scientific Revolution.”[61] Other historians of science, including Edward Grant, contend that the scientific revolution that blossomed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries occurred when principles learned in the exact sciences of optics, mechanics and astronomy began to be applied to questions raised by natural philosophy.[61] Grant argues that Newton attempted to expose the mathematical basis of nature – the immutable rules it obeyed – and in doing so joined natural philosophy and mathematics for the first time, producing an early work of modern physics.[62]

The scientific revolution, which began to take hold in the 17th century, represented a sharp break from Aristotelian modes of inquiry.[63] One of its principal advances was the use of the scientific method to investigate nature. Data was collected and repeatable measurements made in experiments.[64] Scientists then formed hypotheses to explain the results of these experiments.[65] The hypothesis was then tested using the principle of falsifiability to prove or disprove its accuracy.[65] The natural sciences continued to be called natural philosophy, but the adoption of the scientific method took science beyond the realm of philosophical conjecture and introduced a more structured way of examining nature.[63]

Newton, an English mathematician, and physicist, was the seminal figure in the scientific revolution.[66] Drawing on advances made in astronomy by Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler, Newton derived the universal law of gravitation and laws of motion.[67] These laws applied both on earth and in outer space, uniting two spheres of the physical world previously thought to function independently of each other, according to separate physical rules.[68] Newton, for example, showed that the tides were caused by the gravitational pull of the moon.[69] Another of Newton’s advances was to make mathematics a powerful explanatory tool for natural phenomena.[70] While natural philosophers had long used mathematics as a means of measurement and analysis, its principles were not used as a means of understanding cause and effect in nature until Newton.[70]

In the 18th century and 19th century, scientists including Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Alessandro Volta, and Michael Faraday built upon Newtonian mechanics by exploring electromagnetism, or the interplay of forces with positive and negative charges on electrically charged particles.[71] Faraday proposed that forces in nature operated in “fields” that filled space.[72] The idea of fields contrasted with the Newtonian construct of gravitation as simply “action at a distance”, or the attraction of objects with nothing in the space between them to intervene.[72] James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century unified these discoveries in a coherent theory of electrodynamics.[71] Using mathematical equations and experimentation, Maxwell discovered that space was filled with charged particles that could act upon themselves and each other and that they were a medium for the transmission of charged waves.[71]

Significant advances in chemistry also took place during the scientific revolution. Antoine Lavoisier, a French chemist, refuted the phlogiston theory, which posited that things burned by releasing “phlogiston” into the air.[72] Joseph Priestley had discovered oxygen in the 18th century, but Lavoisier discovered that combustion was the result of oxidation.[72] He also constructed a table of 33 elements and invented modern chemical nomenclature.[72] Formal biological science remained in its infancy in the 18th century, when the focus lay upon the classification and categorization of natural life. This growth in natural history was led by Carl Linnaeus, whose 1735 taxonomy of the natural world is still in use. Linnaeus in the 1750s introduced scientific names for all his species.[73]

By the 19th century, the study of science had come into the purview of professionals and institutions. In so doing, it gradually acquired the more modern name of natural science. The term scientist was coined by William Whewell in an 1834 review of Mary Somerville‘s On the Connexion of the Sciences.[74] But the word did not enter general use until nearly the end of the same century.

Livro importante para ler: Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”. Comprado.

segunda-feira, abril 8th, 2019

xxxx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Comprei o livro, mas antes de le-lo precisa saber que…

Precisa antes saber que Ayn veio de família judia-russa e foi criada na classe media burguesa, seu pai tinha negócios de farmácias. Foram atacados pela revolução bolchevique de Lenin, perderam a boa vida. E quando ela foi para os USA, foi logo ajudada por outro judeu, Cecil Mille. Então claramente tem uma visão torcida sob a perspectiva judaica e burguesa.

O título é uma referência a Atlas, um Titã descrito no livro como “o gigante que mantém o mundo em seus ombros”. O significado desta referência aparece em uma conversa entre os personagens Francisco d’Anconia e Hank Rearden, em que d’Anconia pede que conselho Rearden daria a Atlas ao ver que “quanto maior o esforço [do titã], mais pesado fica o mundo em seus ombros”. Com Rearden incapaz de responder, d’Anconia dá a sua própria resposta: “encolher os ombros” (“to shrug”).

O tema de Atlas Shrugged, como Rand o descreve, é “o papel da mente do homem na existência”. O livro explora uma série de temas filosóficos de que Rand posteriormente desenvolveria como objetivismo.[6][7] Ao fazer isso, ela expressa a defesa da razão, o individualismo, capitalismo, e as falhas da coerção governamental.

Rand then began Atlas Shrugged to depict the morality of rational self-interest,[7] by exploring the consequences of a strike by intellectuals refusing to supply their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas to the rest of the world.

