At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems that the classical natural philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas examines reality from the "top down." Modern science from the time of Newton to the present, takes a "bottom up" approach. Is there a place for both views?
As an intellectual lightweight I grasp the layout of this series and applaud your efforts to dethrone King Science.
My approach starting in 2005 was to look at the heart of the matter and posit Philosophy (love of wisdom) as that heart and radiating center. It is sourced and grounded in the Sacred Heart of the Incarnate Wisdom, Our Lord Jesus Christ (through whom all things were made).
From there it was looking at the human heart and its 4 chambers. The two higher ones were assigned to the realm of the Divine---Sacred THEOLOGY and MYSTICISM
The two lesser ones to True Science and Creative Art.
M.A.S.T. became the operant form of observing 'X' through these four mutually supporting perspectives (lenses), always ending with the TRUTH of the Church's THEOLOGY. This process was spurred on when I used it during my stint as a parochial middle school teacher responsible for Religion, Art, Math, Science and PE. I found my students very capable of developing deeper understanding when the same subject 'X' was related to in these separate academic moments with particular emphasis upon a universally centered philosophy that God desires us to KNOW Him, LOVE Him and SERVE Him from here to eternity.
Einstein never had this perspective and that is the great tragedy of his storied life especially with his divorce from Mileva and his letter to President Roosevelt leading to Trinity, Little Boy and Fat Man.
Fascinating, heady, and I look forward to the rest. Question: is this a typo or am I reading it incorrectly? “When a chemist gets into thermodynamics, kinetics, surface chemistry, polymers, biochemistry, or any more advanced discipline that requires thinking of atoms is systems…” thinking atoms AS systems?
Yes, typo! And fixed. Thank you so much. I proofread but always miss things. If you ever see anything amiss, I always appreciate you telling me. I can edit the posts after they are published.
At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems that the classical natural philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas examines reality from the "top down." Modern science from the time of Newton to the present, takes a "bottom up" approach. Is there a place for both views?
As an intellectual lightweight I grasp the layout of this series and applaud your efforts to dethrone King Science.
My approach starting in 2005 was to look at the heart of the matter and posit Philosophy (love of wisdom) as that heart and radiating center. It is sourced and grounded in the Sacred Heart of the Incarnate Wisdom, Our Lord Jesus Christ (through whom all things were made).
From there it was looking at the human heart and its 4 chambers. The two higher ones were assigned to the realm of the Divine---Sacred THEOLOGY and MYSTICISM
The two lesser ones to True Science and Creative Art.
M.A.S.T. became the operant form of observing 'X' through these four mutually supporting perspectives (lenses), always ending with the TRUTH of the Church's THEOLOGY. This process was spurred on when I used it during my stint as a parochial middle school teacher responsible for Religion, Art, Math, Science and PE. I found my students very capable of developing deeper understanding when the same subject 'X' was related to in these separate academic moments with particular emphasis upon a universally centered philosophy that God desires us to KNOW Him, LOVE Him and SERVE Him from here to eternity.
Einstein never had this perspective and that is the great tragedy of his storied life especially with his divorce from Mileva and his letter to President Roosevelt leading to Trinity, Little Boy and Fat Man.
And, ancillary to all these moving parts, seems to me, a teachable notion that nothing ever dies.
Fascinating, heady, and I look forward to the rest. Question: is this a typo or am I reading it incorrectly? “When a chemist gets into thermodynamics, kinetics, surface chemistry, polymers, biochemistry, or any more advanced discipline that requires thinking of atoms is systems…” thinking atoms AS systems?
Yes, typo! And fixed. Thank you so much. I proofread but always miss things. If you ever see anything amiss, I always appreciate you telling me. I can edit the posts after they are published.
Me too and no matter how many times one reads their own work those things happen. We are human (be that matter, energy, atoms, whatever, lol).