ProjectPageStage2

David Rose, Philosophical Studies, Newcastle University

Stage 2 Project Page

I need a way to keep your progress up to date with your projects. By now, you ought to have identified an object and if you were at today's meeting, you should be thinkign about concepts, contexts/territories, thinkers, contrast and emthodologies. Here's an example: Sex Shop

Object: the family unit Context: the family as a historically changing object (culture) Concepts: autonomy, property, rights Thinkers/texts: Locke, Kant, Hegel, Deleuze Change/contrast: historical contrast between the extended pastoral family (pre-1700s) and the industrial nuclear family unit (post-industrial revolution) in relation to the idea of the family in postmodern society Method: interpretation of representations of the family in historical documents.

Main objective:

The project is driven by the intuition that our normal understanding of the family as a small, nuclear unit is an historical phenomenon that rests upon the metaphysical commitment to private property and the free market and that such a commitment results in undesirable obligations and omissions that are dependent on this worldview.

Intended knowledge outcomes: By engaging in this project, I intend to: 1. learn about the historical origins of the nuclear family unit; 2. be acquainted with the standard descriptions of the family unit and the justifications of the family bond; 3. be able to define the central concepts of autonomy and property; 4. demonstrate the connection between metaphysical theories and everyday understandings of a phenomenon (here, the family).

Intended skill outcomes: Through the project work, I intend to: 1. Develop the ability to marshal large amounts of data, to process it and to decide what is relevant to the matter at hand. 2. Develop critical and analytical skills in the interpretation of a wide variety of material. 3. Acquire the ability to independently orientate myself in alien and extra-curricular sources of information. 4. Learn to apply theoretical concepts and considerations to empirical phenomena in order to generate significant knowledge.

Title

The above considerations should enable you to formulate a provisional title (although you will still be able to change it if you wish). So, for the above example, we would probably offer:

Title: Exchanging vows: family relationships and possessions

Remember that your title is designed with two criteria in mind: (1) to describe what your project dissertation discusses in a succinct way; and (2) to draw attention to your project dissertation and entry in the Book of Change.

Look again at your original handouts and use the questionnaires there to help you. What I need is for you to freely edit this page and add in your own breakdown of your ideas. I do not expect you to be as comprehensive as this yet.

Just add what information you can next to your name. Click on the edit this page box at the bottom and start typing. One rule: don't be childish.

Names:

Matthew

Beckie

P.S SOME WEIRD FORMATTING THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, SORRY ABOUT THE CHANGE IN FONT SIZE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS HAPPENS...

I sit at my desk with the world at my fingertips. With literally the click of a button, I can find information about people and places. I look out of my window and I see street lamps- the mechanical lights that sometimes make it impossible for the stars to be seen… I can never hide. My home can be found by literally anyone on Google Earth, and I am caught on camera literally hundred of times a day. The Cosmos is indeed quantified and measured- society is quantified and measured. Has scientific rationality gone too far? Do I really have the key to the universe at my fingertips?

http://www.thesahara.info/mnbvcxzlkjhgfdsapoiuytrewq/earth_lights_index_foogle.jpg {Street lights as seen by NASA}

For me, it is evident that as a society, we generally believe science to have a certain authority. Science provides us with life-saving drugs; the ability to share and find information throughout the world courtesy of the Internet. It seems as though science provides us with an infinity of benefits, and to a degree, this cannot be disputed. However, I beg to ask the question: is this it? Because science seemingly places everything at our fingertips, what are we losing? Is there really nothing more?

It is the job of religious belief and faith to provide us with the answers (and reassurance) that science cannot give, and it is for this reason, I see a conflict between the two opposing forces. It is as though both contradict each other than work in harmony. In our age, religion is tolerated, but is generally considered inferior in many respects to science: religion cannot cure cancer, nor can it improve our technologies in other fields. For this reason, although some may argue that there may not necessarily be a conflict as such between science and religion, however the fact that there is a distinction in value is apparent. But why should this be so? Both discourses are man made attempting to frame the same world, yet they ask different questions.

