Stacey seem to be in overdrive mode to carve out a new idol, physics using mathematics, while God wants us to use mathematics (quantity/objects) with the ingenuity by each mind to make a subjective (qualitative) life. Prior such idolisation gives life line to many atheists, some so far in trusting scientific methods preclude the existence of God while the others trust the methods itself is God, and shall be basis of life. The frog in the well have enough entertainments to remain there and assert he saw everything observable and there is nothing beyond the well.
As I read these installments, I find myself wondering how representative Aristotle's view of the physical world is representative of the Greeks of his time. We know there wefre multiple schools of thought in his time.
I have no doubt the ancient Greeks subscribed to a cyclical world. From what is presented here, it is less clear they all subscribed to the same idea of a world as an organism.. (Of course, that may just be my lack of an education in the classics).
Phil, thank you for reading them and thinking with me. I have wondered the same. Jaki depicts the ancient Greek view as an eternally cycling cosmos (Great Year) and credits that to an overall organismic world view (if I'm reading him correctly). Yet, Aristotle objects to his predecessors who clearly had more mechanistic and mathematical views. I agree with you. I just don't know the answer.
Hence, Aristotle lives on in the Gaia hypothesis. Perhaps what we consider a 'macro' view really
isn't macro enough. Maybe ie: the earth is just an atom in a fantastical system that is too big to comprehend. I can see where Jaki might have wanted to - lovingly - throttle him however. Bon voyage.
Yes!! I am already reading about the Gaia hypothesis. I think you are right -- our macro isn't macro enough. I appreciate you thinking with me and helping me -- very much!
my pleasure, enjoy Spain, as I did in '73.
Stacey seem to be in overdrive mode to carve out a new idol, physics using mathematics, while God wants us to use mathematics (quantity/objects) with the ingenuity by each mind to make a subjective (qualitative) life. Prior such idolisation gives life line to many atheists, some so far in trusting scientific methods preclude the existence of God while the others trust the methods itself is God, and shall be basis of life. The frog in the well have enough entertainments to remain there and assert he saw everything observable and there is nothing beyond the well.
What do you mean, Man? I have no intention of claiming that the right world view is mathematical.
As I read these installments, I find myself wondering how representative Aristotle's view of the physical world is representative of the Greeks of his time. We know there wefre multiple schools of thought in his time.
I have no doubt the ancient Greeks subscribed to a cyclical world. From what is presented here, it is less clear they all subscribed to the same idea of a world as an organism.. (Of course, that may just be my lack of an education in the classics).
Safe travels!
Phil, thank you for reading them and thinking with me. I have wondered the same. Jaki depicts the ancient Greek view as an eternally cycling cosmos (Great Year) and credits that to an overall organismic world view (if I'm reading him correctly). Yet, Aristotle objects to his predecessors who clearly had more mechanistic and mathematical views. I agree with you. I just don't know the answer.
Stacey, you are too kind to say I'm "thinking with you." You're the professor, I'm just frantically trying to keep up!
Hence, Aristotle lives on in the Gaia hypothesis. Perhaps what we consider a 'macro' view really
isn't macro enough. Maybe ie: the earth is just an atom in a fantastical system that is too big to comprehend. I can see where Jaki might have wanted to - lovingly - throttle him however. Bon voyage.
Yes!! I am already reading about the Gaia hypothesis. I think you are right -- our macro isn't macro enough. I appreciate you thinking with me and helping me -- very much!