Zdravztvuytye vsye,
<3WD>
> But over the course of
> the last 2000 years rather than philosophy performing this integrating
> function it has pursued ever narrowing, more specialized,
<...>
</3WD>
Disagree - 'twas not till the European Renaissance that Philosophy dared poke
its head above the theological parapets - before 'twas a source of obedience -
decriers of such usually had vile punishments inflicted on then such as being
nailed to bits of wood and left to dry in the sun. 'Twas only the power of
Capital [pointedly disobedient social force that refused to accept the divine
right of kings] that gave Philosophy the free-wheelin' aspect that today it
sometimes assumes. The disintegration has been primarily economic first and
then Milton-Friedman-like Philosophy steps in to pronounce the destruction of
local social order a Good Thing.
Well shit maybe some of it is good - destruction of subjugation of women an'
all.
>
<3WD>
> When for instance, science proposes and then tries to "prove" that
> "everything" is composed of tiny physical thingys, first ether, then
> atoms, quarks, quantum vacuum, or holographic wave interference patterns
> this is good, right, and moral.
</3WD>
Nyet, tovarisch. <<They>> just assume and let debate about the
appropriateness of their fundamental assumptions drop. Unless it's to slag
off a sociologist who doesn't know the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the
nascent universe. [Yes I know I overstated that a tad :-)]
<3WD>
> However when philosophers, scientists or
> otherwise, interpret these findings into a philosophy such as
> "scientific materialism" and promote it as the ultimate view of reality
> it is bad or immoral. It is bad not because the underlying science is
> bad or wrong or untrue but because it is too narrowly focused, it
> confuses the parts with the whole. This type of view proposes one truth,
> when we experience many overlapping and often contradictory ones.
</3WD>
Spot on, geezer.
<3WD>
> Let's for a moment assume that philosophically "scientific materialism"
> is true. Let's also assume that you're one of the "handful of the
> world's most advanced physicists that can understand. something
> expressible only in symbols that require university level mathematics"
> Your old junker craps out on the freeway five minutes before you're due
> to start teaching your 10 AM doctoral class in "Advanced Flubberology"
> at SMU. (Scientific Materialism University).
> Possibly you could explain how this world view or one similar will be
> useful in getting you to class on time, getting the junker towed, racing
> to the car dealership after class, selecting and purchasing a new
> junker, and getting home on time for supper at six so your wife doesn't
> eat your ass out for being late again. And when at nine as you pull in
> the drive how usefully will it be in conveying your experience to her
> when you pull out your yellow legal pad and proceed to fill it up with
> omegas and thetas ? Will she understand ?
</3WD>
Apart from the [indubitably unconscious or deliberately ironic] sexism - er,
what are we trying to say? That there are abstract qualities called good and
evil? And you can label them with any symbol you like? Yup - let's have an
algebra of morality. And as 3WD says - it will confuse and aggravate the
living **** out of most people who don't have time to think about it. Without
the primes and the calculus, I guess the formal immediate morality is in how
you exercise your vote, how you try to extend the right of others to vote, how
you extend the right of those people to have the basic education to understand
the issues involved when they vote, and how you punish the bastards who abuse
your vote by electing to bomb third parties just when there is a [yes -
psychotically motivated] judgment against them about to be pronounced. Yeah -
and about the right to be critical without being bastinaded by the polizei.
The informal bit is just dealing with other people - you know, trying to
persuade inveterate racists that it's not a good thing to continue their
prejudices. No, shit, why do I bother? - I'd sooner line them up against a
brick wall!
I think that algebra will always be a 'few people' thing. Glenn has a point
in saying that Pirsig decries the lack of social cohesion in the public age,
and at the same time supports the forces for such destruction in terms of
freedom. You can quote many 'counter-examples', but the fundamental truth is
that you need to change morality but you need to preserve morality. Pirsig
knows this - it is his chief complaint. Everybody knows it : countless people
in Britain hanker after the 'Good Old Days' where there was no prostitution or
child abuse because we used to hang 'em good and proper! A lot of the 'decay'
is simply due to more honesty in reporting, yeah?
And as far as the [European] beef crisis is reported : JCW!!
Said exposure has eroded public morals. The fundamental morality that we
should get used to is the provisional nature of science and journalism. In
Britain, many people have given up eating beef because of the 0.00001% [?]
chance of getting CJD [terminal brain disorder]. They still drive cars
despite the 1.5% [?] chance of getting killed in one at some point. I've
gotta say that scientists/sciennce are/is in no way responsible for this
appallng situation - they just quote the stats.
Glenn seems to be annoyed by the prospect of <<science>> having to justify
itself in moral terms? Given the recent supine apology for commercial genetic
research by New Scentist magazine [essentially the line of argument was that
the speed of GM research was not the responsibility of scientists but that of
perfidious Commercialism - the buggers accepting large salaries, German cars,
etc. obviously being utterly without prejudice of any form whatsoever], I
think that scientists have a moral duty to educate the potential benefactors
of science as to "what it's all about"
And Glenn - yes, you are attempting a dialog.
Apologies for the wayward nature of this - very nitpicky, if I say so myself.
Regards Hamish.
Gee, weren't the Russian High Command bastards about that nuclear sub? Of
course when it comes to dealing with our own troup vis-a-vis Gulf War
Syndrome, we're the font of honest scientific research.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:46 BST