Seneca maintains that the greatest purpose in life is to achieve happiness, but not the empty and short-lived happinessHappiness is one serious matter
Seneca maintains that the greatest purpose in life is to achieve happiness, but not the empty and short-lived happiness of a fool while indulging in excessive pleasures or a carnivore when it comes across its prey, but rather a state of fearlessness, tranquility, self-control, and indifference to all that life brings.
The only way to accomplish this state of happiness is by living a virtuous and moral life, which means living in moderation and in harmony with nature.
Even though nature created us pure and free, Seneca believes that nobody is good by chance, as virtues, the ultimate good, can only be learned. Therefore, by a properly guided reason and clear consciousness we can attain this virtuousness that will lead us to wisdom; the gateway to happiness.
Besides the degree of indifference and detachment suggested by the Stoics along with the individual freedom to take one's own life, which gives this philosophy an esoteric feel to it, these Letters to Lucilius by Seneca are an excellent choice of a self-improvement book which I highly recommend....more
An intricate prose poem comprised of language and logic arithmetic
Consciousness is the pure I, the absolute essence, that when confronted with anotherAn intricate prose poem comprised of language and logic arithmetic
Consciousness is the pure I, the absolute essence, that when confronted with another, becomes a self-consciousness, a conscious ego, aware of its actual existence, that through reason or its equivalent, the Notion, becomes certain that all is a reality.
The unity of these shared notions or ideas amongst the people or a community take form of the being or Spirit. The Spirit, through its various shapes and forms, has and will, throughout time, continuously evolve and progress endeavoring to achieve a utopian state.
Hence, the totality of consciousness, self-consciousness, and reason constitutes a Spirit; a synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity. The intensity of the Spirit is directly proportional to self-consciousness; the more self-aware we are the Spirit becomes more complete.
Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) runs us through all the development stages of consciousness that he believes eventually lead to the absolute knowing....more
Epicurus and his renowned school of thought teaches us to pursue happiness by relishing life's pleasures. However, not the pleasures that you might haEpicurus and his renowned school of thought teaches us to pursue happiness by relishing life's pleasures. However, not the pleasures that you might have in mind, such as living in luxury, engaging in consumerism, and indulging in sensual elations, but more learning to release one's body of pain and mind of anticipation and anxieties.
Epicurus recommends a simple and healthier lifestyle that will maximize one's happiness. Although, to achieve happiness we have to begin with structuring our lives differently, changing our habits, mindset, and perceptions of things. In particular, we should frequently surround ourselves with friends, live unseen or without attracting attention from the public eye, free ourselves from everyday affairs and politics and create or become part of close-knit self-sufficient communes, even if it means living below your means or professions. A virtuous life that will bring you peace of mind.
Epicurus' advice on faith and God is to entirely free ourselves of superstitions and never ask a God for what we can obtain ourselves as he doesn't mingle in everyday affairs.
Epicurus (341-270 BCE) is an Empiricist and The Essential Epicurus are a few fragments of works and remaining letters written to his students discussing both cosmological and ethical questions. Almost all of the Epicurean 300 written works are lost but his philosophy influenced many of the later thinkers, namely Karl Marx who did a PhD thesis on Epicurus and his philosophy. ...more
Self-consciousness is a window though which we observe that will in itself is the fundamental element of nature. This innate inclination of the will iSelf-consciousness is a window though which we observe that will in itself is the fundamental element of nature. This innate inclination of the will is the force behind human evolution and thus our intelligence that in turn is forever indebted and enslaved to serve the power of the insatiable will.
However during this weary cycle of efforts and outcomes, causes and effects, desire and need, struggle and pain is inescapable; a viscous circle of life that ends with a tragedy.
Hence the only permanent escape from this painful endeavor and attainment of absolute happiness is by negation of the will to....
Realizing this and not being blindsided to believe that life is something of an ideal, Schopenhauer in his The Wisdom of Life provides arguments and advice on how to make the best out of this life that the fate of nature has for the most part already sealed.
