"LudovicoVan" <julio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d8791094-9652-49b1-977b-9641c0fc4f69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 29 Sep, 20:51, "Ken Miner" <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:c3176033-6bbe-4aad-ac26-b495de4c86d7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >[...]
>> >Complete knowledge reduces to static >omnicomprehension and so it is
>> >incongruent with the principles of dynamism >underlying the historical
>> >discourse. Thus, a history of science where >science will a day
>> >understand everything is a logical impossibility. []
>> >More informally: a perspective that admits >complete knowledge is only
>> >compatible with a perspective that is >fundamentally anti-historic.
>> >Something like a contradiction in terms.
>> >-LV
>>
>> This is very straightforward. Where does one learn more about these
>> principles of dynamism and when did they begin to be understood and by
>> whom?
>
> As the apex of an older tradition, it is Hegelian dialectic the
> underlying solid ground for later western development: be it the
> continental structuralism as well as the post-structuralism, or be it
> the systemic/organicistic views from cybernetics, and just to name a
> few. There is a common notion of "process" that is fundamental to all
> philosopical discorse in the modern and then contem****ary epoch, even
> when to be, as in philosophy, rather the subject of a scrutiny.
>
> BTW, I have also read some introductions on the web to the philosophy
> of history, but I find they all miss the point and are already into
> theoretical history as such. We need philosophy to get what it is at
> all about history.
It sounds as If the idea of unending science is linked to, perhaps rooted
in, historicism, though there must be many people by now who accept the
idea
of unending science without knowingly accepting any kind of historicism. I
find that interesting.
|
