On Descartes and Leibniz as Rationalists

[annienormanna]

It's an excellent survey. I would also point towards language consensus and reality but we'd be jumping ahead a number of centuries when limited to the pair. It shouldn't be surprising though given our current understandings of the physical universe that your conclusion is spot on.

[alaina]

Thanks!

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

Thanks!

When you're good you're good.

[alaina]

annienormanna said:

I would also point towards language consensus and reality but we'd be jumping ahead a number of centuries when limited to the pair.

Very true, and that's why I had trouble formulating the ending. I wanted to delve deeper into Hume, which I believed would make a smoother transition to the end, but I was limited by the topic.

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

annienormanna said:

I would also point towards language consensus and reality but we'd be jumping ahead a number of centuries when limited to the pair.

Very true, and that's why I had trouble formulating the ending. I wanted to delve deeper into Hume, which I believed would make a smoother transition to the end, but I was limited by the topic.

Just wait till Wittgenstein and Judith Butler.

[alaina]

annienormanna said:

alaina said:

Very true, and that's why I had trouble formulating the ending. I wanted to delve deeper into Hume, which I believed would make a smoother transition to the end, but I was limited by the topic.

Just wait till Wittgenstein and Judith Butler.

Sounds exciting! I'm taking a course including Wittgenstein next semester (20th Century Philosophy). My school does history of phi sequentially. I hear that Wittgenstein is hard.

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

annienormanna said:

Just wait till Wittgenstein and Judith Butler.

Sounds exciting! I'm taking a course including Wittgenstein next semester (20th Century Philosophy). My school does history of phi sequentially. I hear that Wittgenstein is hard.

His reasoning is incredibly broad and specific at once. Because he adresses historical understandings.
The short hand is the artifacts of words, and the consensus of their meanings. Ultimate subjectivity. The contemporary science of his time was just getting into partical physics.

Judith Butler gets it completely right, for me. The artifacts of categories in understanding human core beliefs and consensus as a means of social reiteration.

Here's an interesting book:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

annienormanna said:

His reasoning is incredibly broad and specific at once. Because he adresses historical understandings.
The short hand is the artifacts of words, and the consensus of their meanings. Ultimate subjectivity. The contemporary science of his time was just getting into partical physics.

Judith Butler gets it completely right, for me. The artifacts of categories in understanding human core beliefs and consensus as a means of social reiteration.

Here's an interesting book:

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav

I'll look it up. I'm interested in the phi of science, and the subjectivity/objectivity distinction. I have not read much in the philosophy of science, but in my epistemology class, we made a shift from discussing classical epistemology to modern epistemology. To make that transition,we read some feminist philosophers opinion on science and how concepts of objectivity are hurtful to women.
Fox Keller wrote an interesting article (Feminism and Science) on the concept of objectivity in science, in which she criticizes other feminist epistemologists for labeling 'objectivity' as a 'male concept' In her full length books she offers guidelines on how the concept of objectivity can be reformed so that domination doesn't become an inherent part of it.

I would disagree based on Schroeder's Cat alone. The observer influences what is observed. Keller is an essentialist trying to bridge the gap with Constructionists. Postulating on a reformation of objectivity is linguistic negation of the artifice of objectivity. A realignment of consensus, whether it's recontextualizing of existing lexicon or outright substitution, just makes more heads nod in agreement.

[alaina]

annienormanna said:

Keller is an essentialist trying to bridge the gap with Constructionists. Postulating on a reformation of objectivity is linguistic negation of the artifice of objectivity.

That's what my professor said. It was then we studied Rorty, and I was sold for a moment. Until I read Levin's 'germ' objections.

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

annienormanna said:

Keller is an essentialist trying to bridge the gap with Constructionists. Postulating on a reformation of objectivity is linguistic negation of the artifice of objectivity.

That's what my professor said. It was then we studied Rorty, and I was sold for a moment. Until I read Levin's 'germ' objections.

This student is a bit of an enthusiast:
www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

www.superstringtheory.com/

Even in string theory quantity is uncertain.

[alaina]

Fascinating links!

[kwalka]

You might wanna work on some of the grammar and punctuation (if you didn't hand it in by now).

[alaina]

kwalka said:

You might wanna work on some of the grammar and punctuation (if you didn't hand it in by now).

This is the first draft. I have read parts of it, but not all the way through. The actual, finished product will be quite a bit longer. I don't have to hand this in for school--I finished this class already. It's a bit of a personal study I've undertaken during my break, using some topics that were on an old syllabus.

[annienormanna]

alaina said:

kwalka said:

You might wanna work on some of the grammar and punctuation (if you didn't hand it in by now).

This is the first draft. I have read parts of it, but not all the way through. The actual, finished product will be quite a bit longer. I don't have to hand this in for school--I finished this class already. It's a bit of a personal study I've undertaken during my break, using some topics that were on an old syllabus.

A traveler, then

[kwalka]

Do you think Leiniz's system precludes human free will?