Here are a few selected excerpts from the book which I liked:
"Health outweighs all other blessings so much that one may really say that a healthy beggar is happier than an ailing king."
"...two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom...Needy surroundings and poverty produce pain; while, if a man is more than well off, he is bored."
"An intellectual...in complete solitude has excellent entertainment in his own thoughts..."
"...hope...a moral support for intellectual weakness."
"...only fools will prefer rank to property."
"To be happy means to be self-sufficient."
"Riches, one might say, are like sea-water: the more you drink the thirstier you become; and the same is true of Fame."
"Fame is something which must be won; honor, only something which must not be lost."
"Everything else can satisfy only one wish, one need; food is good only if you are hungry; wine, if you are able to enjoy it; drugs, if you are sick; fur for the winter; love for the youth, and so on. These are all only relatively good. Money alone is absolutely good, because it is not only a concrete satisfaction of one need in particular; it is an abstract satisfaction of all."
"The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise, he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellow-men."...more
Even though the Two Treatises of Government was published anonymously in the year 1689, the Editor of this book's edition, Peter Laslett, argues that Even though the Two Treatises of Government was published anonymously in the year 1689, the Editor of this book's edition, Peter Laslett, argues that the two Treatises were written between the years of 1679-1683, well before the publishing and The Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. Furthermore, Laslett claims that the Second Treatise was written first, and the First Treatise, second, while there remains a possibility of a missing, third part. Challenging times for writers and freethinkers.
The First Treatise is devoted to refuting Sir Robert Filmer's defense of monarchy and patriarchalism, in which property, women, and children are subjects of a father, and the father's subjects of the King. This is all in line with Filmer's central argument, loosely based on Scriptural writings, that God created Adam and the world at his disposal, which makes Adam our first king and the sole proprietor of everything, and all rights can only be inherited through his lineage, namely through a male descendant.
However, in Locke's view, all men and women are born free and lived before the first established civil societies in accord with the laws of nature, in what John Locke (1632-1704) refers to as the State of Nature. Where by he believes that the only reason the people are to enter, by mutual consent, into a political community is to better preserve their liberty and secure their property as the property is insufficiently regulated in the State of Nature. Nevertheless, these Civil Societies should be in harmony with the natural rights enjoyed in the State of Nature. Locke goes on further to discuss the necessity of the separation of the legislative and executive powers, the people's rights to retain instruments to overthrow governments, and that an individual's "labor of his body and the work of his hands" are to remain in their possession.
Locke, a philosopher, and a physician began studying and writing about government and politics once he came under the influence of the first earl of Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper).
Spinoza's and Descartes' impact on Locke's philosophy is evident but his philosophy remains original. A great book with a lengthy biographical introduction of John Locke who is today commonly known as the Father of Liberalism. Worth reading....more
Human understanding all begins with the elementary particles and grasping how these mindless elements of matter formed our bodies to become conscious Human understanding all begins with the elementary particles and grasping how these mindless elements of matter formed our bodies to become conscious of themselves and their existence.
Even though Locke, a staunch proponent of empiricism, believes our minds to be a tabula rasa that are equipped with no inborn ideas or principles and that can only be filled by experiences, also recognizes our mind's intuitive knowledge, which is sufficient to deduce, amongst other things, our existence. Intuitive knowledge, or self-evident knowledge, is Locke's first, clearest, and most certain type of knowledge (e.g. white is not black and a triangle is not a circle).
Locke goes on to discuss the two other forms of knowledge: demonstrative and sensitive. Where the former is not self-evident but is derived from axioms and through which meditation we acquire the existence of God, and the latter knowledge is our experience of the existence of external objects detected by our senses.
