I suppose Jesus always knew best, but one has to wonder whether Lazarus, who was already starting to stink pretty badly, really wanted to come back to life.

Right. Not sure that Jesus meant that literally. Though some people these days are willing to cut off your hand for you if they think it causes you to commit sins.

Sometimes Jesus speaks in very harsh terms, and I'm guessing that there was a cultural opening for that, and Jesus, of course, came from that culture. Other times he is very gentle.

Obviously getting chummy with the victim might not be appropriate in rape cases. However, I think that perpetrators need to perform sacrificial acts of some kind on behalf of their victims -- something more productive than spending 10 years in a box at state expense (and it's quite a bit of expense).

Said in the same vain as what Jesus said to the rich young man who wanted to follow Him: "First, go and sell all you have." The young man went away sadly [because he couldn't give up his wealth].

"Your family business comes second to the Kingdom of God." or worse than second. It's a tough demand.

What's the superior alternative? — Marchesk

Well, one alternative is restorative justice. It's best applied for young offenders and relatively minor crimes. It involves bringing the offender and the victim together (in a structured setting) to help the offender understand what his actions meant, and then help him or her come up with a compensation of some kind -- not necessarily a fine, more likely some kind of work engagement with the victim.

Restorative justice could be applied to older offenders and more serious crimes, too, but with more state involvement and likely still involve jail and/or a fine.

eye for an eye — Posty McPostface

The "eye for an eye" rule was a major step up in ethics. The non-ethical man visits unlimited devastation on those who harm his family, himself, his property. Insult my wife, you die. Injury my horse accidentally, I'll give you a whipping, etc.

The eye-for-an-eye rule limits action to proportional retribution. So, it's an advance.

The Golden Rule -- which existed before Jesus came along, of course, is a further advance. One would want maximum consideration and mercy for one's own misdeeds, so give maximum consideration and mercy to others' misdeeds.

The Golden Rule begin with the self because we can only know what guilt and punishment feel like for ourselves.

Then there is the other meaning of the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules.

Music — TimeLine

Right. My self-frenchification program isn't making a whole lot of progress, but one of the best parts of what French I have learned has been by listening to "older" french songs, like 1930s - 1950s. The styles of singing are straight forward and enunciation is pretty good. Plus, I like the music, and it's all new to me. It's suave, romantic -- well some of it. The French are as capable of corny pop music as every other culture. One particularly good song is a bitter complaint about being a ticket puncher at a Paris subway station. Le Poinçonneur Des Lilas by Serge Gainsbourg.

Je suis le poinçonneur des Lilas
Le gars qu'on croise et qu'on n' regarde pas
Y a pas de soleil sous la terre
Drôle de croisière
Pour tuer l'ennui j'ai dans ma veste
Les extraits du Reader Digest
Et dans ce bouquin y a écrit
Que des gars se la coulent douce à Miami
Pendant ce temps que je fais le zouave
Au fond de la cave
Paraît que y a pas de sot métier
Moi je fais des trous dans des billets



I’m the ticket puncher at Lilas.
To me the passengers pay no regard.
There is no sunshine in this Metro station.
Strange vacation.
To kill the boredom, in my vest,
I have extracts from Readers Digest,
And this book says to me,
That life is just a ball in Miami,
All the while I’m working like a slave,
Down in this cave,
They say work’s better than the dole
But all day long I just make holes
I punch holes, little holes and more little holes
Little holes, little holes, always little holes
I make second class holes
And punch first class holes
I punch holes, little holes and more little holes
Little holes, little holes, always little holes
Little holes, little holes
Little holes, little holes.

So, what Spanish speaking country are you in, how long have you been there, how is language acquisition going so far, and what method are you using to learn the language?

Yo hablaría español, pero soy demasiado estúpido para hacerlo. I suspect hablaría is subjunctive. (Oh, it's conditional.) Get acquainted with the subjunctive tense.

Present Imperfect Imperfect 2 Future
yo hable hablara hablase hablare

It looks like an automated glitch. When you post a new discussion, there is a little box for "question" and "poll". It might be the case that the "question" box is checked by default.

Heads will roll. Or as Google translates that into Spanish, rodarán cabezas -- they will roll heads.
That idiom problem.

