Re: [asa] Re: "horror miraculi"(meaning)

From: Merv Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Date: Wed May 13 2009 - 23:31:27 EDT

Bill Powers wrote:
> I don't think it ought to be surprising that science discovers at
> "meaningless" world. It sets out to to just that. In fact Monad, as
> Heidegger, defines the scientific enterprise the same.
>
> To use Heidegger's insight: objectivity is obtained by attempting to
> subtract ourselves from it. In doing so, the world by design, must
> become unfamiliar, indeed inhuman. This was specifically the
> intention of DesCartes and others in the rejection of Aristotelian
> (organistic) science in favor of a mechanistic model. For DesCartes
> subjectivity exists only in humans and in God, everything else was an
> inanimate mechanism.
>
> The question that needs to be asked is what is discovered in this
> intensionally unfamiliar world, one where meaning, purpose, and
> humanity have, to the best of our ability, been drained? We call it
> truth because we have adopted a paradigm whereby truth is what remains
> when there is no perspective.
>
> It is not clear to me why, then, someone would be surprised that the
> world "discovered" by science lacked meaning. If it had meaning, we
> would not call it science. Indeed, we would not call it truth. It
> has been defined away. There can be no cause for surprise.
>
> bill
>
Or maybe DesCartes & Co. were prescient in defining a "humbler abode"
for science that didn't presume to include all the humanities and larger
questions of life.

What's wrong with accepting that this "sterile" science has no tools to
even begin to reckon with questions of meaning, let alone trying to deny
its existence?

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 13 23:32:02 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 13 2009 - 23:32:02 EDT