Desconstruindo a cultura tradicional e moderna predatoria: SacredWeb e Filosofia Perene contra-ataca

sábado, fevereiro 9th, 2019

xxxx

http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw42_editorial_sample.pdf

Desconstruindo a Desconstrucao

Uma das sugestoes desta visao de mundo denominada Matrix/DNA e` desconstruir a cultura milenar tradiconal que perdura na modernidade, alegando que a maioria das interpretacoes humanas dos significados dos fenomenos naturais estao equivocadas porque teria sido construida uma cultura segregadora pelas oligarquias predadoras da humanidade para alicercar seus poderes de dominacao. Achei valido e racional tal sugestao e desde entao tenho me dedicado a esta atividade, sempre criticando principalmente os nomes gramaticais e conceitos idealisticos dados `as coisas concretas e suas definicoes.

Porem eis que me deparo com a existencia de uma correste ou escola do pensamento denominada “Filosofia Perenalista”, ou “Filosofia Perene”, a qual defende resumidamente que todas as religioes partiram de um cerne comum, o qual teria sido revelado por Deus. A partir dai, devido ao espalhamento das tribos no globo, foi se derivando formas de religioes mantendo, torcendo ou distorcendo este cerne comum.

Os adeptos desta doutrina concluiram que devem conservar os simbolos profundos das religioes, os quais se referem ao cerne primordial comum,  entao concluiram que existem outras correntes, tendencias, tentando e trabalhando para desconstruir este aspecto transcendental na mente humana, criticando e atacando suas verdades absolutas.

O qual seria o caso de um adepto da Matrix/DNA.

Como não sou torcedor de times e partidos e ideologias, e não creio que cérebro humano algum tenha a capacidade de processar as informações sobre a verdade ultima, estou sempre revendo, testando, auto-criticando minhas conclusões e as sugestões da minha cosmovisão – a Matrix/DNA. Sempre procuro ver o verso e o inverso de uma questão para tentar obter uma terceira alternativa. Então tenho agora um prato cheio para testar, auto-criticar minha atividade visando desconstruir a atual cultura humana. Devo ler e pausar refletindo cada frase nesta introdução dos perenialistas na forma de PDF, sendo que infelizmente não se consegue copiar e colar o texto aqui para esquematizar o teste.

xxxxx

Uma valida reclamação dos perenialistas:

A desconstrução sendo perpetrada pelo Iluminismo trazendo em seu bojo o materialismo esta desconstruindo todos os símbolos do imaginário sagrado, porem pondo no e seu lugar o nihilismo, pondo nada, como se a finalidade do processo de desconstrução fosse ser um fim em si mesmo. Por desmitologizar o mundo, os desconstrutores estão desespiritualizando o mundo.

Não e’ o caso da Matrix/DNA que tem por meta reorientar o imaginário para uma nova visão do mundo aberta ao sagrado, ou não, a critério do individuo, constituída de uma nova gama de valores morais transcendentais. Ao contrario do ateísmo que prega valores no sentido de se viver o aqui e agora sem objetivos transcendentes. Os mitos que são cernes das religiões são os mesmos usados na cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA, porem são reinterpretados como naturais, e não sobrenaturais. Mantendo a porta aberta a um significado existencial transcendente, de origem e causa transcendente, eu creio que a Matrix/DNA mantem a espiritualização, corrigindo-a de vários defeitos. A mesma cosmovisão sugere que e predeterminado pela genética herdada da astronomia que o humano perca sua alma consciente para se tornar a peca de uma maquina, e suspeita que os desconstrutores materialistas estão sendo usados como inocentes uteis neste destino. A Matrix/DNA se empareia aos desconstrutores para desconstruir os mitos e espiritualização errada, mas se separa dos desconstrutores ao tomar outro caminho diferente do orientado pela carga genética.

xxxx

Pra eles a definicao de desconstrucao seria: uma feerramenta para criticalmente captar e anlizar figuras de linguagem que contem em seu bojo insustentabilidade ou diferenciacoes. Desconstrucao e um inerente anarquico ceticismo metafisico.