What are the benefits of speaking another language (other than ease of communication)? — JJJJS

Well, "ease of communication" is a very big deal. But once you are adept in the language, you can expand your cultural repertoire to include the arts and sciences practiced in Spanish speaking countries, as well as grasping more about the way the people in xyz country live.

Don't rely on text-translation apps. It's important to build and maintain the language in your head, where it is most readily available. It like people who use GPS all the time eventually get to the point where they can't find their way around the block without a GPS telling them when to turn.

There are several ways:

I gather you are past the period of time (childhood) when most people pick up languages readily. You should have moved years ago. Bad planning,

on-line methods, Babbel, Rosetta Stone, etc.
Take a class
Self-instruction

What will work best for you depends on your personal 'learning style'. IF you prefer an organized approach, where you are led through the process, then on-line or live classroom experiences will do well.

If you are reasonably well disciplined, self instruction can work well. Remember, there are three forms for language: Spoken, written, and thought. Hearing and speaking the language is first. It's important to pay attention to how the language sounds. In my self-learning French project, I have found Rosetta Stone and popular french songs helpful for "hearing" the language--distinguishing the sounds which compose a language. Next, of course, is speaking; then reading (like signs, newspapers), and writing. Being able to think in a foreign language will happen at some unknown point.

Spanish has a more direct relationship between spelling and sound than French and English, which is a good thing.

Since you are living in a country where your native language isn't primary, you will get lots of practice listening to the native speakers. Some people will happily help you informally, so try to find a few of those. It will help if you have a real interest in the language.

Unless your native language is Mandarin or something like that, Spanish grammar isn't all that complicated; spelling is quite consistent. Idioms are always going to be tricky, in any language.

Try doing both informal language pick up and some more formal study. It will help if you know something about how verbs are conjugated. That alone won't help you order lunch, of course, but it might help you piece things together.

Keep a notebook handy to record what you learn, and review it regularly. Eventually, one day, you will realize you are going through the day's activities in Spanish, without too much difficulty.

Good luck.

What is it about the past that fascinates us? Why is it so hard to just “leave it all behind?” — Abdul

All our good experiences are in the past. So also are all our bad experiences. And indifferent ones. And unsorted, unclassified experiences. We come from the past. The future is not yet, and according to some people, the present is a few milliseconds long -- too short to solve any of our problems. So, there is the past.

I happen to think that the present is longer than a few milliseconds. We can not enjoy or suffer or benefit from experience We can hardly have experiences if they disappear into the past every few milliseconds. How can we hear and experience music IF one of the brief notes in a trill is gone before it has lingered even a quarter of a second? Even if the present lasts for the whole symphony, it doesn't last forever, and then it becomes the past.

I'll grant that our memory (the past) is not as solid as bed rock, but it's reasonably stable, and we have lots of records (things, pictures, and writing) that don't change moment to moment.

Another reason for finding the past fascinating is that it is such a rich source of things to think about in the present.

Have you read science fiction stories were people time travel and get stuck in the past? It's usually not a good thing. One author's main 20th century character ended up stuck in Rome towards the end of the Roman Empire. He used some 20th century knowledge and simpler technology to open a business, did very well, and was able to launch the late empire on a technological renaissance. He didn't live any longer in Rome than he would have in 20th century Chicago, but he made good use of his time in the past. Good story.

But in the link give above ("Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain") the inner part of the brain is gone. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

90% of his brain can't be gone and him to function normally.

"Update 3 Jan 2017: This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this.

From Science Alert

Is it funny or is it disturbing — TimeLine

It's funny. Laugh.

thanks to you — TimeLine

Happy to be of service.

No, I think we are actually incapable of dealing with long-term future problems. It isn't just hubris. The reason for this is that we can not "feel" the connection between sacrifices today and goals 50 to 100 years into the future , even). We surely are able to predict what will happen, up to a point, a decade, several decades, a century -- sometimes even a billion years into the future. We can even see what could, would, should be done.

But... stop eating fish and meat today so that agriculture/aquaculture will be more sustainable in 2067? Tax ourselves today to pay for a project that won't be done until 2099? Plant 1 billion trees by 2025 so that in 2125 we can cut them down and build shelters? We can imagine it, but we can't really believe in it. And we may not be able to tell whether the expensive, time-consuming project that won't be done 82 years from now will work, or will be worth it.

Raise 5 billion dollars in taxes per year (just in Miami, New York, Milan, Sydney, Tokyo, or ...) to build flood protection for the 22nd century for low lying cities? "Are you out of your mind?" Miami is already experiencing ocean water infiltration and flooded roads, which locals mostly will not acknowledge. Milan is sinking while oceans are rising.

Take a spoonful of cod liver oil everyday now so your body will be healthy 60 years from now when you are 80 years old? I don't think so.

But now, humans can do something about an extinction causing asteroid. — TheMadFool

Hubris.

We have not done this. We have not tried to do it. It is way too soon to claim the capacity to divert large asteroids.

Bear in mind that it was the asteroid landing in the Yucatan Peninsula that made it possible for mammals (and us) to emerge from the shadow of Tyrannosaurus Regina and her egg-laying ilk.

Note that I feminized Tyrannosaurus. Equality must be applied to Vertebrate Paleontology. Female monsters resent being erased; being rendered invisible; being silenced; being remarked upon only when they have laid an egg.

There is no end to the evils of patriarchy...

Well, in OUR opinion we are quite bright. Sometimes we are cursed by being too smart for our own good; sometimes we are just too stupid for words.

We are afflicted by two other curses, however: Hubris, for one, and short-sightedness with respect to consequences.

We are stuck with our curses: Smart, hubristic, and short-sighted. Try as we may, we can not stop being what we are. We think we can solve all kinds of problems, and we can not--for the life of us--plan in any practical way for a hundred years into the future. Usually, anyway. Every now and then somebody thinks and acts in the long term, but usually on a very small scale. They plant slow growing trees, for instance.

Plants disagree — tom

Plants may like a bit more CO2, but they don't necessarily like the added heat that goes with it. Some plants get eaten to death by the insects that are not killed off by the normal cold winter, for instance. There are millions and millions of dead conifers that are being killed by insects against which they have no defense. They die, then burn.

Some plants don't get to reproduce because the insects that pollinate them aren't available, owing to earlier warmth in the spring. Some plants are blossoming before the pollinators are out and about. Or they blossom early, get frosted, and are totally screwed for that year.

Quite a few plants are marching boldly northward, but they aren't marching nearly fast enough to avoid the approaching heat wave.

Hold on, those aren't my quotes, they're from apokrisis. — inquisitive

Yes, I was aware that those were apokrisis's quotes, but I wanted to address my response to you, since this is your thread.

I have trouble with the fact that you don't see animals as beings that deserve rights (maybe limited compared to ours). However, your admission of responsibility seems 'good enough' to work with as a strategy. I think that's what a lot of the argument comes down to - a complete shift is probably impossible, but we need to move in this direction I believe. — inquisitive

The reason I don't believe animals other than humans have rights is that they can not articulate anything about their rights. Pigs can not object that their rights are being trampled. So, it is our responsibility to act AS IF animals had rights. If there are animals that should have specific rights, it would be our fellow primates.

When animals were domesticated, they became our charges, and with it the choice to treat them well or badly, morally or immorally. Beating, starving, torturing... an animal is immoral. It's sometimes against the law, as well.

Take castration: I don't think farm animals have a right to reproduce, but if we are going to prevent them from being normal males animals, then their testicles should not be removed without anesthesia. Cows should not be branded. Calves should be treated gently (ditto for piglets, lambs, chicks, etc.)

Treating animals humanely is probably not possible within industrial animal farming. So, we can do without industrial animal farming, and produce less meat. I like meat, so I would find higher meat prices very inconvenient, but we should be heading in the direction of less meat production for environmental reasons, if not animal well-being reasons.

One thing about the abuses of industrial farming: Industrial farming didn't invent animal abuse. The idealized small family farmer sometimes did (or does, where there are small farms) the same things that big industrial operations did.

You'd be surprised what you can find with some Googling. From a certain scale onwards (and depending on the country and its laws/policing) most farm animals receive bad treatment. — inquisitive

I'm a pro at googling. However, I also grew up in a small-farm agricultural county and I've seen what run of the mill animal abuse looks like. Most farmers like their animals, and treat them well. Some don't. What goes on in industrial turkey farms, egg production facilities, etc. is very unappetizing and goes down hill from there. Feed lots are grim places, and very unhealthy for both the animals and for the environment, and us.

