|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #951541 added February 9, 2019 at 1:08am
Restrictions: None
Philosophy
https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/11/08/g-k-chesterton-heretics/
I'm not well-versed in philosophy.
It's not that I'm not interested. I'm interested in a lot of things. It's just that I don't have the background.
So when I see an article like this, I'm not afraid to admit I'm out of my depth. Just as a lot of people I talked to can't deal with mathematics - a position I can't relate to, but accept - I struggle with philosophical language. Philosophers build on earlier philosophers, on science, on religious thought to expand upon, or tear down, what has come before. Unlike math, philosophy, by its very nature, has no definitive answer. Unlike science, there's no rigorous testing and retesting of hypotheses with philosophy.
It's ambiguous, and I'm not comfortable with ambiguity. Worse, my technical background has left little room for learning how to contextualize ambiguous thought processes.
When it stops being ambiguous, it becomes science. Physics used to be called "natural philosophy."
So - I have no doubt that what the author of the linked article is saying is important (whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing), but I'm having trouble unpacking it. Maybe someone reading this has some insight? |
© Copyright 2019 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
