tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8946970256280353891.post2321091699225029772..comments2014-03-01T04:36:13.401+01:00Comments on I'm building something: (1/4) Accepting and justifying traditionsArvid Axbrink Cederholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17346296170307215485noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8946970256280353891.post-41334214929296927482010-06-14T19:06:37.783+02:002010-06-14T19:06:37.783+02:00I see your point.I see your point.Arvid Axbrink Cederholmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346296170307215485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8946970256280353891.post-35836139730030915212010-06-14T16:00:15.360+02:002010-06-14T16:00:15.360+02:00Well, it's not really possible to make that di...Well, it's not really possible to make that distinction. The world can be perceived as being composed of physical and chemical phenomena <i>only</i> through the sciences of physics and chemistry. "Objectivity" is, in itself, a function of natural science, which the utter failure of philosopher's of science to define a standard of scientific objectivity that does not refer in a circular manner to natural science itself amply demonstrates.<br /><br />But fair enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8946970256280353891.post-77595760000989127202010-06-12T19:10:22.603+02:002010-06-12T19:10:22.603+02:00Oh, I agree absoluteley! Did my text come off as t...Oh, I agree absoluteley! Did my text come off as the opposite?<br /><br />To clarify, when I refer to a world of chemistry of physics, I mean the objective world composed of physical and chemical phenomena, not the world viewed through these sciences.Arvid Axbrink Cederholmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17346296170307215485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8946970256280353891.post-53516711257359490872010-06-12T18:48:00.698+02:002010-06-12T18:48:00.698+02:00Well, I see what you're getting at, but I see ...Well, I see what you're getting at, but I see a problematic dualism in the uncritical distinction between "feelings" and "arguments", as if unarticulated emotions could not have a rationality of their own, or as if arguments could not have a productive, rather than merely a representative, function, effectively constructing the world in which we live rather than just being a free-floating set of coping mechanisms somehow floating ghostlike atop a "a cold and objective world of chemistry and physics". We shouldn't forget that chemistry and physics, as well as the psychology of feelings, are also attempts to justify the world as experienced -- i.e., as "felt".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com