Nihilism — Thorongil

But isn't nihilism a dogma? It seems like a nihilist has to have this kernel of anti-dogma which repels every other dogma.

Would you like to know what I think existentialism is supposed to be? — anonymous66

Of course.

Could very well be.

I tend to like dogma. I googled dogma just to make sure, and G offered this synopsis of the movie Dogma at the top of the page:

Two fallen angels who were ejected from paradise find themselves banned in Wisconsin. They are now headed for New Jersey where they find a loophole that can get them back into heaven. The only catch is that it will destroy humanity. A group bands together to stop them. — Google

What I was looking for was "from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good". ("dokeo" went on to have a distinguished career as the expression, "okie dokie" meaning "OK, seems good")

Over time my preferred δόγμα has changed from Christian idealism to a much more materialist realism. I like knowing where I stand, what the world is about, what will probably happen next, and so on. Relativism doesn't mix with dogma much, except where relativism IS dogma, so that's out.

I'm never sure what existentialism is supposed to be, so it makes poor dogma.

Since these three rings encompass such a large circus of ideas, are more possibilities needed?

What sets us apart in a way that would grant us more rights over an animal? — inquisitive

Humans have the capacity to create things such as rights, other animals don't, and we have granted those rights to ourselves, and not other animals.

Yes, it is only us that can act like that, but does that not put a great deal of responsibility on us that we are simply dismissing? — inquisitive

Absolutely.

I think you are being too optimistic here. How many people really care about farming humanely? The president of the US is in the process of reducing the number and size of natural parks right now. Clearly there are a great number of people that still don't care. — inquisitive

I'm all in favor of expanded national parks and humane farming, but the two are separate issues.

Why don't more people care about humane and organic farming?

1. They don't know what animal production looks like, humane or not.
2. They have no practical control over how animals are raised.
3. In fact, we produce more animal protein than we need (at least Americans and Europeans do). However, we can not feed 325 million Americans, plus export, with humane animal practices. We can't feed ourselves or produce food for export if we pursue strict organic crop production, either. I wish we could, but we can not -- at least right now.

I haven't seen the inside of a large animal production facility, because access is tightly controlled to prevent diseases from being introduced by visitors. Animals have been mistreated for a long time -- there are injunctions against maltreating animals in the Bible. Most people do not approve of mistreating animals, be they pigs, chickens, or their dog and cat. I don't think that savage mistreatment of large animals is routine, but the way chickens are raised amounts to something pretty close to abuse.

A small farmer with 30 to 50 cows can know each cow individually -- even if they all look alike to outsiders. If you are milking 5,000 cows, the cow becomes just a unit of production. If you have 25 chickens, you can take care of them individually by yourself. 25,000 chickens -- they are just a mass of feathers and chickenshit.

Do animals have rights if they don't have responsibilities? — inquisitive

Because we are "alienated" from nature (most of us anyway) we don't understand how vital plants, fungi, bacteria, and animals are to us. I am not ready to give animals rights, but I am ready to accept that we have responsibilities to the ecology we live in, if we want to continue living at all (as a species).

Cruelty to farm animals might be way down that moral list, for example. — inquisitive

I'd put it fairly high on the list of moral responsibilities. The worst thing farm animals do to us (99% of the time) is fail to cooperate quickly. True, a cow or a horse can kick and the injury can be severe--so stay out of the way of those hind hooves. A pig can bite, but they usually don't. It's not a good idea to present one's hand or foot to a pig, so don't. But pigs and cows don't always quite get what we want them to do next. So, they may need encouragement to move -- but that doesn't require breaking their legs or causing painful injury.

My guess is that workers who mistreat animals are themselves being mistreated by the owners.

Would complete realization of the Sexual Revolution--complete liberation; complete openness --result in the end of sexual harassment? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Question 1: What were the goals of the Sexual Revolution?
Question 2: Was the Sexual Revolution planned?
Question 3: What was/is complete liberation?

