Total knowledge of science is the hell

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Brando » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:27 pm

Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is - like in Sartre - a fundamental way of existence apart from science. This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby phyllo » Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:40 pm

Is this a solution in need of a problem?

Nobody has "total knowledge" of science. Most people have very little knowledge of it. (school science that is.)

But one could say that people have a lot of common science knowledge ... friction, fluid mechanics, the motion of objects, effects of heat ... stuff you learn by bouncing a ball, playing with buckets of water, cooking, etc.

Is there a hard separation between science and non-science?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10101
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby James S Saint » Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:23 pm

Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is - like in Sartre - a fundamental way of existence apart from science. This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

Affectance Ontology declares specific concepts that are simple and confined to their given definition. The ontology builds an understanding utilizing merely one "field" concept and logically derives how all fields noted in current physics come about as aberrant, emergent effects of that one, the physical field of affectance is defined as follows:

    Affectance ≡ ultra subtle influences or changes in the potential to affect.

The principles involved apply to all fields of study, but most notably to; Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Economics. The concept terms change for each field, but the principles are the same.
General topics involving Affectance are:

1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How long has this Affectance been around? - "Cosmology"
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25611
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:29 am

i agree. being a genius it makes it hard to emotionally connect with people. though it was already hard for me to emotionally connect with people to begin with.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Brando » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:35 pm

General topics involving Affectance are:

1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How long has this Affectance been around? - "Cosmology"
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...


Does affectance mean that the individual has a personal perspective on what is organized in Society as science?
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Arminius » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:31 pm

Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Alf » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Arminius wrote:
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:25 pm

Alf wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?

Yes. I think that Brando has meant Heidegger’s fundamental ontology as a component of his existence philosophy.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]