Jump to content

geordief

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by geordief

  1. I think the French would have a "head start" if there were international crochet competitions https://lisawallerrogers.com/2018/11/03/the-tricoteuses-of-the-french-revolution/
  2. There is a lengthy ongoing discussion of Hammond's idea (he is the OP) on another forum that is easily searchable. Can't say I would have the resolve (or even the understanding) to take part ,but he seems to be holding the fort ,or maybe the fairy castle) there.
  3. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220523162813.htm and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30505-2 Does that sound good?
  4. I thought this was an interesting article on the BBC website. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20220519-does-hypnosis-work I was interested to read there that it might be a treatment for anxiety Has anyone any experience with or knowledge of the subject ?
  5. I am sure you are right.I am probably equally poorly qualified both as a scientist and as a philosopher (ie not at all) My misapprehension may be that I view almost any open minded questioning as "philosophical" and by science I understand the data that puts a brake on freewheeling imaginative thought processes. I don't recall the religious arguments around legalizing homosexuality (in the UK) so much but perhaps I may have simply paid little heed to them or maybe at that time religious arguments were (at least in my circle of friends) a subject for ridicule and so not advanced directly but more under the cloak of conventional morality.
  6. I suppose professional or trained philosophers contributed to the discussion.(probably quite extensively although I have no recollection as such) Not so sure the discussion was especially divided along philosophical/scientific lines but I think that was part of the debate.
  7. How about the debate over first legalizing and then ,later normalizing homosexuality? I recall those advocating for treating homosexuals equally under the law making frequent reference to scientific studies which ,they claimed showed that homosexuality was not a choice but something people were born with. I didn't follow this area of debate personally as I felt there were other arguments one way or another but I can well believe that there were those who would have argued against those scientific findings as a way of maintaining their"philosophical" stance that homosexuality was a priori wrong/unnatural (and likewise those on the other side advocating for liberalisation might have argued against different scientific studies that they did not like(science can surely be abused and is not always benignly neutral) I anticipate that, over the coming decades there may be further scientific studies that will come out that either side of the debate will highlight to the benefit of their preferred understanding of the situation and application (or not) of social policies So I don't see any end game and I don't expect "science" or "philosophical interpretation " to ever have the final answer. Edit:I should have written "rub shoulders" and not "run shoulders" in the previous post Re-edit: perhaps I have strayed into scientist vs philosopher rather than physicist vs philosopher?
  8. Both studies are potentially all pervasive. Given enough time ,in my suspicion philosophical questions will usurp scientific questions and alternately as time continues scientific question will usurp philosophical questions ,like a dynamic entwined double spiral staircase . Both areas of research cannot be limited to any demarcated region of human understanding and so they run shoulders and don't always get on.
  9. The link's only "mistake" was not to use quotation marks around his quote. As he introduced the quote in bold letters he may not have thought it mattered but when he was quoted, along with BR's passage it became unclear as to when BR stopped being quoted and when the author's commentary resumed. To someone familiar with the article it may have been obvious ,but to a cursory reading I thought it was confusing. But I am always very fastidious about using quotation marks.I don't think anyone else has been much troubled. It is off topic now surely.
  10. Maybe so,but between the two of you , you have made it appear that Bertrand Russel wrote something that was actually just written by the author of the piece(he did not bother with quotation marks while you have used them to enclose both the author's commentary and Betrand Russel's passage which was quoted by him. A matter of no consequence,admittedly.
  11. Seems to me you have wrongly attributed that quote to Bertand Russel(the preceding passage,though does indeed seem to be from him. I was a bit surprised that he might be using language like "takeaway lesson" back in the 50s or whenever it was he wrote that. He was a bit too difficult for me to get interested in (or like),though I did try briefly ,back in the 60s. Wasn't he concerned with definitions,definitions,definitions?
