I'm rereading this brilliant book, published almost exactly a hundred years ago (June 1920). Science and philosophy still haven't fully learned what this book has to teach us. @Alf_N_Whitehead The Concept of Nature: Tarner Lectureshttps://www.cambridge.org/core/books/concept-of-nature/25B361C16417842783605069C21AD1F6#.XrG5yxijQYI.twitter …
-
-
Bohm's QM interpretation was ahead of its time, and paid the price. In general, his work hasn't received as much prominence or attention as it deserves. David Albert did a great deal to rectify this situation - Shelley Goldstein too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is certainly very cool. I've not made a great enough study of Wittgenstein, nor Heidegger, but I think certainly that the philosophy of organism contains the basic vision of the truth.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Cushing and McMullin have an interesting historical/political analysis of why Bohm's theory failed to find favor in the 50s.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I can report from experience that Wittgenstein did not make good company. It is unfortunate that his Tractatus was published and that positivist interpretations won the day just when modern science most needed the help of speculative philosophers to construct a new ontology.
-
Read late Husserl, Alfred. Seriously.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.