Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Aristotle was a good philosopher. But I say, hasn't that fallen? I mean, science has deconstructed the road through which our cars, the cars of philosophers like us, were going through. I mean, nowadays physics has lost it's sense. There is no sense in a physics of un-dimensional particles existing and interacting, and there is no sense in string theory. Physics had sense until the 1920s or so, but not further. What some physicists are trying, at least in these forums, is to find out the basis of physics, to give a logic to those 'first principles taken from intuitive reason', they want to un-intuitivize them. Einstein did part of it, by explaining space-time, explaing real gravity, and explaining mass and energy. But there is more. The thing is, that before we used to discuss between empiric axioms and rational axioms. Axiom is just a propert terminology, or at least the mathematical one, to 'first principles taken from intuitive reason'. Now we advanced from that discussion between Descartes and Hume, Locke and Lebinitz, Hobbes and Spinoza. And this is how the 20th century philosophy emerged; they stopped discussing about principles, and they started to discuss about derivations; Inductive and deductive, neccesary and contingent, logical and metaphysical... I do agree that a terrible problem rises with this. This is why I try to solve the whole problem. But if we go back to axioms, we will be repeating a path through which we ahve already gone. And there is no way to go through that path and not fall down the cleft to which it leads. I want to find something, aristotle is right, but maybe the interpretation we've given to those two qutoes isn't the appropiate one. |
Guille, the whole point is that the entire world is founded and performs on emotional action, and only emotional action___at base. To me, the whole world you are trying to describe with analogous universalization is "Emotional Materialism". I just simply ask, is there any other? All science comes from base emotional intent and action. Only emotions can act the body - period! Ludwig Feurerbach proved all this when hanging around with the Marxists. He also proved the futility of most of Kant's and Hegel's work, along with showing the truth of the Christian god ego. Feurerbach clearly shows the problems with subjectifying objects and objectifying subjects___he is the clearest of all the philosophers as to the historical problem of such false classifications from the ancients to the moderns. He clearly shows the mistakes of the neo-platonists doing the same thing as Descartes in the opposite direction, as has been done many times over by many when trying to understand "Being" and being differences. The most difficult problem of philosophy is to properly and intelligently classify and discuss the singularity, whether of physics, philosophy, religion, self or whatever___it is extremely difficult without causing the opposite of what is desired. Look at what happened with V.I.Lennin, one of the truly great philosophers of "Being" and being, only to get entangled in politics. Have you checked out Lennin's critique of Kant, Hegel, etc?
Guille, Feurerbach, Krishnananda, Aurobindo, Husserl and Peirce are great honest critics of Discartes, Kant, and Hegel etc. Everyone should check out their contributions to accurizing the history of thought where it comes to "Being" and being differences and "if possible" truths. The modern world has just simply fallen victem to these earlier false interpretations, whether it be Descartes on to Searle, they are all victems of false "Being" understanding. True "Being" is so mixed with personal emotions and intuition, I don't even think I could do the subject justice, even though I thoroughly understand the massive problems involved___but I do think this is the area of the philosophical investigation most wanting and needing...
We need join all these ideas into a new "Idea Understanding" of "Conceptual Intentionality" of "Emotional Materialism" by "Analogous Universalizations." I see no other way of putting the pure humaness back into present dry and dead philosophy___we need a new consciousness of sensuous intuitional reasoning as well as a new understanding of the old non-sense intuitional logic___the world is wide open to new ideas in this area...
more later,
regards