Vaguely reminds me of Hegel as Hegel describes in his Phenomenology of Spirit the history of the human kind as a progress of collective consciousness (and as I see it, in parallel the progress of individual consciousness). What Hegel describes, in my perspective, is science as a way of thinking, or rather, science as a way of being, where you find yourself and people find you as you immerse yourself into the journey of the progressive world.
Recommend to try the preface of the Phenomenology of the Spirit to get some kind of idea of Hegel's thinking / speculative logic, which I find fascinating.
It seems to me this article uses Physics to justify the view that courts should "abstract new laws" as they deem necessary.
This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it swaps democracy for 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'. As a computer scientist I'd call this unscientific or at least a sloppy proposal.
I guess science has always been this contemptuous of both its ancestors and the religious.
> The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.
Huh? There is a rich spectrum of buddhist philosophy (Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan) and all profess to demonstrate the ways of perceiving and understanding truth and pre-conceptual reality of this world. Straw man here?
> When we try to conceive of the state of mind of primitive man, the first thing that occurs to us is the bewilderment and terror he must have felt in the presence of the powers of nature.
Have a physicist and a "primitive man" face the powers of nature and see who's more comfortable with their surroundings.
> I guess science has always been this contemptuous of both its ancestors and the religious.
> > The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.
Let's be charitable; this is not contempt, it is merely shallow knowledge. In 1936, educated westerners had heard the praises of Buddhism but had little access to sophisticated teaching.
Buddhism really does teach us to accept the world as it is, and that the world as it is goes beyond the reach of propositional knowledge. So it is understandable that someone with a hazy (but not wrong) impression of that call it "toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter".
I find Buddhism too complex to grok. Whatever arrives as popular Buddhism in the west seems to be distorted info that doesn’t even scratch the surface. Scientists who talk about Buddhism will only get credibility in my eyes if they apply the same investigativeness towards Buddhism as they love science. Two places they would need to look at is its diversity and their willingness to engage in scientific conversation. The Dalai Lama seems to engage in it, not sure to what extent that counts as Buddhism but it is something.
I have never heard any of those Buddhist philosophies speaking of truth like you seem to imply. They don't mean truth in the way Aristotle thinks about it.
To see the following in the first page of the article already turns me off reading any more
"To get an impression of primitive man's approach to the physical universe ..."
The underlying assumption that cultures from 2000 years or more ago are primitive belies the facts that we are unable to do things that they did on a regular basis in various engineering capacities.
Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.
> Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.
That might have quite a bit to do with the economic incentives people base their decisions around when building.
We aren't incapable of building things that would last 2000 years, we're choosing not to. Modern people could go and build another pyramid out of solid stone blocks, and probably much faster with modern machinery, but why would we?
Your point isn't coherent - your very same reasoning also shows that societies today regularly do things - orders of magnitude more things - that societies from antiquity could not.
You claim that we are unable to build structures that can survive the elements long term, only in a later post to point out and categorically dismiss tons of structures modern societies build that are likely to survive long term because those don't align with your value system.
We are communicating on the internet. Let that sink in.
It seems to me this article uses Physics to justify the view that courts should "abstract new laws" as they deem necessary.
This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it creates the problem of 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'.
[+] [-] vfinn|7 years ago|reply
Recommend to try the preface of the Phenomenology of the Spirit to get some kind of idea of Hegel's thinking / speculative logic, which I find fascinating.
[+] [-] amelius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyc111|7 years ago|reply
Could not make sense of this statement. Isn't just the opposite true? Whatever happens, happens simultaneously because for us only the present exists.
[+] [-] Oddstrider|7 years ago|reply
This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it swaps democracy for 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'. As a computer scientist I'd call this unscientific or at least a sloppy proposal.
[+] [-] YvetteBrooks|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aurelien|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curo|7 years ago|reply
> The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.
Huh? There is a rich spectrum of buddhist philosophy (Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan) and all profess to demonstrate the ways of perceiving and understanding truth and pre-conceptual reality of this world. Straw man here?
> When we try to conceive of the state of mind of primitive man, the first thing that occurs to us is the bewilderment and terror he must have felt in the presence of the powers of nature.
Have a physicist and a "primitive man" face the powers of nature and see who's more comfortable with their surroundings.
[+] [-] adrianratnapala|7 years ago|reply
> > The Buddhist finds his answer in a toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter.
Let's be charitable; this is not contempt, it is merely shallow knowledge. In 1936, educated westerners had heard the praises of Buddhism but had little access to sophisticated teaching.
Buddhism really does teach us to accept the world as it is, and that the world as it is goes beyond the reach of propositional knowledge. So it is understandable that someone with a hazy (but not wrong) impression of that call it "toleration for what he may neither understand nor alter".
[+] [-] mettamage|7 years ago|reply
—- not an expert on Buddhism or physics
[+] [-] ThomPete|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ShabbosGoy|7 years ago|reply
What’s the old joke? How many physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?
[+] [-] oldandtired|7 years ago|reply
"To get an impression of primitive man's approach to the physical universe ..."
The underlying assumption that cultures from 2000 years or more ago are primitive belies the facts that we are unable to do things that they did on a regular basis in various engineering capacities.
Just consider that they built structures that still exist today when we have difficulty building structures that last beyond 50 years before they have to be torn down due to failures in the materials.
[+] [-] emit_time|7 years ago|reply
That might have quite a bit to do with the economic incentives people base their decisions around when building.
Also, survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
[+] [-] Retra|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p1necone|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interfixus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pharrington|7 years ago|reply
You claim that we are unable to build structures that can survive the elements long term, only in a later post to point out and categorically dismiss tons of structures modern societies build that are likely to survive long term because those don't align with your value system.
We are communicating on the internet. Let that sink in.
[+] [-] inteleng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Oddstrider|7 years ago|reply
This is wholly undemocratic and while it claims to solve one problem (that of legal frameworks growing obsolete) it creates the problem of 'laws by committee' or 'expert rule'.