The volume gives an overview of scientism definitions and pros and cons of the most commonly used definitions. For me it proves to be important to beThe volume gives an overview of scientism definitions and pros and cons of the most commonly used definitions. For me it proves to be important to be critical on science claims. In these days some scientists like Stephen Hawking claim that physics has taken the place of philisophy and points out that physics unravels the reality fully. No doubt science has done humanity much good. But as this volume makes clear there is more knowledge that just the scientific knowledge. Moreover there are certain fields were science cannot offer insight. And the issue even is that our logic in itself has flaws so we have to be humble to what extent we cam understand. The book takes a while to work through but it cetrainly is worthwhile....more
This book contains the chapters of different thinkers on specific subjects. The title offers a bigger expectation but all chapters are loose partsThis book contains the chapters of different thinkers on specific subjects. The title offers a bigger expectation but all chapters are loose parts with no real red line. Some chapters are interesting but in that case it is better to read more on the author at hand than some pages. ...more
Interesting review of Chinese philosophers which gives an alternative view on the current Western individual thinking of being authentical and lookingInteresting review of Chinese philosophers which gives an alternative view on the current Western individual thinking of being authentical and looking inside yourself. It helps to realise that looking insight brings a serious risk that you cannot develop since you miss the opportunities and lessons that can be learned outside yourself....more
Interesting book which offers insight in the different philosophers and their significance: Descartes, who dared to give the skepticism full way tryingInteresting book which offers insight in the different philosophers and their significance: Descartes, who dared to give the skepticism full way trying to cope with it. He found a basis in his own mind and thinking as ground for knowledge building (as a brilliant mathematician) which is often defined as rationalism but he was also very much into experience as basis to check the build knowledge (empirism). Hobbes, he was a materialist believing that everything has a physical content the non physical does not exist so the spirit is non existing and God must also be physical. This was new and next to that he had a new view on government were he advocated a king with absolute powers who had the responsibility to take care of his people. Abuse of this power would not take place since their was no reason for the king to do so (he would violate the law of nature and violate Gods commandments). New in this was that he described government independent of religion. Spinoza criticized the traditional religious beliefs and saw God as unknown and distant who was not interested in human affairs. He was the first who was sceptic about the Bible because this was written by humans who make mistakes. He countered the supernatural: God does not violate natural laws because he is nature. He trusted science to understand everything including all so called wonders. Humans for their part need to live lives of joy and love. He believed that the natural laws created by God were leading ( determinist). He was excommunicated and seen as an atheist. Locke. His opinions on how to govern a state was inspirational for the French revolution and the US constitution. He advocated the concept of the implicit social contract between the king and his people based on trustHe is exemplary for the British common sense and British empirism encouraging people to think for themselves. Bayle. He was not an atheist but was keen on not accepting non valid arguments and good solid reasoning. Leibniz. Very talented scholar (mathematics) and researcher on a lot of different fields. He had lots of ideas but found it hard to finish them of because of new insights and issues to think about. He described the meta physical world where the basic elements of reality are so called "monads" following their own independent path. They were created at the start of the world except the monad God who is the creator of everything and independent of matter. Hume. Between all monads is a harmony created by God from the start. Monads are not inside real objects but play a role in it. Matter in itself is passive there are small particles inside who all have a monad in them as a kind of soul. The world is explained by cause of work (cause and effect relations) and goal causes (goals for something strives). Thanks to monads could he acknowledge the goal causes from the mechanical philosophy and understand these in a concept of the universe ruled by God. He wanted to align science and religion and integrate the past knowledge with the new. He thought there was determinism which he called the principle of sufficient reason.
