Thursday, February 09, 2012

Galaxy and fallacy

[Nature's Plans? Dear Devinder, I am not sure that Nature has a plan. Where do we find a plan that nature has? Would like you to educate me on that. Regards, Viswa RE: [sbicitizen] Nature's Plans? Dear Nilanjan, Nature simply has no goals about anything… I hope we will do more due diligence rather than simply claim that nature has plans. Regards, Viswa]

[Re: Nature's Plans? Viswa's question cannot be indubitably answered by pointing to Sri Aurobindo's remarks on the matter.  Such a response is no different than asking someone to read the Bible or Koran and believing in whatever is written there!
One would have to have first-hand experience of a greater reality in order to decipher if Nature has a plan, and that is only possible when one has advanced beyond a certain level in Yoga. For the rest, it should be a hypothesis which is provisionally accepted –Sandeep Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo & The Mother]

[Religion and Philosophy: Thinking, Feeling, and Willing the Absolute Posted by Matthew David Segall on February 7, 2012 Footnotes to Plato “Philosophy is the intellectual search for the fundamental truth of things; religion is the attempt to make the truth dynamic in the soul of man.” -Sri Aurobindo
Levi Bryant’s recent post complicates this picture: …the choice of philosophy over religion…cannot be completed by demonstrating that philosophy is the “rational” choice over religion, nor that the claims of religion are inadequate as descriptions of reality. Rather, philosophy only surmounts religion in completing its project of thinking being…]

[The Web Site for Critical Realism | Epistemic and Ontic Fallacies The epistemic fallacy first projects the external world onto a subjective phenomenal map, then the ontic fallacy projects the phenomenal entities of that subjective map back out on the world as objective sense data, of which we have direct perceptual knowledge. So reality independent of thought is first subjectified, then the subjectified elements are objectified to explain and justify our knowledge.]

I am not sure that Nature has a plan. The first part of this statement relates to epistemology and the second to ontology, thus turning it a sitting duck for Roy Bhaskar’s famous fallacies. Besides, both Husserl and Gödel also would agree on the absurdity of such a demand. Finally, Sri Aurobindo’s Logic of the Infinite and Exclusive Concentration come to the rescue, but reading The Life Divine takes about a year. [TNM55]

No comments:

Post a Comment