Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six 1. I recall Goatboy from SNL! No, but seriously, when you look at the sciences, and philosophy's view of it, you have 3 eras/variations/forms:
A. The first of which is Ancient Science (i.e. Egyptian, Greek, Roman) where science was a combination of logic and faith. Gods and Godesses were in control, and science as they knew it was attributed to them. "Why does this happen?" Because of Poseiden. "Why does that happen?" Because of Vulcan. Yet they obeyed rules of logic...such as the Pre-Socratic thought: "Water is the essence of life." Not very valid, but it was logical at the time.
B. Medieval science was the most prejudiced of all the sciences. In short, it's the era stemming from the medieval philosophies, which were theologically based and quite concerned with that lovely little diety known as God. And we all know the basics...God made the world the center of the universe! God made man the greatest of creatures! God did this! God did that! God, God, God! Rubbish...but medieval philosophy is quite fascinating.
C. Today is the mathematical! And I don't mean numerals or numeric values or whatever. What is implied here, which is from Heidegger, is that technology today is nothing more than a collection of facts, which aren't necessarily logical, but do adhere to rules of logic within their own system (i.e. physics vs' metaphysics). The point being, today's sciences aren't concerned as much with faith based idealogies.
The point being that we can compare our station in life with those stations in the past. The evolution of science, of philosophy, and it doesn't really look like it shall evolve any further. Why should it? You had logic/faith science, then faith science, now logic science. What's left?
2. Yes and no. We are content as I showed in 1, but we're not content if you take into consideration our obsession to makes things faster, better, smaller, etc. But even then it's not so much an evolution as it is a growth. A phone today is much like a the phone of yesteryear...just, aged better.
3. Look my response for 2.
4. Hmm...interesting. I'll have to think about that one. Only thing I can think of is that perhaps we weren't content with being man.
5. Explain in further detail. |
1. perhaps pure science unbiased by any other camp (is it even possible)?
2. I meant more pure evolution as in perhaps the new and improved model due out some time in the future distant or near (interestingly enough it would appear from the fossil record that the more intelligent a species the less time it exists as a species)
3. Agreed not demonstrative of progress
4. I am fasnited with the implications of "perhaps we were not content on being man" care to explore that further?
5. It would seem that any efforts to make our lifes more content (under the logic of your prior statement) lead to more discontent. simply put the more things that exist the more possiblities for things to go wrong, hence greater discontent