Mind Regained III

By -
Los also argues -- I'd say demonstrates -- that the only reason we can successfully reason with each other and be persuasive is that every being with a mind partakes in a universal rationality transcending their particular mind. That is why all mathematicians generally accept a convincing proof, why scientists will en masse replace one theory with one they judge to be superior, why every person schooled in art recognizes that Monet was a far superior "painter of light" than Thomas Kincaid, and why certain crusaders were able to convince most of the world that slavery is wrong. And, in the West, that universal rationality has a name. Hint: In the beginning, the logos (i.e., universal rational principle) was with...

UPDATE: Los writes: "the One that is intrinsic to each particular being that possesses ontic causality is also the transcendent One. It is often taken for granted that the notion of transcendence belongs with religion rather than philosophy or science, so it is important to remind you that the transcendent One is also acknowledged by science, although under a different name. The belief in the unity of the laws of nature is a belief in a transcendent One..."

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy6:49 PM

    Holy cow, he writes the book to the reader? (Second person.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more