![]() |
|
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
Category: Miscellaneous Asked by: dansynek-ga List Price: $5.00 |
Posted:
14 Mar 2003 05:00 PST
Expires: 13 Apr 2003 06:00 PDT Question ID: 176046 |
![]() | ||
|
There is no answer at this time. |
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: wondering-ga on 14 Mar 2003 06:35 PST |
Here's a quote for you (http://members.tripod.com/GellnerPage/InterGellner2.html): For a long time after confidence in the stable theistic premises of knowledge had been undermined, what people were looking for was a substitute for them. That is to say, there had for so long been a single category in terms of what everything was ultimately to be explained, namely God, that for a long time people went on looking for some other such single category in terms of which everything was ultimately to be explained. At first they thought they had found it in Science. Then, with the neo-Kantians, History becomes the all-explaining category. Then you get Marxism, which tries to integrate History and Science into a single framework of ultimate explanation. It isn't till we get to distinctively modern thought- to, shall we say, Nietzsche - that people start to say: "Perhaps there is no single category in terms of which everything is ultimately to be explained. Perhaps reality is, right to the very end of the road, pluralistic. Perhaps it just consists of a lot of different, separate things, and the only way to understand it is to investigate them severally. In this case any single, all-encompassing explanatory theory will be a delusion, a dream, and will prevent us from seeing reality as it is" Bertrand Russell, just to take a single example, was very insistent on this approach. It deeply permeates the whole of modern Empiricism. |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: snapanswer-ga on 14 Mar 2003 07:00 PST |
I know that you are looking for something from the philosophy department instead of the physics department, however, if you think that theoretical physics is at all philosophical, you may consider the following: Michio Kaku's Superstring Symphony (Superstrings, Unified Field Theory, The theory of everything) http://www.techtv.com/bigthinkers/features/story/0,23008,3333508,00.html |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: snapanswer-ga on 14 Mar 2003 07:23 PST |
Another recent philosopher, Ayn Rand, came to mind with her Objectivist philosophy. While she passed away in 1982, philosophers still apply and extend her philosophy. Based upon the summary linked to below, her philosophy seems broad and all-encompassing. I suppose this comment, along with my previous comment about String theory and (I suspect) lmnop's citation of Ken Wilbur's "A Theory of Everything", are putting forward the argument that philosophers are still formulating all-encompassing theories. "Objectivism in Brief" by Richard Speer, 2002. http://www.newenlightenment.com/philosum.html |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: shananigans-ga on 16 Mar 2003 14:06 PST |
The only recent (last century and this) philosophers that come to mind as having created all encompassing theories are Jean Paul Sartre and Peter Singer. The latter is still alive and working at Princeton university. Hope that's helpful in some way! |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: shananigans-ga on 16 Mar 2003 14:07 PST |
Sorry to post again, something else just came to mind. Lots of older philosophers based their unifying theories around religion or in some way the existence of god. This is hardly the prevalent view now, and perhaps this in some way accounts for the answering of 'little questions'. |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: dgleahy-ga on 19 Mar 2003 10:56 PST |
You might want to read my works: Novitas Mundi: Perception of the History of Being (NYU 1980; SUNY reprint 1994), Foundation: Matter the Body Itself (SUNY 1996), and Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact (Ashgate March 2003). Related material at dgleahy.com. |
Subject:
Re: History of Philosophy: Are we getting less ambitious
From: n0n-ga on 22 Dec 2003 08:40 PST |
hi go to http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/basicboard/messages3/149.html i know its not complete but if thier is a god, its somewere in the cycles. and best of all freedom of choise does exist instead of doing something cause the current understanding of physis leaves no choise to be made. but under this idea physics still totaly can work. its kind of funny though, if this is right does that mean christ was the anti-christ? |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |