burnt said:
Your philosophical arguments are not taking into account modern discoveries in physics. Its why Stephen Hawking in his latest book said "philosophy is dead". Hes right it is dead because philosophers haven't been keeping up with the data.
I was always under the impression that philosophy exists on an ideological plane, therefore, exists in spontaneity, unaffected by progressions in conceptual data (being within a timeless modality). This might be considered to be the mirrored image or anthropomorphic parallel of the vacuum
Enoon refers to? An intentionally objective posture, whereby thought devours itself even as it forms, like the mythical Ouroboros, eternally consuming itself, in pace with it's emergence. The recycling of the inquisitive mind, remaining impartial, within the progression of polarities in understanding.
So this would facilitate further degrees of questioning, as to said progression of data and new sets of parameters to equate ideas about the essence of reality. Ideally, philosophy exists as a symbiosis of science and spirit, centered in an objectivity which defies finite description or the relevance to condition. An open-ended inquisitiveness, which aims towards a stance of empty neutrality ( as with the idea of Zen Buddhism's no mind).
I don't really see how it is possible to lump "
philosophy" into a time frame of relative applicability to contemporary discoveries in modern physics? Sure, any philosopher can benefit from the newest insights into quantum mechanics and breakthroughs in our understanding of these interior mechanics, however, I feel Steven Hawking's sweeping oversimplification is flawed in it's reasoning. If
philosophy is outdated or behind the times, it's not truly representative of the central focus of thought, which is the true nature of philosophical context. I've often thought I've seen this quality in the eyes of a child in sheer wonderment of it's own existence and it's interrelationship to the universe in which it lives. In it's spontaneous neutrality, it questions everything.
For within the
philosophical context, somethingness and nothingness are constants, forming a cohesive dynamic. Shouldn't modern physics modify it's use of words like
NOTHING ans it's common associations? If the meanings have been significantly modified through new breakthroughs in our comprehension of this force, then should not the terminology reflect this modification? If the implication goes outside the classical sense of the juxtaposition, the duality of
somethingness & nothingness, new labels of description would be in order? Insubstantial void and substantial manifestation, are ideological constants, so what term might we use for this new view into the Void and what qualification in it's description?
Furthermore, I submit that Dr. Hawking's projected bias of the concept of
philosophical subjectivity is outdated, for it propagates a division in these two mind sets. Wouldn't it be wise to work on conjoining the disciplines, rather than setting up polarities or alternate camps of belief? That being said, any challenge to our collective understanding of reality is healthy for the whole of us.
The quintessential issue in this scenario, is that how we perceive the phenomena or perhaps anti-phenomena of nothingness, which by the very nature of said
nothingness, lies outside our scope of comprehension. As I said earlier, new discoveries open windows into territories once unknown, this in no way excludes the additional cluster of unknowns discovered in conjunction with any breakthrough findings.
I would speculate that the mysterious force which hypothetically initiates the manifestation of existence, will forever regenerate a self-sustaining insubstantiality, thus remaining largely unknown to an unfathomable degree, eternally. In this light, I submit that we will never catch this philosophical tiger by the tail, nor will Ouroboros cease to perpetuate the cyclical loop of devouring it's own tail. From my windowsill, any mysterious causative force, behind the play of the ideological constants of duality, would be
nothing short of an indication as to the very existence of the Divine... or what we collectively have referred to as
God. :idea:
