File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0306, message 100


Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:13:13 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Collected Thoughts -  Philosophy and Science




Hugh

Given my personal history "common sense"  always refers back to Gramsci...

steve

hbone wrote:

>Steve/All,
>
>Although the pursuit of dictionary definitions may be fruitful, it is
>tedious and potentially endless.   HyperDic, the online site, produces a CD
>that includes 120,000 words.  Studying one new word each day would take more
>than 300 years.
>
>HyperDic treats commonsense as a single word, and goes to belief systems and
>the meaning of "belief". The concept of belief leads to the word "truth"
>etc.
>
>Merriam-Webster, via Encyclopedia Britannica, is more limited, but (for me)
>"acceptable",
>whatever that means:
>
>Main Entry: common sense
>Function: noun
>Date: 1535
>1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
>2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment
>
>There are at least half a dozen different kinds of philosophy, including
>"natural philosophy",
>which is the sciience of nature, moral philosophy, etc.
>
>I once had a teacher who had written a book about the "philosophy of
>science".
>
>But returning to common sense - if we on the Lyotard List wish to arrive at
>a mutual understanding of  the "reflective" opinions of  "sophisticated"
>people, we seem to be doomed to pursue more words, and to describing our
>personal  understanding of their meanings.
>
>regards,
>Hugh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Hugh
>>
>>I am interested in ascertaining whether the view you express which is a
>>"common sense" understanding of the relationship between science and
>>philosophy is something that others on the list agree with...
>>
>>(I don't regard common sense in a negative sense here AT ALL, just to be
>>clear...)
>>
>>steve
>>    
>>
>>>Steve/All,
>>>
>>>I have no idea.  It's my opinion, the result of reading various
>>>authors.  If one or more authors could make it acceptable to you, it
>>>would then be your opinion.  Would the words of any one author any
>>>combination of authors make it "true".
>>>
>>>Misunderstandings of philosophy were replaced by understandings of
>>>science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hugh/All
>>>>
>>>>Who amoungst those out there also regard this statement as a complete
>>>>misunderstanding of philosophy but also science? Or do you believe
>>>>that
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>this
>>>      
>>>
>>>>is an accurate and acceptable statement ?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Philosophy is heir to science. Major transformations of philosophy
>>>>>came after discoveries of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Watson-Crick.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


HTML VERSION:

Hugh

Given my personal history "common sense"  always refers back to Gramsci...

steve

hbone wrote:
Steve/All,

Although the pursuit of dictionary definitions may be fruitful, it is
tedious and potentially endless.   HyperDic, the online site, produces a CD
that includes 120,000 words.  Studying one new word each day would take more
than 300 years.

HyperDic treats commonsense as a single word, and goes to belief systems and
the meaning of "belief". The concept of belief leads to the word "truth"
etc.

Merriam-Webster, via Encyclopedia Britannica, is more limited, but (for me)
"acceptable",
whatever that means:

Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
Date: 1535
1 : the unreflective opinions of ordinary people
2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment

There are at least half a dozen different kinds of philosophy, including
"natural philosophy",
which is the sciience of nature, moral philosophy, etc.

I once had a teacher who had written a book about the "philosophy of
science".

But returning to common sense - if we on the Lyotard List wish to arrive at
a mutual understanding of  the "reflective" opinions of  "sophisticated"
people, we seem to be doomed to pursue more words, and to describing our
personal  understanding of their meanings.

regards,
Hugh








  
Hugh

I am interested in ascertaining whether the view you express which is a
"common sense" understanding of the relationship between science and
philosophy is something that others on the list agree with...

(I don't regard common sense in a negative sense here AT ALL, just to be
clear...)

steve
    
Steve/All,

I have no idea.  It's my opinion, the result of reading various
authors.  If one or more authors could make it acceptable to you, it
would then be your opinion.  Would the words of any one author any
combination of authors make it "true".

Misunderstandings of philosophy were replaced by understandings of
science.




      
Hugh/All

Who amoungst those out there also regard this statement as a complete
misunderstanding of philosophy but also science? Or do you believe
that
        
this
      
is an accurate and acceptable statement ?

        
Philosophy is heir to science. Major transformations of philosophy
came after discoveries of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Watson-Crick.
          
    


  


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005