Quote:
Originally posted by Raulgr
Quote:
Originally posted by Eddier1
What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?
Sincerely,
EddieR
|
Eddie,
Well, I'm going to poke around a bit more in the critique, but, I have to say at this point that I am inclined to agree with your assessment.
By the way, what is your impression of the recent development in protein synthesis presented in my thread "Not so fast there, Manny!" in the religion forum, as it bears on the matter of abiogenesis? While Dawkins doesn't go there in his discussion of evolutionary theory, I see no reason to separate abiogenesis from the evolutionary process. In fact, that idea is the cornerstone of my theorem on existence, that we so-called "living" beings have evolved quite naturally from INANIMATE matter. Further, if that is true, barring the HAND OF GOD, where is the BRIGHT LINE OF DEMARCATION between the "non-living" and the "living" in that long, slow process of myriad transformations? My answer is the SIMPLE one: THERE IS NONE! Hence, the THEOREM.
Regards, Raul
|
Raul, the basing of your General Theorem of Existence on the latest research on protein synthesis(abiogenetics)is interesting to me in that you opine that you may be the first thinker to generalize the concept on protein studies so to deny the significant distinction between inanimate matter and living organisms.
Although I am not sure if that is the case, nevertheless let me offer you two books to read on the Philosophy of Organism by one the best thinkers on this subject in the 20th century. These two books are by Alfred North Whitehead, and they are THE ADVENTURE OF IDEAS, and his opus magnus PROCESS AND REALITY.
Now, in your discussion with Manny the Jib, you correctly defend the right to knowledge that we all have through standing on the shoulders of the best thinkers; and he claims you are not being logical to do so, but should have a personal encounter with such knowledge instead of using what he calls “mercenaries” (good gosh!) to defend you in your lack of the personal knowledge. His saying that you are illogical for doing so is in error, because even in formal logic the Argumentum ad Verecundia is held to be completely logical.
We who thirst for knowledge must all stand on shoulders of others who have obtained some of that knowledge, and where it is rare to find a mighty Giant who stands so tall that we cannot reach its shoulders, we ought to be reverent enough to walk between the legs of that Giant looking always forward into the future for more knowledge.
Although I support such a logical method, however, I am not naive to think that there are not limits to human understanding. And I therefore use a dialectical approach which also involves scientific method in its biunique or one to one relation with prediction. So, therefore, by scientific testing and results, and retesting etc. when necessary, I exhaust all the probabilities that what we do not know currently we may know in the future.
In conclusion, I find it quite satisfactory if I arrive at the limits of human understanding with a core of knowledge that is at least statistically coefficient.
Sincerely,
EddieR