Science And Metaphysics

[Khandro]

I read from, 'Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden', a biography of the Berlin German woman poet; Mascha Kaléko, that in 1952 she sent one of her poems to Albert Einstein, the opening line was; "Time stands still. It is us who are passing away".
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?

[jomifl]

I don't recall Dawkins claiming that it was a 'self evident truth', I would be surprised if he did.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Can you give me some examples of philosophers asserting what you call " 'self evident' assumptions " ?

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro.
Thank you for you recent posts in which you appeared to agree with me regarding Darwin's hesitancy to publish due to the metaphysical lobby - a nod of approval from you - wow, that must be first.
In all communications with me I should be grateful you would not associate me with Dawkins. I am neither a supporter nor antagonist of his. I was an atheist when he was probably very young.
In life and in my career I have never needed Dawkins and have never read his publications - an insignificant person as far I am concerned.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
If I may pop in to answer your question re philosophers asserting
self-evident truths.
What about a lady called Mascha Kaleko the poet/philosopher.
Sorry I can't remember where I read of her dogmatic statement. Maybe it was in a letter to Albert Einstein...
Regards,
SIQ.

[jomifl]

I didn't introduce the notion of self evident assumptions but here is one to start with
'cogito ergo sum' ..René Descartes
a slightly weaker assumption is that the existence of the universe proves the existence of god. Of course this is preceded by the assumption that the bible is true and 'the word of god', as many believe. And here we are at the start again.

[Khandro]

SIQ; I'm pleased we agree about the validity of Dawkins; I thought I was plowing a lonely furrow in his castigation here on AB :-)
Kaléko was a poet not a philosopher and there was nothing dogmatic in her poetry, for a poet to say in a poem "Time stands still" is not the same thing as if it was an assertion by a physicist, (and none has, as far as I know).
Einstein said in a private letter to her in reply that he thought the poem was beautiful, and I think we have agreed to leave that at face-value.
However we have moved on a bit, and I await to hear how you think the assertions of 'pure' philosophers - by which I take it you and jomifl mean logicians - have been overturned by natural philosophers.

[Khandro]

jomifl; You will have to do better than that! The cogito is a prime example of a self-evident truth and cannot be overturned; 'I think, therefore I am'. - I cannot doubt that I think, without thereby confirming that I am thinking. (And likewise for the judgement that I exist.)

[jim360]

I tihnk that isn't a self-evident truth at all. Lots of things do not think, but are.

[jomifl]

There you go Khandro, I think your assumption that thinking proves existence is an assumption too far. Everything exists because it is something. There is no need to prove something's existence, it exists by definition. It is a clever but unnecessary assumption.

[Khandro]

jim; //Lots of things do not think, but are.// The subject of Descartes attention is the 1st person singular, - not rocks!

[jim360]

Perhaps. But then I wonder if this is the "self-evident truth" that seems to be so often assumed by everyone: that we matter to the Universe, that we are somehow the most important things in existence. I think a large number of people must have this in the back of their mind, even if they aren't aware of it themselves. I think this can probably explain a good deal of what has been written or said in the philosophy and metaphysics of where things come from. The question is exceedingly difficult, *if* you assume that we were meant to be here. On the other hand, a Universe that could exist just as well (if not better) without us seems to need less explaining.

[Khandro]

Oh dear! are we feeling a tad nihilistic today jim? :-)

[solvitquick]

Aaaw Khandro,
(a) I knew you would dismiss Kaleko as a poet, not a philosopher. So if poets do not count as philosophers, who do? Definition from you please - by your very own by yourself - no quotes from others or just citing a name please.
(b) We are not all agreed about Einstein's reply and that we agree to take it at face value! I argued earlier that Einstein was simply being polite and "corrected" her by saying metaphysics had been superceeded by pure physics. I believe jomifl supported me in my contention.
(c) I agree with jim, Descarte's statement is very much open to question. That many things exist without thinking cannot be contested at this stage in our knowledge. Similarly jim's follow-up questioning the superiority of we humans is bang on. We are not special, "it's all in the mind, lol"
And his contention is not nihiliastic, just an unpleasant thought for many, but not me! Ask Descartes..oops you can't 'cos he's just unthinking dust, thanks to entropy.
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear jomifl,
Sorry for the delay. It must have been due to the delay in the electromanetic spectrum between transmission and receival.
Ty why for your reply which I value very much.
Sincere Regards,
SIQ.

[jomifl]

If René had known about quantum theory he might have been a little more circumspect in making such a brash statement, that is if he existed.

[solvitquick]

I was on hoiday in Ireland a long time ago and was in Dun Laoghaire.
I asked a Dubliner: "How do I get to the Abbey Theatre?"
He replied "look around at the beauty of this place, don't you agree that it must have been created by a superior being?"
I said "Yup, it's beautiful, but superior creation? No, Im an atheist".
He said "Ahh sorry but obviously you can't get to the Abbey Theatre by starting from here".
I asked "Are you a metaphysicist" to which he said "Yes".
End of story.
SIQ.

[Khandro]

SIQ; I've never come across anybody who can misunderstand what has already been said like you do. Do you actually bother to read the previous posts before you start typing away?
jomifl; //If René had known about quantum theory he might have been a little more circumspect in making such a brash statement//
You intrigue me, please explain.

[jim360]

I can see why you might think of it as nihilism, but it's not really. At most it's a questioning of the apparent assumption inherent to a lot of philosophies that we are somehow important. You can see it in a small way, for example, when Sherlock Holmes argues that flowers show the existence of God. Their beauty is only for our pleasure, so they were put there for us. Of course that's not at all true -- the vibrant colours and smells are to attract insects for the purpose of procreation. That we find them beautiful is coincidental.

No doubt there are many other examples in philosophy of a question being phrased in a way that assumes that somehow we are the culmination of the Universe, or at least that there must be a purpose, and takes this teleology as a self-evident truth. It's nothing of the sort -- indeed, on closer inspection most things that happen do so entirely by accident, or at least happen only for the single purpose of ensuring continued existence.

I'm not nihilistic, though it looks like nihilists take what I'm saying above to extremes.

[Khandro]

jim; Ref. //the apparent assumption inherent to a lot of philosophies that we are somehow important.//
Well, of course we are important! You appear to be placing yourself outside of humanity and its inherent condition, in some sort of position of neutrality, from where you can observe with impartiality.
You don't have to 'turn on' but you ought to at least 'tune in' and participate! I hope you feel better tomorrow. :-)

[jim360]

I feel fine, I don't know what you are talking about.