1. The liberation of women's sexuality -- separation of sex and pregnancy with birth control pills
2. The entry of women into the workplace in peacetime to pursue careers
3. The freedom from financial dependency on men
4. Freedom from obligatory housekeeping and child rearing duty

Where were men in the SR?

Men didn't need to seek liberation (so they thought) because they didn't recognize male oppression, for the most part. The liberation of women's sexuality was enthusiastically endorsed by men because it meant more sexual opportunities. The cost of careers in corporate America, the burden of breadwinning, and the narrowness of male roles wasn't considered until decades later.

Gay men had more concrete goals in the SR: protection from blatant discrimination, equal access to civil rights, repeal of criminalization, and freedom to pursue sex without fear of prosecution.

To some extent the sexual revolution was successful. Birth control effectively separated sex and pregnancy (along with Roe vs. Wade). Large numbers of women entered the workforce--either for a career, to achieve financial independence, or to help the family financially (especially true after 1975). Many women found it possible to live independently of men.

The sexual revolution in the workplace didn't really change or improve the lives of men very much. It is likely the case that many men didn't perceive a need for change. It didn't change their social lives much either.

Family life did experience declines after the "decade of sexual revolution" and I would attribute some of the decline to the increasing independence of women, but primarily to the decline in income and purchasing power which commenced around 1975 and has continued since. The economic change has required parents to spend more time working to obtain or maintain living standards which have continued to decline. The result is increasingly stressful home and work lives for everyone -- parents and children together.

The SR delivered well for gay people. Civil protections and decriminalization were both gained, and eventually, even marriage. I wish the gay liberation effort had focused more on the collective sexual lives of gay men, and much less on the right to adoption and marriage. Under the cover of AIDS, there was an across the board suppression of the "sexual community". Institutions which had worked well to facilitate gay community (bars, baths, parks, adult bookstores, etc.) were closed -- totally, in some places, mostly in others.

The Sexual revolution wasn't planned, of course. It just happened at a certain time when circumstances were propitious.

Had the revolution gone further, deeper--especially for heterosexual men and women--we wouldn't be having all the perceived problems around touching, groping, assaulting, seducing, flirting with, and so on. The revolution could have led to much more equalization of power and sexual prerogatives among men, among women, and among men and women together.

But it didn't.

I'm all for official toleration. That's why there is informal social control, which is what I'm trying to do with the tools I have. On the other hand, there are moderators who shouldn't be. They don't have the temperament and respect for the people they moderate. — T Clark

OK, so why don't we take a vote? It might be (or, it most certainly would be) non-binding, but it might have a beneficial effect. Then again, it might not.

A new thread, and a poll listing the moderators. Click the button of those that you think should not be moderators.



like "The food was terrible, and the portions were so small!"

There is no end to the problems caused by people obfuscating. You are calling a spade what you see as a spade, which is what honest people ought to do.

I don't think the moderator-apparatchiks can effectively moderate each other. We would have to have a higher layer of moderation devoted to pruning the excesses of the lower moderators.

I am not sure whether the social affect of Sapientia and Hanover have changed recently; it seems to me that they might be a bit more rough and sarcastic than usual. Since there does not appear to be a line at the Moderator Application Window, we probably are stuck with what we've got. And that is not the worst thing that can happen.

My only concern is with sexual jokes and innuendo's given that the audience can be composed of teenagers, kids, and adolescents. I mean, what kind of impression are we trying to give? — Posty McPostface

Hopefully that sexual jokes and innuendo is a normal part of life, and that one won't shrivel up and die if one hears a sexual joke, or offends someone for telling a sexual joke. Personally, I enjoy sexual jokes, double entendres, snide puns, innuendo, and all that stuff.

They are inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug. — T Clark

And inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug comments are posted because some of the forum members are inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug, and some of them go downhill from there. But that's just life. The range of behavior is always pretty wide, and getting people to change their behavior is always pretty difficult.

Sometimes I think that society would be better off tolerating the flaws which all of us incarnate at one time or another, rather than spending a lot of time policing this behavior.

Perhaps my standards are too low, but I find the forum culture to be perfectly adequate for practical purposes. Were this forum a program of a university philosophy department and was moderated by paid staff, one could reasonably expect tighter moderation and (almost certainly) a less interesting experience.