The ancient art of Alchemy is one that seems to defy this hierarchy with science above religion, for it was an art which incorporated spiritual belief with scientific experiment. The goal of the alchemist was the same as it is for the religious believer or the scientist- to see beyond the illusions and corruption of this world to discover the reality, what ever that may be.

The reason I believe that there is a conflict between science and religion in the first instance is the claim made by both Biblical literalists and scientific materialists that science and religion make opposing claims about the very same domain which they both attempt to describe- essentially, the history of nature.

The Ancient Greek view was that of a harmonious cosmos, with personal gods integrated into mortal life. The shift away from this worldview however did not lose the sense of the Designer God, as the Anthropic Principle is an argument used even in scientific discourse. However this God is not so much actively involved in human life. So, long held concepts have been reformed in the light of science, one might say, and this seems to be a compromise with the cold and cynical scepticism science is often associated with. However, I would like to ask the question, doesn’t the value we place on science in fact need to be reformed? If human enquiry is directed towards wanting to know the underlying reality of what we know to exist, wouldn’t a constructive affiliation between the two domains be more helpful in discovering this reality? We shouldn’t hold one over the other, although we often do. Surely, both domains can work together in order for us to get a more rounded vision of reality? Surely science can gives us some insight that religion cannot and vice versa?

I question the authority we place on science: after all, science openly asks question that it itself cannot answer. The limitations within the scientific field are apparent, yet still the scepticism we have been given by science still remains, and religion has been displaced by this scepticism. We are very much aware of the fact we live in a world determined by scientific laws, and so the role of God *and consequently, religion has been devalued.

Ian Barbour makes the bold claim that ‘Science and religion are often seen as enemies locked in mortal combat’ - but why should this be so? I believe that both domains, despite they can may never live in harmony, there should not be a distinction in their values. However, there are those who believe that these two fields will always be in a conflict which will never be resolved. The example Barbour uses is that of evolution: the scientists claim that the scientific evidence of evolution is not compatible with any theistic belief, whereas the Biblical literalist asserts that the theory of evolution conflicts with religious belief, and in fact contradicts the idea of God’s Good Creation. Despite their differences, both groups agree that someone cannot believe in both evolution and God. But which group is correct? And moreover, which domain of thought is correct? - The religious or the scientific? How can this conflict be resolved? - By keeping science and religion independent from each other? Arguably, yes, however, if both are kept separate, we will be no more close to discovering which discourse is true, or at least, more accurate.

It could be argued that science and religion aren’t, and shouldn’t be in competition with one and other because each has a different function in the field of human enquiry. I beg to differ. Both science and religion ultimately ask the same questions, such as, is there a God? - how did the Universe come into being? - and the like. Of course, science is concerned with objective fact and data, whereas religion is concerned with human values. However, both are directed at the same, ultimate goal: to discovering the answers to the questions they ask *albeit each ask in different ways

In what is often described as the ‘Holy Grail’ of science, the speculation surrounding ‘String Theory’ seems very relevant when discussing the blurred boundaries between science and religion. Smolin claims that ‘Physics has always seemed to its practitioners to be almost complete’- yet I disagree with this. I think it would be only in our arrogance that we could ever think that a man made attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe could ever be considered nearly ‘complete’. If it was so, the apparent conflict between science and religion would not be an issue- because we would know almost everything about nature, which of course we don’t. String Theory attempts to unify all particles and forces in nature, and it suggests that all elementary particles appear from the vibrations of one single entity, a string. This of course suggests that everything we observe in nature are manifestations of a fundamental force- and this is also essentially the basis of religion; everything in the universe was created by God and has His manifested within it. Smolin also claims that, ‘The mind calls out for a theory to unify all of physics’, and I extend this to the sphere beyond science. The nature of human enquiry is to find order and unity within the fundamental structure of the world and the way things are. This is why people turn to religion, as an attempt to understand God and His creation. This is also why people turn to science- again for the same reasons- to understand the laws of nature and to try and make sense of it. With regards to String Theory, the question arises; where does faith end and science begin? Even by reducing all matter to nothing more than atoms, there is the same problem here as there is with religious explanations of the world- the explanation is not satisfactory. We can never know the mind of God. Yet still, science is placed upon a pedestal above religion, and despite its laws and descriptive model, science ultimately cannot provide us with the answers that religion asks. For this reason, I do not believe there should be a distinction between the value of science and religion.

