Skip to main content

View Diary: Reading Ramblings: The Two Party System and its role in our coming demise (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This will be an interesting note to make in my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky

    personal diary...don't often get this "How romantic!" comment...even if the possibility exists of it not being totally sincere.

    When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

    by antirove on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 09:56:19 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It was sincere in the sense of philosophical (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antirove

      romanticism vs rationalism, not in the other sense.

      Where are we, now that we need us most?

      by Frank Knarf on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 07:49:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh! Thanks! So it's possible I do resemble the (0+ / 0-)

        remark much more than I thought!  I do have some quibbles with some of the German philosophers.  Kant is so careful and just yet truly annoyingly picky and may be a leading cause of depression amongst college sophomores who thought they knew it all until readinghim. Hegel, you just can't go back to the start with him -- so how is it that that this thesis/antithesis/sythesis schtick could prove his own postulate? It can't so his postulate just 'is', probably he'd want it treated as solid a truth as any Platonic Form.  Goethe -- words fail me, yet I'm somehow inspired...to read other stuff.

        So, I'm trying for either logical romantic or romantic logician, with an 'information-based' metaphysics of apprehension (Whitehead/Spinoza sort of thing) which is, at some level shared by all that is 'reality', but I'm just not sure which part of all that should be the antecedent, predicate, or apriori axiom...I derive myself nuts thinking about this for too long.  

        And I've learned to be very cautious about philiosophies claiming to link in 'quantum physics'--our understandings of fundamental physics seems to change faster than we can come up with new philosophies.  To be, or not to be, it's a statistical probability for quantum particles to potentially be either, until there's an observation causing it to be 'realized' one way or another...which takes us back to wondering if there is a Prime Observer experiencing this all with us...or maybe not, unless we can observe that sort of charmed quirky quarkiness.  It gets sort of close to "I observe therefore It Is something to me." Just don't all of us blink at the same time.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:18:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are interpretive frameworks for QM that (0+ / 0-)

          do not depend on an observation collapsing the wave function.  If you want the next physics Nobel, come up with some method of experimentally distinguishing one of them from the others.

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:22:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site