Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dewey Dykstra, Jr. <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Science and guilt -
>
> > > Since scientists provide this rock-bottom
> > >foundation for our lives, their *stewardship* is even
> > >greater than a judge's, for all a judge can do is
> > >decide based on the evidence, but the judge cannot
> > >verify what the evidence is -- only scientists can do that.
> > >
> > >Now! If we live in a world where we
> > >have very little idea "what's going on",
> > >but must depend on *scientists* to tell us, how does this differ
> > >from the role in past of The Roman Catholic Church?
[snip]
>
> Yes, science gives us a monotheistic world in which we either agree to agree
> or decide to disagree. There is no objectivity possible when the thesis has
> not be countered by the antithesis.
Isn't "objectivity" itself a "thesis"? Would the Taliban be much
interested in "objectivity" (except in the targeting of anti-tank
rockets, of course!)?
I think Susanne Langer expressed it well, back in the 1940s, in her
_Philosophy in a New Key_ (not that the key was so new even then,
but she expressed it well...): The questions we ask are far more
important [fundamental, etc.] than the answers we get to them.
Thesis and antithesis are both dependent on the "position" from
which we orient ourselves in life.
I think an interesting question is: Why do we ask the questions
we ask and not others? Why do I ask concerning the transcendental
constitution of experience, and not concerning The Will of J-w-h,
or even concerning the algorithmical-psychophysical causation
of my thoughts?
Why is a physicist a physicist and not an astrologer or a
stock broker? If I had lived in the 15th century, I have
little doubt that I would have believed in God (but would
I have *approved of* His Will?) Etc.
I think that here we get into very interesting issues which are
more foundational than "objectivity" (for we are asking here
why we decide to be objective and not something else)?
I think this gets to be very "slippery" ground, but I do not
see any way around it: Ultimately, we do what *appeals to us* to
do. We do what we *like/want to do*.
Can our "tastes" be e-duc-ated and in-form-ed? I think they
can. But that does not make them cease to be tastes. Nor
does it render a "taste" for objectivity indifferently in-different
from a taste(sic) for going on a jihad. But it should
make us "think about what we do, whatever it is [in part...]
so that those who come after us shall not wish we had
not done it..." (<-- a phrase I borrow from Joseph Weizenbaum).
On the other hand....
> But perhaps the most scholarly of
> pursuits is in melding the thesis with the antithesis to produce a
> synthesis. This melding into a synthesis thereby produces the thesis and
> the game starts all over again.
(Hegel was good at this, and I have previously referred to
his -- to my taste -- magisterial and majestic story of
"The Gentleman and his Valet"...)
Also: Granted that each synthesis becomes a new position
leading to a further dialectical step, I, for one, would
prefer to deal with dialectical problems of "the Spirit" than
those of malnutrition and wasting disease. I think there
*is* progress, although I can appreciate if someone genuinely prefers
having cancer to reading Kant.... (What I have difficulty with
is when he applies his canon of taste to me!)
I am obviously trying to "stimulate thought" here, but
I am also being entirely serious (which latter is, in *its*
turn, a "taste"....).
"Yours in discourse...."
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [log in to unmask]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
|
