Philosophy Now Forum

Carol Nicholson considers a possible source of two major differences in approach.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/92/Phil ... ided_Brain

The proper role of philosophy, then, is to be neither the queen of the sciences nor their slave, but to be an equal partner with the sciences, the humanities, and the arts, in standing firmly against the two-pronged dangers of complacent extremism about which Nietzsche warned us over a hundred years ago, and for which Iain McGilchrist offers us an important and timely reminder.

Exactly.


It always seemed foolish to me, to base religious argument purely on a scientific stand point,to prove or disprove, as science is not infallible. Some of the most fundamental questions, that have been argued for hundreds of years, will never be answered by man correctly. Modernity is beginning to realise this and acknowledge it.

reasonvemotion wrote: It always seemed foolish to me, to base religious argument purely on a scientific stand point,to prove or disprove, as science is not infallible. Some of the most fundamental questions, that have been argued for hundreds of years, will never be answered by man correctly. Modernity is beginning to realise this and acknowledge it.

indeed

"The proper role of philosophy, then, is to be neither the queen of the sciences nor their slave, but to be an equal partner with the sciences, ..."

Did anyone else smile at the irony of the article with its promotion and reliance upon the 'scientific' idea of the 'two-sided brain'?

As far as I can check it appears that Jaynes experiments have been contradicted by advances in neuro-imaging technologies, so whilst it is obvious that there are two-hemispheres and that certain mental functions can be grossly localised into them its far from settled, as many appear to think, that its a simple matter of opposing 'analytical' v 'creative' and placing them into the two hemispheres. As is this idea(metaphor) that we 'think' in 'left' and 'right' brain ways, as we 'think' in 'mind' and that appears a whole. I think it would be more useful for Philosophy to think Phenomenologically(whatever that is? As at present it appears an open field ) and think that we 'think' in the representations provided to us by our senses, i.e. visually, audibly, kinesthetically(tactile), etc, and how that can feedback and effect our actual senses or 'thoughts'.

johngalthasspoken wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote: It always seemed foolish to me, to base religious argument purely on a scientific stand point,to prove or disprove, as science is not infallible. Some of the most fundamental questions, that have been argued for hundreds of years, will never be answered by man correctly. Modernity is beginning to realise this and acknowledge it.

indeed

Your god doesn't exist, and science has proven it. Just one example is sufficient to debunk all of Christer religion: evolution happened. Since evolution happened, no Adam, no Eve, no fall from grace, no original sin, and, therefore, no reason for jesus to come and save our asses. Christians claim god created an Adam and Eve, that we did not evolve, and since this is false, the Christian god is also false. Same with the Jewish and Muslim gods. All three of these religions don't have a leg to stand on. Dead city.