xxxx

Filosofia Evolucionista: A missao existencial dos auto-exorcizados

quinta-feira, fevereiro 7th, 2019

xxxx

Na minha visao do mundo o ser humano é composto de hardware e software. O hardware é o corpo carnal herdado da evolucao dos animais, o software e uma bolha contendo substancia plásmica que esta na forma de feto/embrião de consciencia cosmica. Assim o cerebro humano ainda expressa como dominante uma psique dominada pela genética biologica, a qual se divide em tres tendências: os instintos dos grandes predadores (gorilas, leões), dos médios predadores (lobos, raposas), e das presas (ovelhas, coelhos). Por isso criamos todos os sistemas sociais – da monarquia ao comunismo, capitalismo – divididos em tres classes. Com o desenvolvimento do feto, estes instintos serao exorcizados. Nas até agora sempre houve o domínio dos leoes, eles criaram esta cultura falsa que interpreta todos os fenomenos naturais de forma conveniente como os leoes existem dominando seus territorios. Aqueles que sentem uma maior logica racional nesta visao do mundo e decidem apostar nela, tratam primeiro de se auto-exorcizarem destes instintos. Sempre se posicionam contra as tres classes, pregando um modelo social sem sistema fechado. Nao aceitam falarem em esquerda e direita (os predadores inventaram isso e puxaram para si a palavra direita porque a mão direita é a mais certa e forte, entao Cristo estaria ao lado direito de Deus, etc. Outro nome é “elite”, alguem de procedência especial, sangue azul, real. Temos que sempre puxarem-nos para baixo deste falso altar, lembrar sua origem animal, entao me refiro as oligarquias como a gang dos maiores predadores. Talvez haja outro nome melhor, não sei ainda. O que pensas sobre tudo isso?

Tenho um website onde estou reinterpretando todos os fenomenos naturais pela perspectiva de um hipotético auto-exorcizado, como suspeito que ja sou. E’ um mundo diferente jamais imaginado. http://theuniversalmatrix.com – se voce se interessar. Esta’ sendo atualizado apenas no portugues, em Artigos.

 

 

Livro (resenha): The Territories of Human Reason

quinta-feira, janeiro 31st, 2019

xxxx

Eu tenho escrito muito sobre “razão pura, natural”. Tenho sido pretensioso sugerindo que eu tenho a razão pura e que principalmente o materialismo cientifico esta com a razão corrompida, contaminada. Porque eu fui depurar a minha razão na selva virgem, reconstruindo-a pela Natureza pura. Este autor relembra que não existe a razão correta, e é impossível existir tal coisa. De fato, sabendo-se que a nossa realidade é bottomless e topless, sem alicerce e sem teto, não teria como a natureza enfiar em nossa cabeça a razão pura natural total. E nestes abismos que permanecem embaixo e encima, eu preencho com algo, inevitavelmente, o qual sera’ mistico e sera’ minha inevitável ideologia. Tambem não se esquecendo que a faixa de razão pura em diferentes pessoas pode ser diferente, uns tendo mais, outros menos. Talvez, devido a selva, eu tenha uma faixa um pouquinho mais ampliada, o que justifica defender minhas teorias perante as outras, porem, não com superioridade ou arrogância, porque permanece sendo apenas uma faixa. Portanto preciso ler este livro para corrigir o que escrevo, voltar a realidade.

(filosofia, comprado em 1/31/19)

Este livro foi encontrado no excelente artigo do mesmo autor em:

https://iai.tv/articles/between-knowing-and-believing-auid-1207

 

The Territories of Human Reason: Science and Theology in an Age of Multiple Rationalities (Ian Ramsey Centre Studies in Science and Religion) Kindle Edition

Bertrand Russel: Autor a ser pesquisado

quinta-feira, janeiro 31st, 2019

xxxxx

(texto obtido a deriva na Internet, menciona justamente algumas sugestões que extrai da formula da Matrix/DNA. Comprar o principal livro de Russel).

In Bertrand Russell I found him a source of wisdom.  For Russell, “to teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.”

Encouraged by what I read, I explored more of Russell. For Russell, human aspirations to rationality were compromised by the destructive “intellectual vice” of a natural human craving for certainty, which could not be reconciled with the limited capacities of human reason on the one hand, and the complexity of the real world on the other. Philosophy, Russell suggested, was a discipline deeply attuned to this dilemma, enabling reflective human beings to cope with their situation.

“The Enlightenment championed the idea of a universal human rationality, valid at all times and places. Yet a more sceptical attitude has increasingly gained sway, seeing this as an essentially political or cultural assertion that certain Eurocentric ways of thinking are universally valid, and hence legitimating the intellectual colonization of other parts of the world, and the suppression of other forms of rationality”

Como o filosofo se sente sobre sua visão do mundo que explica tudo? Você não imagina…

quinta-feira, janeiro 31st, 2019

xxxx

Este debate aconteceu em:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/alf3mk/if_once_accepted_scientific_theories_have_now/efeuy4f/

thepatterninchaos:

I’d like to believe that Newton was wise enough to consider that even he might not have developed the absolute truth. Which is what I’d like to believe about most people who develop theories.

MatrixDNA ( 1/31/19):
to thepatterninchaos –
You have a good point. Do you know how it works? I have developed a big theory, so, I have experience. I’m feeling like the passenger in a plane. My Theory is ahead this time, so it is the biggest cloud I see ahead of the airplane. I am just now at the middles of other cloud but it is smaller. I know that I will be satisfaid when reaching the next cloud, my cloud. It is very big, it seems the whole world. But I know that the airplane will continuing ahead. Will arrive a time when I will look back trying to see my cloud, but it was going long time ago, now it is the smallest, everybody forgot it… Big clouds ahead…