No, I want to know what use is there in reading those old books. Don't just brush this off idly, it's not an idle question.
Is there anything more to it than nostalgia? — baker
I want to know what use is there in reading those old books. Don't just brush this off idly, it's not an idle question. — baker
... the paucity of my education in the classics of ancient literature and philosophy.
But the 'sacred thread' that runs through Greek philosophy and the formation of Western culture is unique and important, and constantly under attack from degenerative forces, principally materialism in all its forms, which has hijacked the terminology of philosophy whilst rejecting its meaning. — Wayfarer
Is there anything more to it than nostalgia? — baker
How can that be when "materialism" was there, almost from the beginning as this "sacred thread" unspooled, from Thales to Leucippus & Democritus to the Epicureans featured exclusively in Book X of Diogenes Laërtius' masterwork and Lucretius ... which parallels (or was inspired by) the "materialisms" of the Cārvāka in India and exemplified by the Chinese astronomer-philosopher Wang Chong during the Han Dynasty?... the 'sacred thread' that runs through Greek philosophy and the formation of Western culture is unique and important, and constantly under attack from degenerative forces, principally materialism in all its forms, which has hijacked the terminology of philosophy whilst rejecting its meaning. — Wayfarer
Thales, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, and others were all materialists in some form. — Fooloso4
How can that be when "materialism" was there, almost from the beginning as they "sacred thread" unspooled, from Thales to Leucippus & Democritus to the Epicureans featured exclusively in Book X of Diogenes Laërtius' masterwork and Lucretius ... which parallels (or was inspired by) the "materialisms" of the Cārvāka in India and exemplified by the Chinese astronomer-philosopher Wang Chong during the Han Dynasty? — 180 Proof
During the nineteenth century, the development of chemistry and the theory of heat conformed very closely to the ideas first put forward by Leucippus and Democritus. A revival of the materialist philosophy in its modern form, that of dialectical materialism, was this a natural counterpart to the impressive advances made during this period in chemistry and physics. The concept of the atom had proved exceptionally fruitful in the explanation of chemical bonding and the physical behavior of gases. It was soon, however, that the particles called atoms by the chemist were composed of still smaller units. But these smaller units, the electrons, followed by the atomic nuclei and finally the elementary particles, protons and neutrons, also still seemed to be atoms from the standpoint of the materialist philosophy. The fact that, at least indirectly, one can actually see a single elementary particle—in a cloud chamber, say, or a bubble chamber—supports the view that the smallest units of matter are real physical objects, existing in the same sense that stones or flowers do.
But the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.
This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.
During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?
I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg The Debate between Plato and Democritus
I think interpreting classical 'atoms' as quarks (or even quanta) and 'void' as QM field is valid as I've previously mentioned without rebuttal. — 180 Proof
materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed. — 180 Proof
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Totally agree. If lifelong perpetual doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by more doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by rejection of all conclusions, principles, and guidelines, and systematic dismissal of the possibility of ever actually knowing anything, constitutes "wisdom" then we might as well forget about it. — Apollodorus
Aristotle equates the contemplation of the wise man with the self-contemplation of the unmoved mover. Platonic philosophy sees ascent in wisdom as progressive assimilation to the divine (WAP 226-7). Hadot goes as far as to suggest that Plotinus and other ancient philosophers “project” the figure of the God, on the basis of their conception of the figure of the Sage, as a kind of model of human and intellectual perfection” (WAP 227-8). However, Hadot stresses that the divine freedom of the Sage from the concerns of ordinary human beings does not mean the Sage lacks all concern for the things that preoccupy other human beings. Indeed, in a series of remarkable analyses, Hadot argues that this indifference towards external goods (money, fame, property, office . . . ) opens the Sage to a different, elevated state of awareness in which he “never ceases to have the whole present in his mind, never forgets the world, thinks and acts in relation to the cosmos . . . ” — IEP Entry on Pierre Hadot
Materialists — Wayfarer
I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. — Werner Heisenberg
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. — Niels Bohr
in Aristotle's cosmology he posited eternal circular motions. as the orbits of the planets. Then to support the eternal circular motions he posit unmoved movers involved in the virtuous circular thinking of thinking on thinking. The idea of eternal circular orbits has been proven faulty, and circular thinking is now considered a vicious circle. So this aspect of his metaphysics seems to have failed — Metaphysician Undercover
I did mention that Heisenberg quote above.
I'm not convinced there are any 'smallest units of matter', as such. The entities that exist on that scale are only 'particles' by way of analogy. Paul Davies, who I mentioned above, has been writing about this for decades - Matter Myth, God and the New Physics, Goldilocks Enigma, and other such titles. Not to forget Tao of Physics, which despite it's many critics, was still a ground-breaker. — Wayfarer
Of course that is true. Galileo rightly demolished Aristotelian physics but there's a deeper issue, which is along with it, banishing the idea of any purpose other than mechanical interaction. And besides in many other respects Aristotle's philosophy still has much to commend it. But you can't deny the aspects of it that were just plain mistaken, either. — Wayfarer
What if wisdom consists in ataraxia, though? — Janus
the classical philosophical tradition — Wayfarer
But the fact that it's always existed doesn't validate it. — Wayfarer
... banishing the idea of any purpose other than mechanical interaction — Wayfarer
Ataraxia can get you anywhere. You need to take the beginning, the center, and the end, i.e., "s", "o", ph", "i", "a", and discard the "ch", "i", "z", "r", "e", "n" to get it right. :smile:
Otherwise put, you need some reference to external realities (and authorities) to make sure you don't go to places where you don't want to be. — Apollodorus
I see the arts and free-thinking philosophy as alternative "ways" to following any of the "external authorities". What you say may be true for some, but not all, in my opinion. I mean how could we possibly justify a belief that we can speak for all anyway? — Janus
You went from a false claim about
the classical philosophical tradition
— Wayfarer
to contemporary physics. — Fooloso4
That the universe itself acts purposively is analogical. The fact that some living things act purposively does not mean that the universe does. Rather than rule it out it is a question of why it should be ruled in. — Fooloso4
I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.