Hume. Is loved by many because he ruined the rest, he advocated naturalism (no place for the supernatural and he considered religion not as source to gain insight or knowledge) and he saw no difference between man and animal and thirdly his positive character. He said that knowledge is purely formed out of fallible experience we think that that was happened in the past will also happen in the future. This is the induction problem and until today it remains an issue whether this sound and logical thinking but Hume considered it as good instincts were people benefit from in order ton survive. He said that real knowledge had to be based on ideas which had to be mathematical and with numbers or experience about factual relations and existence. If these two conditions are met (fork of Hume) we can speak of knowledge. Theology is not about factual relations nor ideal relations and is therefore not relevant. He rejects therefore also the design hypothesis by a god because there is no experience basis and it cannot be deductively proven. With regard to miracles he was very skeptical. ...more
Goede beschrijving van het spanningsveld tussen rationaliteit en geloof. Vooral de uitleg over Kant vond ik verhelderend. Kant stelt dat God door deGoede beschrijving van het spanningsveld tussen rationaliteit en geloof. Vooral de uitleg over Kant vond ik verhelderend. Kant stelt dat God door de mens ontstaan is en niet andersom. De doelgerichtheid in de schepping en de moraliteit in de mens laat zien wie God is, Hij is een logische en zelfs noodzakelijke verklaring voor deze beide zaken. Zijn bestaan kan echter niet bewezen worden want je kunt niet iets bewijzen wat buiten je staat en wat zich alleen in je denken openbaart. De schrijfster noemt zich ook daarom, denk ik, een agnost niet wetend of God bestaat, ik zou willen zeggen dat ik het logisch vind dat God wel bestaat maar dat ik het niet kan bewijzen.
De werkelijkheid die zich uit in muziek en zich vormt door woorden staat ook buiten het "wetemschappelijke" kader. Muziek is trillingen van lucht maar de mens neemt wat anders waar. Het mysterie is voor mij hiermee wel weer compleet. ...more
The analysis offers an interesting overview on the developping and possible styles of science. It is broad and descriptive and the styles are a goodThe analysis offers an interesting overview on the developping and possible styles of science. It is broad and descriptive and the styles are a good means for making the overview. It did not meet my full expectations though because I was looking for the development of the concept of truth over the ages. The truth concept is more deductionistic I think and the concepts of truth knowledge are concepts that are closely related. In that sense the book was really interesting....more
It took me quite some time to work this book through but it was worthwhile. Pojman offers a concise and good overview on the epistomology work fieldIt took me quite some time to work this book through but it was worthwhile. Pojman offers a concise and good overview on the epistomology work field and challenges to build your own understanding. I felt personnally challenged to keep the rational attitude which belongs to me as a child of the Enlightment thus open for change of beliefs if the evidence is there. The study of the content of this book does not stop on first reading.It will take me more time to digest. ...more
Ter Linden brengt het geloof terug tot wat volgens hem de kern is en dat is het overleven van de mensheid. De kern om te overleven is ook geëvolueerdTer Linden brengt het geloof terug tot wat volgens hem de kern is en dat is het overleven van de mensheid. De kern om te overleven is ook geëvolueerd en is nu volgnes hem uiteindelijk de waarden van liefde, trouw en rechtvaardigheid. Hij definieert deze termen vanuit de Christelijke traditie die door de de wijsheid van het Joodse volk ontstaan zijn. Hij ziet geen basis om God als een persoon boven onze werkelijkheid te zien. Hij ervaart dat niet en vindt het ook niet logisch gezien de wetenschappelijke kennis van evolutie en biologie. Ik vind het jammer dat ter Linden geen ruimte voor het mysterie laat. Hij heeft alles binnen zijn kennisraam verklaard op deze manier maar of het waar is weet hij ook niet. Het is de vraag of er meerdere werkelijkheden zijn. Heeft alles een reden of is toeval de basis? De essentiële waarden die hij noemt en die hij de kern tot overleven noemt snap ik wel, er zit inderdaad ontwikkeling in de mensheid en we worden 'beschaafder' lijkt het wel. Voor het bovennatuurlijke is bij hem geen ruimte meer en hij gelooft dan ook niet het meta fysische. Ik heb waardering voor zijn eerlijkheid maar vind hem teveel doorslaan en te simpel in zijn oplossing omdat hij de wetenschap op een (te) hoog voetstuk plaatst. De kennis van de natuurwetenschap (en onze menselijke beperkingen) is per definitie tijdelijk en beperkt en het is dan ook gevaarlijk daar je alleen op te baseren. ...more