Locke claims that all of our knowledge is derived from experience by way of our senses (sight, being the most comprehensive of our senses). This knowledge comes in by way of impressions our minds receive through our senses and through this process of reflecting upon these impressions we create our perceptions or the equivalent: ideas. Consequently, the mind going through this repetitive process becomes furnished with a great number of simple ideas and these simple ideas are the very limits of our knowledge beyond which we know nothing. We can only utilize these simple ideas as ingredients to formulate complex ideas. For all these ideas humans have created sounds (words) to distinguish one from the other, hence, we've developed a close connection between these words and ideas keeping in mind that many of these words we begin to use prior to understanding their meanings and many of these words are minted and derived from the illiterate humans of the distant past.
Locke also discusses our innate yearning for happiness, aversion to misery, and the pursuit of happiness being the greatest good.
This is an essay mostly on epistemology and an attempt to refute the a priori rationalist philosophers such as Rene Descartes even though Locke utilizes many of Descartes's ideas as a foundation for his own....more
It was right before David Hume's (1711-76) sixteenth birthday that he began to write his A Treaties of Human Nature. It took him 10 years to prepare aIt was right before David Hume's (1711-76) sixteenth birthday that he began to write his A Treaties of Human Nature. It took him 10 years to prepare a draft which he published in three volumes between 1739-1740.
Hume, a Scottish philosopher and a moderate skeptic, attempts to introduce the method of reasoning into moral subjects. He saw how successful the experimental method was in natural philosophy and thought it logical to utilize that same method to develop a science of human nature and its founding principles. Rather than explaining the nature of things, Hume attempts to explain the nature and causes of our perceptions of those things.
Hume argues that only perceptions and nothing else is present in the human mind and that these perceptions, amongst other things, produce the conscious feeling of the idea of the self. Hume divides perceptions into two parts; impressions which are directly and firstly derived from our experiences and are stronger of the two perceptions. Second, the ideas which are followed by the initial impressions and are the weaker perception. Hence, ideas are a fainter copy or derivative of our impressions.
In this book, which felt like a chore reading it, Hume presents his arguments on several other subjects such as how time can only be discovered by perceivable succession of changeable objects and that parts of time cannot coexist.
That nothing finite can contain an infinite number of parts, therefore, no finite extension is infinitely divisible. Also, promises and the idea of justice or injustice are human inventions artificially emanated through education and societies and are not stemmed by nature.
I am not sure I would recommend this unabridged edition to anyone. Perhaps one can just read Hume's later work or his abstract of the Treaties of Human Nature....more
"Nothing is more free than the imagination of man."
David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher and a radical and uncompromising empiricist, discuss"Nothing is more free than the imagination of man."
David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher and a radical and uncompromising empiricist, discusses epistemology in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748).
Hume's central argument is that knowledge cannot be attained through reasoning a priori and that ancient and modern philosophers are most guilty of this exaggerated claim. Instead, knowledge can only occur through experience and no conclusion can be drawn without the assistance of observation and experience through our senses, hence, nothing can be proved a priori.
Furthermore, Hume goes on to discuss how the experiences from our past can only act as suppositions for our future claims and that: "These records of wars, intrigues, factions, and revolutions, are so many collections of experiments, by which the politician or moral philosopher fixes the principles of his science."
A concise and comprehensible read that I enjoyed and a philosophy that entirely shifts us away from metaphysics. This edition also includes Letter from a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh (1745) and An Abstract of A Treatise of Nature (1740)....more
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how reli"No book is ever free from faults..."
The Theological-Political Treatise provides an in-depth critique of the Old and New Testament along with how religion and the various system of governments have worked and function alongside each other.
I found Baruch Spinoza's (1632-1677) scrutiny of the Scriptures quite persuasive and brave for the time and setting in which they were written. Spinoza formulates bold arguments, such as, that it was a single historian Ezra who wrote the Torah and that faith is merely based on history and language derived from scriptures and revelations. Spinoza argues that the Prophets derived their claims from their vivid imagination, human's lowest level of cognitive development, and not reasoning, man's greatest cognitive gift. Spinoza contends that the human's power of reasoning is superior to any theological work: "The domain of reason, as we have said, is truth and wisdom, the domain of theology is piety and obedience". He equates God to nature as he sees the processes of nature and God as one, yet, "nobody knows by nature that he has any duty to obey God".
This was a captivating read. I enjoyed Spinoza's interpretation and examination of the Scripture language and his method of demonstrating how the various texts are contradicting and are opposed to reason or the laws of nature. Spinoza also elaborates on his support for a democratic secular state with each individual's right to freedom of expression. This edition comes with a well-written introduction (sometimes reading a great introduction to a non-fiction book feels like examining the topic of the book twice). All in all, I look forward to reading more from this Dutch (Jewish) philosopher....more
"Why do you read anyway - for the sake of amusement or mere erudition? Those are poor, fatuous pretexts. Reading should serve the goal of attaining pe"Why do you read anyway - for the sake of amusement or mere erudition? Those are poor, fatuous pretexts. Reading should serve the goal of attaining peace; if it doesn't make you peaceful, what good is it?"
Epictetus' Discourses and Selected Writings read like a self-improvement book, but an ancient one, written two millennia ago in the Roman Empire. Epictetus (c.55-135 CE) was a Greek freedman and quite an articulate Stoic philosopher, although these Discourses where written and published by his student Arrian.
Epictetus' emphasis is solely on mental health and how to maintain and improve its fitness. First we must be persistent in alleviating ourselves of feelings, or better yet, perceptions of jealousy, anxiety, anger, and fear. Easier said than done! But how do we achieve this state of emotional stability and inner tranquility? We have to expect and prepare ourselves for disappointment and remain indifferent to things that are not in our power and are beyond our control. We must detach ourselves from all material things and practice self-control in order not to succumb to desires while looking down upon any material things and all externals that are outside of our sphere of influence.
Epictetus also discusses the correct way to evaluate and utilize our impressions and the importance of the will. He especially praises the philosophies and philosophers, Socrates and Diogenes, but criticizes and mocks Epicurus. This tells me I should read Epicurus as a GR friend already recommended.
Stoicism feels like an applied philosophy that teaches those that wish to follow it to continually "persist and resist" the pains and pleasures in any and most extreme circumstances in order to reach true freedom and happiness all in harmony with nature and belief in God....more
Nicomachean Ethics (349 BCE) deals with assessing and defining the finest behavior of humans toward themselves, others, and their surroundings. AristoNicomachean Ethics (349 BCE) deals with assessing and defining the finest behavior of humans toward themselves, others, and their surroundings. Aristotle seeks to distinguish and construct an ideal person using selected character traits known as virtues. These virtues are both intellectual and moral (intellectual ranking above moral) and are best attained through the act of repetitiveness and from an adequate role model. Achieving these virtuous principles will guide one to do the right thing, hence, become a better person.
Yet, how do we know what is good or bad and how can we assess what is right or wrong? Since virtues are the building blocks of goodness, Aristotle claims that they are found between the two extreme vices. A midpoint between the deficiency and excess of a particular virtue. For instance, courage is the midpoint between its deficiency, which is cowardliness, and its excess, which is recklessness. Thus, reaching the highest pinnacle of good, will require a person of moderate behavior.
But what's in it for us? Why should one live an ethical life and be good? Well, in order to reach the ultimate goal, life's most meaningful purpose, the utmost reward. No, not necessarily eternal bliss in the hereafter, but primarily to attain happiness in this lifetime. Besides the virtues, having a few good friends, enjoying some permissible pleasures, and having good fortuity will make happiness more achievable.
For those of you, like myself, who wondered why the book is titled "Nicomachean" Ethics. For starters, the term was never mentioned in the book, but, apparently, Aristotle dedicated the book to his father and or son that were both named Nicomachus, hence, Nicomachean....more
The book opens with a brief dialog between Socrates, Timaeus, Hermocrates, and Critias, which swiftly retrogrades into a long monologue by Timaeus himThe book opens with a brief dialog between Socrates, Timaeus, Hermocrates, and Critias, which swiftly retrogrades into a long monologue by Timaeus himself, during which time Socrates sits quietly and listens.
Timaeus, from Locri, Italy, is a fictional character and his monologue is in fact Plato's lecture, but the philosophy presented bears a resemblance to the one of Pythagoras.
Plato (c.427-347 BCE) in Timaeus c.360 BCE discusses the origins and principles of cosmology; from the creation of the cosmos to the nature of things and humans physiology, sensory perceptions, and the well-being and maladies of the body and soul.
In Timaeus, Demiurge is the artisan that brings the cosmos from a disorderly state to an orderly harmony. The creator, Demiurge, is good and he builds a cosmos similar to himself. Timaeus' cosmos is beautiful, perfect, and a visible living being, like an organism, that is created on insightful principles in which Demiurge placed the mind into the soul and the soul into the body.
Timaeus believes that only a single spherical universe exists with a round rotating floating Earth at its center. A universe in which the Earth and all the other heavenly bodies are created and immortal and the earthly beings created but mortal.
The elements that constitute matter: water (fluid), air (gas), earth (solid), and fire (plasma) are shaped in various geometrical bodies (Platonic solids) in which the triangles they are composed of are the elementary particles of nature.
Timaeus' cosmos is mechanistic and emerged from mathematical knowledge that is governed by necessity and the divine. A universe in which energy remains constant and the observable moving image of eternal space flows to the pulse of a number that we call time.
Plato's Timaeus reads like a mythical prose poem which was apparently influenced by the “three Pythagorean books” published by Philolaus that Plato bought and Timon of Phlius said: "Well, you too, Plato, were obsessed with the desire to acquire followers; and because of it, for much money, you bought a small book, and from it, you learned to write Timaeus." Fact of fiction, we'll never know, but I like to think that Timaeus is a product of Plato's and Pythagorean philosophy....more
It's fascinating to notice in Aristotle's books, which are over two millennia old, that he is always properly citing his sources and quoting the preceIt's fascinating to notice in Aristotle's books, which are over two millennia old, that he is always properly citing his sources and quoting the preceding philosophers. In essence, he does not attempt to take any recognition for someone else's ideas and in return implements a high ethical standard of referencing his sources.
In Aristotle's On the Generation and Corruption (350 BCE) (this title in English is a bit inadequate) he discusses the characteristics of matter, the "stuff" we're made of and surrounded by. Do things come to be and pass away? Or is everything a product or a result of alteration? All this associated me with the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy is always conserved, therefore, cannot be created or destroyed or as Aristotle puts it: “the corruption of one thing is the generation of another and vice versa.”
Aristotle accepts Empedocles' notion that matter is composed of the four elements: earth, being the heaviest, then water, air, and the lightest, fire. But unlike Plato's elements that have a particular shape, Aristotle's elements do not differ in shape, and there are a limited number of them, not infinity, as Democritus claims.
Although, its Democritus' concept and description of matter that is more in line with today's modern science. Democritus states that matter is made of small, invisible, indivisible, uncreated, moving, and indestructible atoms and between them lies a void. Aristotle disagrees with this notion but does show admiration for Democritus and his work.
In my view, this book was more insightful than Aristotle's On the Heavens but less compelling than his Physics or Metaphysics. In any case, I look forward to reading more of Aristotle in the future....more
"I wish to provide an interpretation of nature that will rest on a certain foundation laid out by none other than myself, so that I may know to what e"I wish to provide an interpretation of nature that will rest on a certain foundation laid out by none other than myself, so that I may know to what extent I can believe in that interpretation."
