On 30 Sep, 17:27, "Ken Miner" <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@[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
Still, that is the opposite of what I "proved". We (western culture)
are all Hegel's sons, even those who don't know.
> , 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.
People, in general, not only don't go past the first level
implications of what they believe, they are not even aware there is
such a thing as *their* believes: that's objective reality for them,
and on that they erect their "normality".
If to this you add that contem****ary democracy is about the majority
wins, you have another straight theorem about the world necessarily
being the idiotic mess vowed to self-destruction that it is.
-LV
|
