tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post116033903652388552..comments2024-01-01T08:18:36.278-05:00Comments on Real Physics: Degrees of AbstractionLawrence Gagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-81720154516206747422012-03-14T18:24:29.808-04:002012-03-14T18:24:29.808-04:00I read all the way up to and excluding his chapter...I read all the way up to and excluding his chapter on "Critical Realism" of <i>The Degrees of Knowledge</i>, and I found <a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_uGeuv7vYTQE/Su40cOqXwWI/AAAAAAAAAZI/B2fDMgaZqPo/s800/Maritain3Abstraction.jpg" rel="nofollow">his first diagram</a> very interesting. I couldn't get myself to continue. I find Maritain very tough. Perhaps it's <a href="" rel="nofollow">the rare translation</a> I'm reading...<br /><br />Do you have the same problem with Maritain? Read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RNOAQBJY2LRKO/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2C634E3G72D2N&cdMsgNo=2&cdPage=1&asin=0268008868&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3KOIEGIHKBM7H&cdMsgID=Mx2QLEN0N1SOKJ2#Mx2QLEN0N1SOKJ2" rel="nofollow">my response</a> to <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RNOAQBJY2LRKO/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0268008868&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=" rel="nofollow">an Amazon.com review</a>.<br /><br />Also, what do you think of <a href="http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/maritain_phil_nature_rev_kane.pdf" rel="nofollow">this review by Rev. Kane of Maritain's <i>Philosophy of Nature</i></a>? ThanksGeremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-17887119973835373872011-01-18T15:00:46.571-05:002011-01-18T15:00:46.571-05:00Thanks for your comments, guys.
Yes, Kirt, metaph...Thanks for your comments, guys.<br /><br />Yes, Kirt, metaphysics is a problematic term. But if you understand it in the context of this blog, and in the context of Maritain's writings, the last thing it consists of is "opinion predominantly."<br /><br />You should consider reading Maritain--for that matter, you should consider reading Plato! The thing you need to remember is that language is inherently interpersonal. So words only have meaning within a community. Thus, it doesn't work to burst in waving one's own definition of a word--trying to be the world's meaning policeman. The better approach is to join the conversation by asking "What do you mean by this?"<br /><br />Also, as I'll post before too long (you'll know from the quotations from E.A. Burtt), the metaphysical basis for modern science is far from firm.<br /><br />LG<br /><br />P.S. I've just corrected the image links. They were pointing to a defunct server. LGLawrence Gagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01242322119143922513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-76341221823817746642010-12-16T08:15:01.823-05:002010-12-16T08:15:01.823-05:00Thanks for this conceptual framework. It is uniqu...Thanks for this conceptual framework. It is unique in my experience and very useful. May I add some thoughts or "tweeks". <br /><br />The term metaphysics is problematic, unless it is defined in context. To me it refers to thoughts about knowledge, existence and reality based upon reason or mysticism. Aesthetics and ethics are separate disciplines of philisophical thought that ought to be included somehow in the notion of abstraction. <br /><br />What about scientific abstract thoughts in theories of physics (e.g.,energy, work, Maxwell's Demon, symetry and asymetry) or in biology (e.g., life processes, anabolism, catabolism, metabolism, chemical potential energy)? There seems to be levels of abstraction here too, some quite easily understood some quite "far out" to many. To include these topics under metaphysics is what I question because empirical scientific methods contain factual information, whereas metaphysics seems to contain opinion predominantly. Both are necessary for understanding. Indeed there is a firm metaphysical basis for science.<br /><br />So I would propose the third level be split into two subcategories...scientific abstraction and philosophic abstraction. <br /><br />A further refinement might be taken from the beer adds with a subcategory as "light" abstractions and "heavy" abstractions.Kirt Hoblerhttp://kirt.hobler544@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10944560.post-1161987074059069122006-10-27T18:11:00.000-04:002006-10-27T18:11:00.000-04:00Hi Lawrence,I enjoyed the quote from Jacques Marit...Hi Lawrence,<BR/>I enjoyed the quote from Jacques Maritain, Cheers.<BR/>Mention metaphysics and it seems to occasionally provoke a negative reaction in some. Who would of thought the notion of metaphysics would come under attack and be downgraded to a legacy, earmarked for piecemeal dismantling?<BR/>The dominance of science as the only game in town, something all ‘ologies’ must adhere to, or be dammed to the darkest corner of the room, witness sociology, psychology, even parapsychology, is threatened by the presence of metaphysics. By nature ’... the intelligibility of the object is free from any intrinsic reference to the senses or to imagination.’<BR/>Even the most hardened Materialists are forced to back away from out right denial of the rightful place of metaphysics within the toolbox of truth, (snappy phrase) Dawkins has his meme and as Phillip E. Johnson says:<BR/>‘Even an extreme scientific materialist such as Dawkins has to acknowledge that there is such a thing as moral knowledge, and that it cannot come from science because we cannot derive "ought" from "is."’<BR/>Great post, enjoy your conference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com