There'd be a paucity of philosophical literature; and if you found yourself capable metaphysical speculation you would either have to keep it to yourself or risk censure and perhaps prosecution, incarceration, or even execution, depending on how prohibitive your society was and how severe your heresy was seen to be. — John

That depends. With the advent of technology and modernity there has been a division produced in culture. There is popular culture - the media, TV, Hollywood, etc. and then there is the real culture, which is quite often ignored and forgotten. The kind of politically enforced culture would be the popular one. Whosoever escapes the popular culture can freely dwell in the real culture. It's just popular culture that would be restricted and controlled. That's the kind of politically enforced view that I would accept to live under.

Then what do you mean? What is this "insight" that you are talking about, and how does it relate to the rest of the world? Again, we live in this world. That "insight" will not save us from having to go and plant the cabbage to eat it. We'll have that insight and all, and then back to the everyday we go.

What are you reading of Hegel? If this interpretation comes from reading the Phenomenology, can you cite some passages in support of it or at least provide some references to page numbers?

Do you include philosophical literature under the 'popular culture' heading?

Do you include philosophical literature under the 'popular culture' heading? — John

Obviously not... >:O Common man, philosophy is frowned upon in popular culture... do you see folks like Miley Cyrus interested in philosophy?! That's popular culture. Popular culture is empty of content anyway - it's a culture used to brainwash idiots to consume more, and give in to their base desires...

The insight I am referring to is personal insight of a kind which cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated. It's just like the insight of the artist, musician or poet which can be expressed only evocatively. What the artist, musician, poet or mystic is 'speaking' about, cannot be explained in propositional language..Painting, sculpture, music, poetry and religious and mystical literature are all like this; it moves you or it does not. If you are not moved by the arts or mystical literature then that says more about you than it says about the arts or mystical literature.

Well then you didn't read my post on this subject, that you originally responded to properly; we are obviously not talking about the same kinds of society.

What are you reading of Hegel? If this interpretation comes from reading the Phenomenology, can you cite some passages in support of it or at least provide some references to page numbers? — John

I have never finished the Phenomenology, most of my knowledge of Hegel comes indirectly from secondary sources. I've read for example Yovel's translation + commentary on Hegel's Preface to Phenomenology, I've read his interpretation of Hegel as a Spinozist (although an improved version of Spinoza) in Spinoza and other Heretics, I've read parts of Frederick Beiser's Hegel, I've read Macherey's comparison/discussion of Hegel and Spinoza (in Hegel ou Spinoza), and I've started to read the Phenomenology beyond the Preface but have never finished it. Oh and I've started to read the book you have suggested after I "stole" it from online O:)

So yeah, those are the references briefly for my positions. There probably are others but they aren't directly about Hegel. As I said, I'm not a Hegel expert like you :P

The insight I am referring to is personal insight of a kind which cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated. It's just like the insight of the artist, musician or poet which can be expressed only evocatively. What the artist, musician, poet or mystic is 'speaking' about, cannot be explained in propositional language..Painting, sculpture, music, poetry and religious and mystical literature are all like this; it moves you or it does not. If you are not moved by the arts or mystical literature then that says more about you than it says about the arts or mystical literature. — John

Okay I'm moved by them - for a few seconds, minutes or hours, and then back to planting potatos in the garden :P The potatoes don't plant themselves you know, and man does not live on spirit alone. It seems that my place is still in the world - planting potatoes - everything else is just an escape from that, is it not?

Spinoza gives a completed system, Hegel gives a Phenomenology - the process of completion of the system. Spinoza is more difficult to learn and understand though, since he doesn't show how his system is completed in the first place. Understanding some Hegel (or Schopenhauer), does help in understanding Spinoza though. — Agustino

Hegel also gives a Science of Logic among numerous other works. I haven't begun to penetrate it yet, and i don't know if i ever will, but the Phenomenology is generally considered to be merely a propadeutic to the Logic. And even though the Phenomenology is unarguably a formidably difficult work, the Logic is, going by some accounts, even more difficult.

Spinoza is far easier to learn that Hegel in my view. Hegel's passages are densely packed and difficult to understand. Spinoza is a breeze by comparison. I think you have it exactly backwards; understanding some Spinoza will help you in understanding Hegel, especially since he came well after Spinoza.