Is alchemy a science or superstition? Can both live hand in hand? Are science and religion really polar opposites? Why should one have authority over the other?

Plato and the great mystic Pythagoras believed that we live in a mathematical universe, with geometrical order underlying the chaos and imperfection of the world we inhabit. Platonic thought heavily influenced Christian belief, yet despite the mystical rhetoric, isn't this what science aims at- disecting the world to understand the underlying order?

A Theory of Everything- surely, religion and science are both directed to finding the same thing- the meaning of life. This is what Pythagoras wanted, and indeed he believed- the perfection of geometry is what in fact underpinned the universe for him, with geometrical, mathematical and harmonic patterns intrinsic within the nature of the universe. The Platonic Solids, too, were also essentially Plato's 'Theory of Everything' http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath096.htm Even Newton dreamt of a unifed theory of everything, and certainly this is what modern physicists are looking for, with the potential truth of String Theory- the modern theory of everything. Isn't this 'theory of everything', this quest for the meaning of life, something which both religion and science aim at, albeit in very different ways.

The alchemists were also on a quest to find the meaning of life, the order beneath the chaos. And just like Er *described in the Myth of Er in Plato's 'Republic' travelled through from the corrupt, disordered Earth into the perfection of the heavenly spheres, the alchemists too sought for this perfection- this unity with the cosmos and its creator *God.

'Alchemy' - 'The Great Work'/ Magnum Opus... consisted of these three processes...

'nigredo' - the part of the work in which the elements were burned *and blackened to burn out the impurity. Comparable to the desire to be enlightened, to want to know the truth, to want to understand the universe, to transcend the imperfections of this world... the desire to be relieved of what Kant described as 'Immaturity'.

'albedo' - the whitening of the substance... enlightenment.

'rubedo' - the final stage in the alchemical process.the reddening of the substance... unification of man with god. Did the alchemists ever get to this stage? Did they really turn lead into gold? Was the Elixir of Life/ Philosopher's Stone *both of which held the key of the universe, and were said to provide immortality... or were the alchemists, by attempting the create these things, attempting, just like religion and science do, at finding this meaning of life?

KANT-CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON

*i haven't finished reading it yet though' but here iswhat i've read so far...

      • Preface...

'Human reason... is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind' ... * the spectrum of human knowledge and POTENTIAL human knowledge is so small... how can we ever know the meaning of life or the truth about the universe if it is something that transcends our very knowledge?

Experience and truth... in the case of science, truth is proven by empirical observation. What about religion?.... 'it begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same tie, insured by experience'

Kant eludes to the suggestion that the mind for ever wants to escape from what we describes as 'confusion and contradictions', yet is unable to transcend 'the limits of experience... The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic'... in our modern age, courtesy of Newton and the like, where we arguably value science more than religion, the very limit to what we can know is determine by what, and only what, science can provide us with... but what about that which goes beyond *dare I say the spectrum of possible scientific knowledge? This is the very point of metaphysics... to go beyond physics, that which lines our world. However, just as Kant conveys that the only knowledge we can possibly have is determined by the mind's 'apparatus' *the ability to deal with certain things similarly, science can only prove that which it has the apparatus to prove *Kant later describes... 'according to its OWN eternal and unchangeable laws'

'the inability of limitation of the faculties of the mind'... 'the compass of our mental powers'

Reason must prove itself... 'It is, in fact, a call to reason, again to undertake the most laborious of all tasks- that of self-examination'

'the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions' .... to enlighten.

'the dogmatist professes to demonstrate the simple nature of the soul, or the necessity of a primal being. Such a dogmatists promises to extend human knowledge beyond the limits of possible experience'... the human being cannot go beyond their own SUBJECTIVE experience... yet science, which claims to be objective and neutral likewise cannot go beyond the limits of its own possible experience.