Ik gebruik dit als naslagwerk als bepaalde ideeen of denkers wil bestuderen. Ik ben begonnen met de Verlichting en Kant en vind het goed en helderIk gebruik dit als naslagwerk als bepaalde ideeen of denkers wil bestuderen. Ik ben begonnen met de Verlichting en Kant en vind het goed en helder beschreven....more
Het boek viel me tegen de schrijver gaat met name in de delen over zelfmoord en de staat Israel wat mij betreft buiten de scope van waar het boekHet boek viel me tegen de schrijver gaat met name in de delen over zelfmoord en de staat Israel wat mij betreft buiten de scope van waar het boek belooft over te gaan. In de eerste hoofdstukken wordt wel een logisch verhaal weg gezet over de beperkingen van de visie dat de mens identiek is aan zijn brein. De biologie is wat anders als de psychologie. De geest bestaat dankzij en bij gratie van de machine maar kan niet tot die machine herleid worden. De schrijver gelooft ook niet dat de mens volledig door onbewuste processen geleid worden. Het feit dat de hersenen al het besluit genomen lijken te hebben (meetbare electrische veranderingen een fractie voor het besluit valt) overtuigt hem niet omdat de kennis van de hersenen voor dit zgn. " bewijs" te beperkt is. (Blz 35). De schrijver noemt zich dan ook neo dualist. Zijn godsbeeld blijft echter zeer vaag....more
Interesting book, Jim Holt has an entertaining style and it was especially interesting to learn about the modern philosophers he visited in the courseInteresting book, Jim Holt has an entertaining style and it was especially interesting to learn about the modern philosophers he visited in the course of writing the book. In the end no conclusion is presented but that is understandable. ...more
Book gives a good overview about the Enlightment and more specific 2 parties the more moderate ones who wanted to fit the ideas in the existing orderBook gives a good overview about the Enlightment and more specific 2 parties the more moderate ones who wanted to fit the ideas in the existing order and the revolutionary party who realises that fitting in contradicts with the basic ideas of the Enlightment. Interesting to see that some ideas such as ' the reason' are not defined and more or less accepted as general truths....more
In this book Plantinga offers a fair discussion on the relation between religion, secience and naturalism. I thought it very much clarifying toIn this book Plantinga offers a fair discussion on the relation between religion, secience and naturalism. I thought it very much clarifying to understand how the power of the so called scientific world needs to be investigated in more detail to understand their way of reasoning and how these scientists come to their conclusions. Plantinga does not claim to have full understanding but wants to have clear reasoning and a fair debat which I only can support. As we see in an increasing number of publications the simple worship of knowledge only from a so called scientific view point ( empirical evidence and reasoning) is challenged more. In a world and being which is not easy to understand this helps in getting a better picture. A very good book good book which has been most helpfull to me....more
Good book with clear vision on the limitations of empiric science which is very valuable but when we take it as the only source of truth the realityGood book with clear vision on the limitations of empiric science which is very valuable but when we take it as the only source of truth the reality of life which included a.o. morality and beauty is jeopardised. ...more
Een zeer goede begrijpelijke inleiding in de filosofie waarin de hoofdlijnen en de vraagstellingen waarop antwoorden gezocht worden duidelijk zijnEen zeer goede begrijpelijke inleiding in de filosofie waarin de hoofdlijnen en de vraagstellingen waarop antwoorden gezocht worden duidelijk zijn aangegeven. Ook de verschillende mogelijke antwoorden zijn vervolgens overzichtelijk weergegeven....more
Loading...