Okay I'm moved by them - for a few seconds, minutes or hours, and then back to planting potatos in the garden :P The potatoes don't plant themselves you know, and man does not live on spirit alone. It seems that my place is still in the world - planting potatoes - everything else is just an escape from that, is it not? — Agustino

There is practical life (in the sense of earning a living) and then there is contemplation and study and creative pursuits. Not always easy to balance; having worked for more than three decades as a landscape and building designer and contractor I know that all too well.

>:)

There is practical life (in the sense of earning a living) and then there is contemplation and study and creative pursuits. Not always easy to balance — John

There's deeper problems than just balancing I think. First even the need to balance is anachronistic - work should be a creative and fulfilling activity in and of itself. The fact that it isn't and there needs to be a separate time for creativity means that one is living a divided life, and probably doing both half-heartedly. In addition, if you honestly play the scenario in your mind that you don't have to earn a living anymore, and you can just do whatever you want, you'll see that you'd get amazingly bored, and so you'd still return to some form of work. That's why I eventually want to get involved in politics and my community, because otherwise there's not much that you can do apart from work work work - which, combined with study, is pretty much all I'm doing now...

Would not recognition of a "higher philosophy" be itself a 'higher' recognition and thus necessarily be a supra-rational process? Wouldn't it be something like the gnosis of the mystics, or the abhijñā of Buddhism? If such a process is possible and if it yields genuine insight into the nature of reality, then surely it must a 'higher' intuition, perhaps we could say an intellectual intuition, that transcends logic and defies rational explanation. — John

I agree. But Kant pointed out 'the limits of knowledge' - which is how all this came up - and what lies beyond rational explanation (i.e. the antinomies of reason). I'm not saying Kant is be-all and end-all, but I'm trying to relate the idea of a 'higher teaching' against philosophy, specifically Western philosophy, and metaphysics. (I mentioned before, I discovered Kant via T R V Murti's Central Philosophy of Buddhism.)

(Anyway, speaking of making a living, we are both seeking work right now, and finding it extraordinarily difficult, we think mainly cause of age. Dear wife has an excellent career record and a Masters degree, but has been working full-time on job applications since July last year; I'm vying for contracts but Sydney is one of the most expensive, therefore most competitive, markets in the world. So at times like this I have to fight the voice that asks me whether I've wasted far too much time on philosophy.)

First even the need to balance is anachronistic - work should be a creative and fulfilling activity in and of itself. — Agustino

I have always found my work, "creative and interesting". But there are different kinds and levels of creativity and interest, and it cannot be expected to fulfill them all, Study is itself a creative pursuit, or should be. I love reading, painting and drawing, studying music and playing the piano, writing, both prose and poetry, and physical exercise and discipline (I also learn Tai Chi). I don't want to give any of these pursuits up, but i also like to relax and do nothing sometimes, go bush walking, or watch good series on TV, or spend time talking with friends. I would like to regularly practice meditation too, but i am not prepared to put aside the time for that. So there is never too much, or even enough, time as far as I a concerned.

I'm trying to relate the idea of a 'higher teaching' against philosophy, specifically Western philosophy, and metaphysics. — Wayfarer

That sounds like a worthwhile and interesting project.

(Anyway, speaking of making a living, we are both seeking work right now, and finding it extraordinarily difficult, we think mainly cause of age. Dear wife has an excellent career record and a Masters degree, but has been working full-time on job applications since July last year; I'm vying for contracts but Sydney is one of the most expensive, therefore most competitive, markets in the world. So at times like this I have to fight the voice that asks me whether I've wasted far too much time on philosophy.) — Wayfarer

I can sympathize insofar as I have been self-employed for pretty much my entire working life and the uncertainty about where the next job is going to come from is always on the periphery somewhere. I have only been working about 15 hours a week for the last ten years or so, and the contracting and design side of my business is looking very quiet now, so we are down to our regular maintenance stuff if nothing else comes in. And that only involves me about 7 hours a week average (my companion works with me; she does the lighter tasks of shrub-shaping and weeding and I do the heavier work which involves operating power equipment such as mower, hedge trimmer, line trimmer, blower, chain saw, brushcutter and so on).