Transcendental Analytic... 'the pure understanding itself, its possibility and its powers of cognition- that is, from a subjective point of view'... is this subjective point of view still valid in a world that emphasises the importance of OBJECTIVE experience and understanding?

      • INTRODUCTION... III. 'Philosophy stands in need of a Science which shall determine the possibility, principles and extent of Human Knowledge a priori' ... a science to determine the possibility/ extent of human knowledge- is this possible?
  • sphere of sensuous phenomena.
  • transcendental/ supersensible sphere.

'These unavoidable problems of mere pure reason are God, Freedom *of will and Immortality' - does science not rid us of these? In the case of God... the reality is that the universe was not in fact created in 7 days, and man made in the image of God, but that hydrogen and helium reacted, clouds of dust and gas formed, with the complex elements we know today being formed in the centre of stars- we are merely the debris- our Big Bang model explains this. In the case of free will, surely if we live in Newton's mechanistic universe, we have no free will and are subject to physical laws *although Kant did lave space for free will however.... And as for Immortality, the scientist tells us that eventually and inevitably our biological clock will stop ticking and just like ever other impure carbon substance, we will decompose. Science solves these 'problems' which Kant describes.... doesn't it?

      • VI THE UNIVERSAL PROBLEM OF PURE REASON

'It is extremely advantageous to be able to bring a number of investigations under the formula of one single problem'.. yet is this not what modern physics is working towards?

'For human reason... urged on by its own feeling of need, towards such questions as cannot be answered by any empirical application of

reason, or principles derived therefrom'.... there are in fact questions that empiricism {science} cannot answer.. yet it attempts to...

      • TRANSCENDENTAL AESTHETIC
      • BOOK II, chap iii... 'of the Ground of the division o fall objects into Phenomena and Noumena'

Second division, Book I... 'Of Transcendental Ideas'

First/ second/ third/ fourth conflict of the transcendental ideas.

CHAP III... THE IDEAL OF PURE REASON.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant makes the claim that the mind contributes the shaping of the empirical world- the world as we perceive it, and also, in addition to explaining the limits ultimately imposed upon the mind, he also suggests that anything may exist; however, the mind can only perceive that which it has the ability to perceive, that our mind is our apparatus for apprehending things, and we can only apprehend what the apparatus of our mind has the capability of. This idea of the mind playing a part in our perception of the empirical world is interesting in terms of alchemy.

The concept of the alchemist, or anyone in fact, shaping their own environment as it were, from the faculties of their mind, and from that deducing their truths and conceptions opens up two conflicting ideas: the first is the possibility of objective experience. If our minds only can perceive a small section of the spectrum of reality, surely we can never have objective knowledge, or an objective experience of reality: our experience of reality would be relative to the ‘apparatus’ we have, which in turn would determine what we can perceive, therefore, it would be impossible to have any objective experience.

However, if one accepts this theory- that our experience depends precisely on our tools of perception, this opens us up to infinite possibilities. The very notion that anything may exist *and we could not know about it, by contrast, does not necessarily highlight the limits of our knowledge, but the vastness and possibilities of reality and what could exist.

Science and religion can both be thought in terms of the two notions I have described, and when both fields are considered in these terms respectively, metaphysical paradoxes become apparent, and the two opposing forces aren’t so opposite after all, and interestingly, become one and the same.

For example, if we consider Kant’s claim that our mind only experiences a small section of the band of reality, this devalues both science and religion, as both become nothing more than modes of human perception- not what really exists beyond the parameters of human knowledge.

Conversely, whether we chose to value science over religion, or religion over science, our choice to do so in effect determines which tools of perception we use, and as a result of this, determines what we perceive, and the ‘reality’ we see.

Jonathan

Chloe

Alex

Jamie

Shane

Flora

John

Adam

Please also refer to:

Editing guidelines, if you want to add effects to your style: http://www.netskills.ac.uk/PDPOnline/help.php?module=wiki&file=howtowiki.html

EditThisPage BackLinks PageInfo Pages like this RSS/Atom last changed on Sun Nov 29 13:55:48 2009
bottom corner