A white plume moth (I think!) on a wall in north London this week.
Different philosophical systems are like different languages. Each draws a slightly (or substantially) different picture of reality. Having two or more languages is an enriching thing. We don't think of languages in themselves as being in competition with each other. There may be political or cultural considerations where a powerful country wishes to elimate or subvert the language of another. But the world-view that grounds one language doesn't nullify the world-view that grounds another. The language of an Amazonian tribe will be based on a different world-view of nature than the language of a western scientific country. I'm sure each can learn from the other.
Often the scientific world-view is seen as an opposition to more 'spiritual' world-views. Unless you believe fundamental truths are revealed through religious revelation, then foundational scientific or philosophical truths are based on axioms. These are strong first thoughts, irreducible to simpler thoughts, about the fundamental nature of reality. They cannot be proven to be true but can be proven to be false. On the basis that 'nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed', then all rationalist systems begin with an act of faith. 'We believe this axiom to be true.'
A simple but classic example of an axiom is the Euclidian rule that 'a straight line is the shortest distance between two points'. It can be 'proven' by considering its contradition. Thus the following definition: 'a straight line is the longest distance between two points' is an absurd concept. For some philosophers, this proves the axiom to be true necessarily. For others, it remains a strong thought but it is not proven beyond doubt. Their reasoning is that because it is a foundational position it requires an even more foundational footing to prove it true. Such a position can only prove it to be false. (Anything other than a straight line must, at the very least, be a curve.)
Einstein demonstrates Euclidean space to be false, yet geometry still works. It is a remarkably sucessful system, despite being founded on premises proven to be false. This is a key point about any rationalist system. Its axioms do not have to be true for the system to be a success. They are thought-tools to help us understand and give a richer reading experience of the world we live in.
Modern science is based on the axiomatic position that mechanical materialism is foundational. Whether or not this position is an absolutely true mapping of the ultimate nature of reality doesn't affect the enormous sucess of modern science. As with geometry, the system will work even if it were proved false. Maybe the main detriment would be to scientifically based atheism, but not on the workings of science itself.
Newtonian mechanics considers objects to be metaphysically inert. They are kicked into shape by the blind forces of nature; gravity, electromagnetism etc. This is an extremely successful way of understanding and harnassing the laws of nature for the greater good - or not, as is sometimes the case. There can be no doubting the success of modern medicine, engineering and computing. Equally there is the sense of wonder science fires up in us. Our knowledge of the planets and space, the world of quantum mechanics, the natural world of flora and fauna, the extraordinary story of evolution, has changed exponentially during the scientific era. It is supremely enriching.
Some philosophers question whether the axioms of science are the only axioms available to us to understand the deepest meanings of the universe. At its heart, science seems to treat the laws of nature as accidental to the material. They are a consequence of the material world. But the mindset of Solon's world consider the laws of nature to exist before the material comes into being and to involve intentionality - and eternality. There is mindfulness in the workings of the universe. Its laws are outside space and time. They come from somewhere else. But there are as many variations on this theme as there are philosophers. It is often closer to poetry as it is to modern science. It is endlessly interpretable. It is no surprise that many of the pre-socratic philosophers were poets.
I think it is important not to think of these other ways of seeing as an opposition to modern science. They don't constitute a competing scientific theory.
As I said at the beginning of this piece, it is akin to having a second language. It provides a different vantage point. It should be enriching.
Solon's story explores some of these other ways of seeing, but he is also a man of science. He believes the facts of the world are primary. Such facts are equally important to his poetic sensibility, both towards the natural world and human nature. He doesn't entirely dismiss mythologies or the gods because they are part of the world he lives in. No person can fully extract themselves from their milieu. Nevertheless he is also strongly skeptical
Often the scientific world-view is seen as an opposition to more 'spiritual' world-views. Unless you believe fundamental truths are revealed through religious revelation, then foundational scientific or philosophical truths are based on axioms. These are strong first thoughts, irreducible to simpler thoughts, about the fundamental nature of reality. They cannot be proven to be true but can be proven to be false. On the basis that 'nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed', then all rationalist systems begin with an act of faith. 'We believe this axiom to be true.'
A simple but classic example of an axiom is the Euclidian rule that 'a straight line is the shortest distance between two points'. It can be 'proven' by considering its contradition. Thus the following definition: 'a straight line is the longest distance between two points' is an absurd concept. For some philosophers, this proves the axiom to be true necessarily. For others, it remains a strong thought but it is not proven beyond doubt. Their reasoning is that because it is a foundational position it requires an even more foundational footing to prove it true. Such a position can only prove it to be false. (Anything other than a straight line must, at the very least, be a curve.)
Einstein demonstrates Euclidean space to be false, yet geometry still works. It is a remarkably sucessful system, despite being founded on premises proven to be false. This is a key point about any rationalist system. Its axioms do not have to be true for the system to be a success. They are thought-tools to help us understand and give a richer reading experience of the world we live in.
Modern science is based on the axiomatic position that mechanical materialism is foundational. Whether or not this position is an absolutely true mapping of the ultimate nature of reality doesn't affect the enormous sucess of modern science. As with geometry, the system will work even if it were proved false. Maybe the main detriment would be to scientifically based atheism, but not on the workings of science itself.
Newtonian mechanics considers objects to be metaphysically inert. They are kicked into shape by the blind forces of nature; gravity, electromagnetism etc. This is an extremely successful way of understanding and harnassing the laws of nature for the greater good - or not, as is sometimes the case. There can be no doubting the success of modern medicine, engineering and computing. Equally there is the sense of wonder science fires up in us. Our knowledge of the planets and space, the world of quantum mechanics, the natural world of flora and fauna, the extraordinary story of evolution, has changed exponentially during the scientific era. It is supremely enriching.
Some philosophers question whether the axioms of science are the only axioms available to us to understand the deepest meanings of the universe. At its heart, science seems to treat the laws of nature as accidental to the material. They are a consequence of the material world. But the mindset of Solon's world consider the laws of nature to exist before the material comes into being and to involve intentionality - and eternality. There is mindfulness in the workings of the universe. Its laws are outside space and time. They come from somewhere else. But there are as many variations on this theme as there are philosophers. It is often closer to poetry as it is to modern science. It is endlessly interpretable. It is no surprise that many of the pre-socratic philosophers were poets.
I think it is important not to think of these other ways of seeing as an opposition to modern science. They don't constitute a competing scientific theory.
As I said at the beginning of this piece, it is akin to having a second language. It provides a different vantage point. It should be enriching.
Solon's story explores some of these other ways of seeing, but he is also a man of science. He believes the facts of the world are primary. Such facts are equally important to his poetic sensibility, both towards the natural world and human nature. He doesn't entirely dismiss mythologies or the gods because they are part of the world he lives in. No person can fully extract themselves from their milieu. Nevertheless he is also strongly skeptical
RSS Feed