I like to think of the Biblical quote "Take no thought for the morrow, for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" when I find myself fretting about the future. As Bod Dylan says, "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose",. This is not to say I have nothing; I have property of course, but I think having nothing is a state of mind (which is by no means easy to attain, and even harder to remain in). so, I would never want to succumb to the voice, as i am sure you also would not, that says that philosophy could be a waste of time. I do get this about philosophy though "Isn't it just a waste of time, it doesn't seem to answer anything" from some of my very smart, yet predominantly practically and hedonically oriented, friends, though.

:-$

I really don't think that's correct MU. The equations of matter work for matter in a generalised sense, it doesn't matter which type. The whole point about Aristotelean 'substance' is that it is a complex concept, and isn't really part of modern natural philosophy, except by analogy. — Wayfarer

As you said, the equations refer to mass, not matter itself. Mass is a measurable property of matter. The duality, or complexity, of substance is inherent within Newton's laws, because it is assumed that there is matter, and it is assumed that matter has mass. These are two distinct things, matter and its quantifiable property, mass. The working premise at that time, was that there is no matter without mass, and no mass without matter. Some may have thought that matter and mass are the same thing, but the two are not the same thing, as mass is clearly a property, and that is not consistent with the concept of matter.

Matter, in Aristotle's physics was that which persists, does not change, through a change. The law of conservation of mass removes this designation from the matter itself, and puts it on the mass, which is a quantifiable form. But then it was found that matter could exist in the form of energy as well, and this required a law of conservation of energy. Now we have two distinct fundamental forms of matter, two distinct types of substance, one is mass, the other is energy. That is only because the designation of "that which persists" has been removed from matter itself, and applied to the form.

That sounds like a worthwhile and interesting project. — John

Well, that's what I consider myself to have been doing on philosophy forums since I joined them.

I like to think of the Biblical quote "Take no thought for the morrow, for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" — John

Tricky, for a mortgage holder. (I once said to a monk, us urban householders have a lot of stuff to worry about. 'I know', he said. 'Why do you think we're monks?')

Mass is a measurable property of matter. The duality, or complexity, of substance is inherent within Newton's laws, because it is assumed that there is matter, and it is assumed that matter has mass. These are two distinct things, matter and its quantifiable property, mass — Metaphysician Undercover

I hate to be disagreeable, but I really think you're mistaken about this. It's a question for history and philosophy of science, of course, but how could there be (for instance) such a division in Cartesian substance dualism, where there are two kinds of substance? The whole point about Newtonian and Galilean substance was reduction to those attributes which could expressed in numerical terms. Newton hardly studied Aristotelean physics, and certainly didn't take it seriousy, it having been overthrown by Galileo, Copernicus, and others. The distinction that then emerged was not between 'matter and property' but between 'primary and secondary qualities', where the latter were associated with the observing mind (colour, etc) and the former (including mass) were primary attributes of the object of measurement.

I hate to be disagreeable, but I really think you're mistaken about this. It's a question for history and philosophy of science, of course, but how could there be (for instance) such a division in Cartesian substance dualism, where there are two kinds of substance? The whole point about Newtonian and Galilean substance was reduction to those attributes which could expressed in numerical terms. The distinction that emerged was not between 'matter and property' but between 'primary and secondary qualities', where the latter were associated with the observing mind (colour, etc) and the former (including mass) were primary attributes of the object of measurement. — Wayfarer

Yes, yes, that's exactly the point, the distinction between 'matter and property' was lost, because matter was taken for granted. If you read Newton, he had a lot of respect for the concept of matter, and discussed it a lot. But what happens with his laws, is a focus on this particular property of matter, mass. So in a sense, matter is equated with mass, all matter has mass, and all mass has matter. After that, the focus is just on that attribute, mass, because the matter is taken for granted. The equivalency of mass and matter was taken for granted, matter could be represented as mass, so there was no more need to question the existence of matter itself.

I do get this about philosophy though "Isn't it just a waste of time, it doesn't seem to answer anything" from some of my very smart, yet predominantly practically and hedonically oriented, friends, though. — John

LOL I get this from just about everyone, including most friends and relatives (I only have probably 2 friends I can discuss philosophy with properly). They all think philosophy is useless because they say you can't "do" anything with it - as in what does your knowledge help you with? So when I tell them that there are some things which we do in order to obtain other things, and then there are things which we do for themselves, they don't understand. Even if I explain that we can't always do X in order to get Y, because if everything we did had to be done in order to get something else, then we'd have an infinite regress of do X to get Y, get Y to get Z, etc. So we must stop at something, which we do for its own sake. Even after this "proof" people still protest about it, without of course relating with anything of what I've said, or recognising that their ends-in-themselves are different from mine, and at least a priori, no better.