  12. If Philosophy is the study of what we do not know ,that does not diminish its value. There will ,I suspect always be far more that we do not (or cannot) know than the astonishing amount that we can say that we do know with some certitude. When we are faced with circumstances that we do not understand I have read that it is our instinct to form patterns out of the chaos and if this is what preoccupies the philosophical mind (in addition to the methodologies noted by @zapatos then it may not be time wasted. I have the impression that Einstein's ideas met with initial opposition from scientists and philosophers alike (perhaps I am wrong?-I was not there) It was only some 20 years ago that the concept of "the end of history" was being bandied about semi seriously. I doubt we are at all close to the end of either scientific or philosophical progress,more's the reason for satisfaction.
  13. I suspect that retired colonel was being drip fed to the public to soften them up for hard truths to follow(very large drips but there is so much information being withheld it must be hard to control the flow now)
  14. Better news.Can we begin to hope? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61484222 Can they handle the truth after all? Edit: is Ukraine's resistance to Taiwan's benefit? Or are Ukrainians just a force of nature,not to be easily replicated?
  15. Not sure how young she is .I wonder does she remember a time ,as I do when Black Holes were not even believed to exist.(well I think that is my memory -it is hard to remember a "non memory") I think they were talked about but were not considered to be likely to actually exist..
  16. Can information ever be preserved in such a way as to reconstruct a previous system from a system that has evolved ?(not necessarily relevant to black holes maybe and I wonder if I have misunderstood the information question) It seems to me that if we cannot predict the future in any exact way then the past is exponentially more impossible to do so. Is information not being lost all the time?(or is/was the information paradox about the possibility or not to retrieve any trace at all of the configuration of systems that had gone into a Black Hole)?
  17. Wondering what anyone makes of this 1973 recording by the late John Fahey. Obviously an accomplished acoustic guitar player,he did though in his latter years repudiate the music he made along these lines To my mind this music is very easy to follow and you can see how he allows the various themes to develop and kind of collapse in themselves and then pick themselves up as a new idea takes over the discord that that was setting in. This seems to me to keep repeating itself as a pattern - a series of hopeful developments that end in disappointment only for a germ of hope to break through for a period Is that nice to listen to ? Some of his better known pieces are more straightforward and can be fairly optimistic but this seems to alternate all the time Is that how others hear this music?
  18. seems geordief has been outGurdjieffed http://theslenderthread.org/art-and-consciousness/
  19. Can I ask whether we would have to invent art if it did not exist? Is it possible to live without a connection to art in one's own interior life? Or us it take it or leave it?
  20. Not sure what the capital A would stand for but can "society " have propreital rights on what might be considered "art"? I mean ,look at Prince Andrew.He was considered.by some (never by me ) to exemplify virtues in British Society,until his true character was held up to the light. Not the same with Art in the museums?Not just a case of the Emperor wearing transparent clothes? Can we make a distinction between art that is a function of living an expressive life and art that is a merchandise with all the attendant trappings? Or are they the same thing?
  21. Is that just meant to be cynical? "Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues" Was Shakespeare an artist in the medium of language then?
  22. Has anyone a succinct definition for what is called Art? I have been wondering whether art is an attempt to express ones observations and feelings about one's social environment in as unfiltered a way as possible -using whatever medium comes to hand. Has anyone any other ideas? (is mine too obvious and catch all?) (Is it even possible to be succinct about the subject ?)
  23. It is hard enough to understand the culture we are born into without shouldering the responsibility of understanding the train wreck that is the Russo Soviet counterpart. It is hard to imagine they have had much of a free choice up to now Maybe they would like to share their misery around.
  24. I am not even sure it would be that tempting an option even if it was feasible (though Castro apparently was targeted several times by the CIA) I mean ,had Hitler been taken out of the equation in the failed attempt to kill him by German officers it is maybe very arguable that the Wehmakt might have fought more intelligently without his unhinged interference in an area he was not an expert in. After all ,towards the end he apparently accused the German people of being unworthy of his ambitions Some leader ,an asset to his supposed enemies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.