Forums such as this really should have the mostly reasonable, loose level of decorum it has--something quite a ways short of perfection. With perfection comes tight control--from who is allowed to even see the forum, join the forum, post, moderate, onward to getting away with dubious posts, and to occasionally impolite interactions, and impolitic comments. Sometimes getting away with just plain bad behavior.

Be careful what you pray for, as the saying goes -- you might get it.

Have such people ever been in love or buried someone? You know what I mean? Or heard great music? Or been moved by a novel? Life is big. — ff0

Sure they have.

Most of the important points have been made. One might add North Sea oil -- applicable for Norway. Norway's sovereign wealth pension fund recently passed the trillion dollar mark--not bad for 5 million + people.

Just to emphasize -- the Nordic countries are not socialist: they are capitalist countries with strong social benefit programs, which contributes to the quality of life and to their prosperity. The US could do the same thing, but we would have to gut military spending and corporate subsidy programs and raise taxes, for starters.

As a group, Scandinavians are smart but dull. Boring. We should be as interesting as Italians and Frenchmen and as smart as Germans and Japanese. It's not for nothing that the English call rutabagas "swedes". As for the Finns, they define dullness itself.

And ban lefse and lutefisk. Outside of Lutheran nostalgia, there's no reason to eat these gistatorekl.

Did you know that the leading edge of cognitive science is just now catching up with and integrating its models with that of philosophical phenomenology? Yep, the philosophers got there first. — Joshs

Assuming that what you say is correct, it would make sense--philosophy begat psychology rather recently (19th century).

word games
— Bitter Crank

I get a little nervous when people start talking about Truth (big T). I certainly do not think that "there is no truth", nor do I think Truth is relative to each and everyone's personal POV. I like to find truth--I have found bits of the truth here and there--and usually it is (small t) truth, a piece of larger truths that we suppose exist.

BIG T TRUTH are the windmills at which Mr. Quixote charges. An impossible dream. What makes BIG T TRUTH a windmill is that our reach exceeds our grasp. We can ask the question, "what is truth?" but we can not provide a very satisfying answer (so far). We like to think that we will know the truth, and the truth will make us free. Determining THE TRUTH will be a transformative event, worth a Nobel Prize, at the very least.

The trouble with THE TRUTH making us free is that it is an import from the Gospel of John. Jesus makes it clear enough that "THE TRUTH" is a Person. Finding the truth, and knowing the truth, is the result of a relationship with God, he says,

Now, I am not speaking here on behalf of John, Jesus, or Jason. I'm only pointing out that THE TRUTH in the famous quote isn't something that will ever result from the study of philosophy--or anything else, for that matter. I suspect that The Truth, or the ordinary secular truths we can actually grasp, are the consequence of our relationships with one another, and science, in that order.

Deleted and pasted below.

Who said it's about answering questions? — ff0

Sure, I have a much better appreciation of the problems, but no concrete answers.
Maybe there are none. Perhaps it's the way philosophy is often phrased as a question - it suggests that maybe there are definite answers to be had. Without these answers, or the genuine possibility of one day finding them, we are left with the word games you mentioned. — Oliver Purvis

I don't think 'science' even tries to answer the most profound questions. — ff0

One would think that after 2500 years, philosophy would have had more success in answering the most profound questions. Maybe, you think?

Perhaps 'actual' science is not an ideology. But the word 'science' is IMV massively entangled in ideology. See the quote below. — ff0

We're digging the hole deeper but not getting anywhere closer to the truth, whatever that is. Actual, as opposed to imitation science? What is ideological about causation? About the laws of thermodynamics? What is ideological about "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." or Darwin's finches? or the first through fifth extinctions, now heading into the sixth? or the San Andreas or Madrid fault? or is this squirrel a hybrid or a separate species? Or climate change? What are the genes that contribute to invincible stupidity?

scientism and recognizing itself to be ideology alongside other cultural products — Joshs

Alarm bells ring...

I'll grant that philosophy begat science, but I will not grant that science is an ideology.

I view much of the content of philosophy (probably the most useful part) as a branch of intellectual history. Modern philosophy has continued on with part of the tradition after science branched off and became a field unto itself.