Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I cannot claim  competence in the field of Metaphysics. I read it only for pleasure and study it not at all.

But I wish to note, nobody has yet to even mention:

  1.  Kant (!?!)
  2.  Hegel
  3.  Husserl
  4.  Heidegger
  5.  Bergson
  6.  Comte
  7.  Ayer
  8.  Carnap
  9.  Hahn
  10. Neurath
  11. Schlick
  12. Merleau-Ponty
  13. Dewey
  14. Emerson
  15. James
  16. Whitehead
  17. Sarte
  18. Peirce
  19. Wittgenstein

Ya know, Modern Western Metaphysicians?

(And how a discussion on MWM can avoid discussing Kant escapes me.)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 04:20:24 AM EST
LOL

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 04:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, after Heidegger, what's to discuss?

btw, you forgot Mr. Natural and his alter ego Flakey Foont.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 05:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.  But on the other hand there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.

One does not need to mention Mr. Natural.  One ASSUMES deep knowledge of the works of The Master when discussing philosophy.

;-)

(It's 3:30 in the AM.  I'm tired.  I'm going to bed.)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 05:40:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]


"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think kant solved the problem of metaphysics (my fav author by far).. but not the problem of magic.. anthropology had not started his progress.

Only Hume could comment (just for fun) what some centuries later will become tte great discussion of the century, are magic and scientific narratives fundamentally different? And if not, are there inherent magic foundation to science as Hume sustained?

I think the answer is defintely yes... but as with Quantum mechanics and Migeru explained..we have not  udnerstood what it really means, we do not have schoalrs who could provide more Asimovs and Sagans.. and we ahve a scientific structure outside math physics and cehmistry (mainly biology and medicine) which are facing the XXI century with a mechanistic and naive approach that I find sometimes scary.

And I do not even mention the real possibility that the "why" question might be more important to good social bonding thant he "how" question.

A pleasure

A pleasure

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 at 07:07:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series