tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post3891150959629501850..comments2024-03-19T06:22:40.011-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A FASCINATING QUIRKY BOOKRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-56611913504561690792015-01-23T10:24:22.923-05:002015-01-23T10:24:22.923-05:00Oh,
I had a theory that it was the ability to make...Oh,<br />I had a theory that it was the ability to make fire that had both enlarged our brain (as fire is too dangerous to learn via a purely trial and error method), and made our bodies mainly hair free, as hair is less needed for warmth and is a fire hazard. I therefore dub us, as a species, 'fire monkeys'.<br /><br />On the other point, George Orwell once said "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.". So, faced with another "free-floating intellectual" with opposing views, first ensure that they can see what is in front of their own nose and that you can see what is in front of yours. If both of you can, you're back to square one. However, the meeting of two such people with opposing views is very rare indeed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11464135855185678187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8793879319403714652015-01-21T03:28:05.177-05:002015-01-21T03:28:05.177-05:00Prof.
Two things. The first is related to the Lie...Prof.<br /><br />Two things. The first is related to the Liebenberg thesis: brain size has increased continuously even before Homo sapiens appeared. In this Homo sapiens only continues a general tendency initiated by our pre-human ancestors.<br /><br />This is the second question (I have been reluctant to ask before, as you are now teaching Marx and I wouldn't want to interfere; if you find it inopportune, please let me know): in your Mannheim tutorial you mentioned that Mannheim conceived the "free-floating intellectual" as a workaround to the relativism resulting from the ideology problem. <br /><br />This "free-floating intellectual", however, was clearly a self-serving solution. Besides, how could one defend one's perception of being a "free-floating intellectual", if one were challenged by another would-be "free-floating intellectual" with opposed views?<br /><br />So, Mannheim's solution is not a very good one. But, is there any other solution?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-79556166620877417212015-01-20T22:41:20.869-05:002015-01-20T22:41:20.869-05:00I showed this post to a friend who's a philoso...I showed this post to a friend who's a philosopher of science. He notes that the more commonly cited <i>Cognition in the Wild</i> (http://hci.ucsd.edu/hutchins/citw.html) advances the same thesis, and comments, "The big problem for the view is why, if scientific reasoning is 'fundamentally identical' to tracking cognition that has been part of the human cognitive endowment for 100k years, did modern science only arise in Europe in the 1500s?"Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02998793914690685677noreply@blogger.com