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?

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
I made a series of 3 statements the first of which asked you to to define what you mean by philosophers, as you ruled out poets.
No answer from you!
The second referred to your claim that we were all agreed to take Einstein's reply to Kaleko by "taking it at face value". I disagreed saying that Einstein was politely dismissing her metaphysics!
No comment from you!
I agreed with jim's posts 100%.
Like jim, I don't know what you are talking about.
Sum total of your response: "I've never come across anybody who can misunderstand what has already been said.....etc"
I take that feable attempted insult as an accolade because it comes from you, of all people I have ever known on AB or elsewhere.
Thanks for nothing,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Dear pixie373,
Welcome to this site. How does it feel to take a Khandro tour from to hell and back? I'll comment on your biological clock point later, I hope, (given my attempt to talk what I believe is child-like sense to our intellectual host who is clearly my superior).
Luv,
SIQ.

[jomifl]

/Well, of course we are important!/ how so?

[Khandro]

SIQ;You say; //I made a series of 3 statements the first of which asked you to to define what you mean by philosophers, as you ruled out poets.
No answer from you!//
I really don't understand the question and why you want me to define these things however I'll play along; philosophy, classically has been divided into three areas; logic - (called here 'pure'), physics (natural philosophy) and ethics ( moral philosophy). jomifl 14:31 Fri. clears your misunderstanding of metaphysics, I believe.
I don't know how to define poetry as its range is infinite and it deals with an emotional response to life and feeling. I can quote a variety of poems completely different in content, appearance, and outlook (if you want).

Your second statement; my //claim that we were all agreed to take Einstein's reply to Kaleko by "taking it at face value".
jomifl (and you too) has said all along that he felt Einstein was really being polite and just thanking her for the poem and at 16:49 I agreed with him, and that is why I have said that we accepted his response as such and take it at face-value.

Later when jomifl said;
"I agree with what you [SIQ] said and support your view that 'pure' philosophy has often derailed 'natural' philosophy until the natural philosophers managed to see past it's 'self evident' assumptions.
I asked for an example and was given the cogito[i which I claim [i]is] self-evident, and I am still awaiting to learn how it has been 'derailed' by natural philosophy.

[jim360]

I don't think that cogito has been derailed, so much as it's just a completely unnecessary condition on existence. I suppose you could argue perhaps that a rock exists but doesn't know about it, but what about the half-way house? It's pretty likely that most animals act on instinct alone, and therefore appear to be incapable of doubt. But they still think, and they still are.

As far as I'm concerned the whole basis of Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum" is a false dilemma.

[naomi24]

^^Still munching popcorn - but I have to say I agree.

[jomifl]

Khandro, read my puzzling post and take not of the word order, I think you will find that I said the opposite of what you think I said. I expect you will disagree with that too.

[jomifl]

^note

[jomifl]

Khandro ceases to exist when he is asleep.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you really must abandon your facile trick of putting words into peoples mouths, or deliberately misunderstanding them it doesn't work and diminishes your credibility.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Ref. Your 'puzzling' post, I paraphrase it as; Pure philosophy(logic) derails natural philosophy until natural philosophers manage to see past the 'self evident' (your quotes) assumptions of the pure philosophers, (referred to as 'armchair' earlier).
Surely that's what you are saying isn't it, or do you have another interpretation for your statement?

[jomifl]

I see you made an unjustifiable assumption about pure philosophers using logic. Try again, just using the words I supplied.

[Khandro]

I think you need to clarify just what YOU mean by 'pure philosophy'.

[jomifl]

No I don't.

[Khandro]

jomifl; For //No I don't.// read "No I can't".
In an attempt to help you in your struggle, I just typed 'Pure Philosophy' into the Philosophy Dictionary and what came up was 'There is no definition for this term'. Hmmm! :-)

[jomifl]

Khandro, I used the term 'pure philosophy' to distinguish it from 'natural philosphy'. I hope that information helps you in your struggle to understand my post ;o)

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
Ty for your reply re my complaint that you had not answered or sensibly addressed my points and questions except by insult (water off a duck's back to me as far as you are concerned in fact par for your course).
I should have thought that, had you read all previous posts. you would have recognised that my request for a definition of a philosopher referred to armchair- and notably metaphysical-philosophers. Thanks for your dictionary definition, but I have 3 dictionaries and if I needed the obvious definition I would have used them rather than ask you.
Oh, a reminder this question was prompted by yor rejection of Kaleko as a philosopher - poet's don't count in your book.
IN YOUR VERY OWN WORDS please define metaphysics and metaphysical philosophers so that we are agreed on the terms we all use. Please use your own mind and learning only if you choose to reply.
No don't pass the buck to jomifl with whose definition I do not necessarily agree.
You started the debate so you should be equipped to answer for yourself.
Agreement on terminology is critical to any rational debate as you surely must agree. Errr maybe.
I'll stop there just for now.
Regards,
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Khandro, by insult I refer to your post of 20.35 21/12/13.
SIQ.

[Khandro]

SIQ; Sometimes (often actually) my jaw drops as I read your posts;
//Oh, a reminder this question was prompted by yor rejection of Kaleko as a philosopher - poet's don't count in your book.//
As I have never for one moment suggested she was a philosopher -she's a poet -, why should I reject her as such? and as regards "poet's don't count in your book." I have love of poetry, and have (and have had) several well-acclaimed poets among my friends.
Regarding 'metaphysics' and 'metaphysical philosophers'(?). Apart from using the word in the title of this thread as a direct quote from Einstein in order to ask what did he mean by it, and later quoting from jomif's post, I haven't used the word, so why do you want me to define it?

[solvitquick]

Dear Khandro,
Sorry about your jaw problem.
I asked for your definition of metaphysics for my own education as to your beliefs , honestly.
Well, if, despite your question-title, you were asking only about the poem and Einstein's reply then I believe that this has been discussed and the thread is over. O.K.?
SIQ.