I joined up to the "week of science" challenge. So next week will just be science blogging. I'm going to try and do a bunch of more religious philosophy posts today and tomorrow - but I've been terribly busy. So we'll see.
I'm going to be oriented more towards philosophy of science than science proper - although I hope to have an even focus on the technical stuff and the more practical.
But this is a philosophy blog!
Thus the focus primarily on philosophy of science. Although I do discuss science a fair bit - that is my primary interest. I just don't have enough time right now to pursue it. My sidebar is probably half and half science and philosophy. My personal feeling is that without a grasp of science philosophers will likely go astray. I suspect I'm fairly close to Quine in how I view the relationship - more a throwback to where the demarcation of science and philosophy isn't really there.
I always wonder why you don't try and get a fellowship...
I was corrupted by capitalism and keep starting businesses doing with the things I love. I currently have a chocolate company going. Philosophy is primarily a diversion to keep my mind active and because I think it inherently good to think about things.
I suppose I'm of a more ascetic bent -- I want to spend all my time in contemplation of the good. I idolize Wittgenstein -- partially for his (admittedly miserable) retreat to Norway to study logic.
By the by -- I think I'm going to try and do a few posts on Levinas. I have to, because, well -- I just didn't expect him to be so silly!
I tend to be focused more on conceiving the good through action. I'd make a good Zen Buddhist who sees such things as manifest through various practices rather than pure contemplation. Pure contemplation alone never did much for me...
I need to be out there doing something.
Levinas is a difficult figure. I don't enjoy reading him presumably for that reason. I think he has some important insights. However I find far too many of his papers are making the same points over and over again in different languages. He also tend to demand a lot of familiarity with the sources he alludes to - especially religious sources from both Judaism (including often very esoteric Judaism) and Christianity.
Well it's been awhile since I read any continental stuff. It was a shock to come back to it.
That's not true -- I read Husserl's Cartesian Meditations about a month ago or two, and I very much like him. But I think that's because, despite his jargon, he knows what he's talking about.
I feel less convinced, after reading Levinas, that all continental philosophers similarly know what they mean. I suspect that if one had to submit to a rigorous training in science and mathematics, one would be more careful about one's philosophy.
One thing to keep in mind is that Levinas is a Rabbi and is writing like one.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble