Why would one mode of thought have access to things in themselves and not another in this analysis? Utter nonsense, scholastic nevermind rationalist
-
-
-
I'm guessing cause objects.
-
I’m guessing this is what he means by a theory of everything.
-
It's a humble project.
-
Our boy is all grown up. Just the other day he was only doing guerilla metaphysics and now he pretty much dominated the totality of western thought.
-
Via architecture school. No one expected that line of attack. True guerilla warfare.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s not inaccurate i think. You need the other schools of art and philosophy to advance science. It helps you think of a new way of looking at things that could uncover new observable truths about the material world
-
I don't science is trying to describe the observable world. At least not that it could serve as a definition of science.
-
Maybe I’m confused what type of sciences we are talking about. Like physicals/particle physics/Astronomy orrr like defining philosophy/meta-physics/anything with a rigorous procedure as a science
-
He just means the basic sciences: physics, biology, etc.
-
I mean basic sciences are heavily observation based
but to say it is solely grasping at observable properties doesnt sound right, you can ~infer~ after all. And it makes it sound like abstract thoughts cannot be grasped simply because they are not physical. I have beef
End of conversation
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.