"Theologians in disguise": I was on a popular science channel, Sixty Symbols, watching a video on Cosmic Superstrings and it occurred to me that the way the Physicist was talking reminded me somewhat of the Theologians of old. Not the content - the mindset, the slightly otherworldly, highly abstracted mode of discourse. "Angels on the head of a pin" stuff, but ramped up several orders of magnitude. I took a look at the comments, it seems I wasn't the only one. I know that you said this is a separate topic, but it seemed at least tangentially relevant. Thank you for these talks, most illuminating.
It's funny. Practically none of the medieval philosophers or theologians discussed anything remotely like "angels on the head of a pin", but that's the popular caricature. Yes, I think Nietzsche's quite right about a good portion of the science-y crowd, even down to the present.
Gregory B. Sadler Using a characiture (popular misconceptions regarding theologians), which is basically an error, to get at a psychological truth (science-y crowd's mindset) - that's vaugely Nietzschean isn't it? Perhaps only superficially.
Hello Sir, excellent video! I have some questions to as you (they have nothing to do with this video) I'm doing an essay on utilitarianism, that I could use some help with but I cannot find any information on. 1 In what way is Karl Marx influenced by Utilitarianism? 2. Why is Rand so adamantly opposed to Utilitarianism and Communism? any help would be greatly appreciated.
It's common knowledge that velocity and gravity impact your perception of time (special relativity and general relativity), but few people realize that scale also impacts your perception of time. If you think about it, it makes sense. A fly takes up less space than you - it has less extent into spatial coordinates, so it only makes sense that they would also have less extent into the temporal dimension - in time, resulting in time dilation. An average housefly will experience time at 1/1000th of the rate that humans do.
Yep, I got that. But it's not relevant to what Nietzsche's actually discussing, which has to do with the subject projecting the order that's found, not it being there already in nature, and then being re-projected by the subject
Lenin also called positivism idealist, because positivism needs everything to be 'verified' by experience and thus implicitly rejects the idea of a mind-independent objective material reality. Positivistic science didn't begin as idealism but it ends in contradictions and winds up being idealist
Is philosophical idealism contrasted with anti realism in the philosophy of science?. I know it is not your area but I have heard of philosophers of science talk about the realism vs anti realism.
"Realism" and "idealism" (and "anti-realism") are ambiguous terms. They mean different things in different contexts. When we're talking about the Nietzsche text, you want to think in terms of 18th-19th century idealists.
Ok, I think i understand that. I would like to point out that the 17th and 18th century was the enlightenment era and 19th century was romanticism and late 19th century was pragmatism which started in 1870 based on my knowledge.
Try not to think just in terms of textbook classifications. That'll help, I think. Not sure you need to point out when particular movements are going on to a history of philosophy guy. . .
I understand what you are saying, I am just looking at the big picture and i am a generalist just like you. Correct me if I am wrong but I think i remember you saying you are generalist in one of your videos. I listen to you a lot and appreciate your work, I want to talk to you very soon once my health is back on track. I am a visitor to your website, once I have the money I will seek your tutoring.
"Theologians in disguise": I was on a popular science channel, Sixty Symbols, watching a video on Cosmic Superstrings and it occurred to me that the way the Physicist was talking reminded me somewhat of the Theologians of old. Not the content - the mindset, the slightly otherworldly, highly abstracted mode of discourse. "Angels on the head of a pin" stuff, but ramped up several orders of magnitude. I took a look at the comments, it seems I wasn't the only one.
I know that you said this is a separate topic, but it seemed at least tangentially relevant. Thank you for these talks, most illuminating.
It's funny. Practically none of the medieval philosophers or theologians discussed anything remotely like "angels on the head of a pin", but that's the popular caricature.
Yes, I think Nietzsche's quite right about a good portion of the science-y crowd, even down to the present.
Gregory B. Sadler Using a characiture (popular misconceptions regarding theologians), which is basically an error, to get at a psychological truth (science-y crowd's mindset) - that's vaugely Nietzschean isn't it? Perhaps only superficially.
I suppose it could be vaguely whatever. . .
Thank you.
You're welcome
Hello Sir, excellent video! I have some questions to as you (they have nothing to do with this video) I'm doing an essay on utilitarianism, that I could use some help with but I cannot find any information on.
1 In what way is Karl Marx influenced by Utilitarianism?
2. Why is Rand so adamantly opposed to Utilitarianism and Communism?
any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here's my website for tutorial sessions - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
It's common knowledge that velocity and gravity impact your perception of time (special relativity and general relativity), but few people realize that scale also impacts your perception of time. If you think about it, it makes sense. A fly takes up less space than you - it has less extent into spatial coordinates, so it only makes sense that they would also have less extent into the temporal dimension - in time, resulting in time dilation.
An average housefly will experience time at 1/1000th of the rate that humans do.
Nice to know - how's all that relevant here, to Nietzsche's text?
Gregory B. Sadler It's in reference to the perception of reality being interpreted by the subject.
Yep, I got that. But it's not relevant to what Nietzsche's actually discussing, which has to do with the subject projecting the order that's found, not it being there already in nature, and then being re-projected by the subject
Lenin also called positivism idealist, because positivism needs everything to be 'verified' by experience and thus implicitly rejects the idea of a mind-independent objective material reality. Positivistic science didn't begin as idealism but it ends in contradictions and winds up being idealist
Right. Science is about how "things" behave, not what "things" are.
Well the sciences are about many many things, to be sure
Is philosophical idealism contrasted with anti realism in the philosophy of science?. I know it is not your area but I have heard of philosophers of science talk about the realism vs anti realism.
"Realism" and "idealism" (and "anti-realism") are ambiguous terms. They mean different things in different contexts.
When we're talking about the Nietzsche text, you want to think in terms of 18th-19th century idealists.
Ok, I think i understand that. I would like to point out that the 17th and 18th century was the enlightenment era and 19th century was romanticism and late 19th century was pragmatism which started in 1870 based on my knowledge.
I could be missing something because Rousseau was a idealist and part of the romanticism, I could be wrong.
Try not to think just in terms of textbook classifications. That'll help, I think.
Not sure you need to point out when particular movements are going on to a history of philosophy guy. . .
I understand what you are saying, I am just looking at the big picture and i am a generalist just like you. Correct me if I am wrong but I think i remember you saying you are generalist in one of your videos. I listen to you a lot and appreciate your work, I want to talk to you very soon once my health is back on track. I am a visitor to your website, once I have the money I will seek your tutoring.