So yeah, I think philosophy is end in itself. But on top of this, I think philosophy actually helps with most things in life, ironically. Like it helps with handling most things in life. Philosophy even helped me in fucking chess playing... even in martial arts practicing philosophy made me much better. Philosophy also helped me cure my OCD and anxiety. I mean without philosophy my life would really be much much worse. I can probably list no thing that philosophy didn't help me with. Even washing the dishes... I used to hate doing it, now I don't mind - I can accept whatever has to be done. Even in learning new things (because of my self-employment in IT I probably learn new things daily still), philosophy is of tremendous help. The one thing which maybe philosophy hasn't helped me with, is motivation. I always find my sources of motivation in places other than philosophy. If anything, philosophy doesn't motivate me to do anything that is not close at hand. In any case, I found that nothing motivates one to do something better than loving a woman :P O:)

In addition - I think philosophy is needed for politics. I mean I can't imagine how someone can do politics without being a philosopher, or at least without having philosophers as advisors... Why do you think Chinese Emperors used to employ all the hermit and recluse philosophers in running their empires? :s I mean were they stupid?! >:O If I was a politician, or a big businessman, I would employ philosophers in taking all decisions - there's no better brain than the philosopher's brain in deciding what is best to do.

I have always found my work, "creative and interesting" — John

For me I find it currently creative and interesting for the simple reason that I'm still learning a lot everyday. I'm relatively new still in this kind of business. But I imagine that after practicing it for 3-5 years, I'll pretty much know everything inside and out. I'm lucky I got the chance to switch fields. I hated working for someone else, and as an engineer I found I pretty much can only work for someone else... >:O at least in Sapientia's great country, Britain.

I have been self-employed for pretty much my entire working life — John

You are lucky in that. I prefer self-employed compared to work under a boss. But I was unlucky because my degree didn't really allow me to work as self-employed straight off. As a civil engineer you're pretty much fucked if you want to work on your own immediately after university :P

uncertainty about where the next job — John

But certainly there's always repeat business? I mean for me, I got in by first having done work for a family friend who had a small business, then he recommended me to others, etc. and by today I have a good set of a few clients. Even if no one new comes, there's always repeat work - or maintenance work - from these people. And then if all that disappeared, I'd advertise more aggressively, or I'd do some freelance work, etc. There's a lot of possibilities as self-employed if you're willing to think about them and try them. But if you're stuck in a job, there's pretty much no possibility for movement and change there...

I've only read a handful of the pages in this thread, but I waned to posit the ideas of Godel and Turning here, since, if we were to find natural laws we would want them to be self consistent and capable of modeling measured phenomena. The difficulty is adding events to the Turing machine such that all phenomena are accounted for. In lieu of all event, we can only have a sample of events to put into the machine. The machine would analyze the events and try to develop axioms by which future events can be modeled. If an event disagrees with an axiom, the axiom would be thrown out and a new one fashioned (events permitting).

Another thing to note here is a common phrase in particle physics, which is "That which is not forbidden, is required."

To answer the questions more directly (and sadly, less informative):
What are natural laws? Natural laws are models of phenomena, if one concedes they are constructs. If one supposes natural laws are immutable truths, then natural laws would then be the mechanics of reality; providing a map of tendencies.

What are natural laws made of? Statements about events and processes. The language of the statement is typically developed through trying to get a model to match witnessed phenomena.

How do natural laws work? One way to think of it, as Sean Carroll stated, is the chain of explanations stops at the natural law, and that's how they work. Another way to think of it would be suggesting that the chain never stops, because one could ask why they work as they do (which is close to how the question was posed), which science is woefully unable to deal with in a manner satisfying to many thinkers.

One thing that may interest you might be the difference between the Newtonian schema and a Lagrangian one. Under the Newtonian schema the world is thought of a a computer that takes the state of a system and evolves it. Under a Lagrangian schema, the world evolves assuming an initial and final state. I think this is similar to the it from bit versus bit from it arguments.