Lomonosov states that the way experimentation is conducted in his time accompanied by mathematical expression is an insufficient method for understanding nature. He argues that in order to comprehend the characteristics and behavior of nature, we must employ all of our senses, including our chemical senses: taste and smell. Rather than simply observing and recording nature's phenomena, we must mix nature's elements, dissolve and separate them, while cooling and heating them, in order to fully comprehend the matter by which we are surrounded. Lastly, we should not sever philosophy from science as the freedom of philosophizing on nature is an effective tool to interpret things.
If this was a novel, which it is not, Lomonosov would be our narrator, and the central character his love for chemistry.
Corpuscular Philosophy: Selected Works (1738-1765) is written by Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765) a Russian polymath who's known, among other things, for discovering the law of conservation of mass in chemical reactions and the atmosphere of Venus.
Prior to reading this book, I didn't know much about Corpuscular Theory. But when I hear the words Corpuscular Theory, two names and one image comes to mind; Descartes and Newton for the former, and a stream of particles for the latter. Even though the original Corpuscular Theory was mostly abandoned but later, from the 18-20th century, to some extent, was revived and redefined.
Lomonosov begins with the assumption that all matter is made up of imperceptible and indivisible physical particles where each particle possesses a force of inertia. These particles are in constant rotational, translational, and oscillating motion. All of Lomonosov's descriptions of particles associated me with 20th-century atomic physics.
He argues that all observable bodies consist of corpuscles, where heat is contained in the internal movements of these bodies. He defines a corpuscle as a set of elements that make up a small mass that is round in shape, where between the corpuscles lies an interspace filled with an imperceptible fluid matter. The corpuscles are in constant motion, some indivisible and others colorful, continually being created and decomposed. These illustrations reminded me of what we know today as molecules, compounds, cells, and photons. Also, what we refer to today as "gravitational waves", Lomonosov refers to it as "gravitational fluid".
Lomonosov presents in these 22 selected works the fundamental principles of chemistry. He is an exquisite writer who capable of adapting his style of writing and adjusting his tone in writing that suits the occasion. For instance, in his scientific papers, he is lucid and concise. In his letter to, Leonhard Euler, he uses an unassertive tone like a humble student would when writing to their mentor in the 18th century. His speech to the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences is poetic and one of confidence, inspiration, and authority. While his open letter to a Leipzig journalist, a book critic, is harsh and sardonic as the journalist "groundlessly" criticized one of his theories. Lomonosov is a versatile and accomplished individual and writer and I look forward to reading more of his work, perhaps, I would be most interested in reading his biography....more
Rene Descartes claims that a trustworthy correspondence does not exist between our sensations and that what is causing them. Therefore, our five exterRene Descartes claims that a trustworthy correspondence does not exist between our sensations and that what is causing them. Therefore, our five external senses can often deceive our internal common sense which will consequently affect how we perceive things and as a result lead us to draw faulty conclusions. Hence, Descartes replaces the unreliable method of deducing truth through our physical senses, with rationalism.
Descartes' universe is mechanistic and the human body a machine. He asserts that the universe plays by the rules of his Three Laws of Nature which are surprisingly similar to Newton's Three Laws of Motion published 50 years later. In Descartes' universe, everything is comprised of matter made of tiny particles called corpuscles that are similar to atoms. He believes that the universe is a perfect solid in which motion is conserved with no empty spaces, anywhere, not even between the particles as previously (and now) thought. Just as we are unable to observe the air around us that doesn't mean the space we're surrounded by is empty. Therefore, Descartes claims that emptiness is filled with some type of matter as well. Perhaps he was referring to what we call today dark matter or dark energy?
The World and Other Writings (1629-1633) is written in a simple and approachable language with comprehensible everyday life examples. Thus, not as densely written as his Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. This book covers several subjects: cosmology, physics, anatomy, physiology, and more. I found his chapters on the phenomena of reflection and refraction of light most original through the example of the rainbow. Descartes also correctly assumes the existence of other planetary systems and that they border one another and our Solar system. Of course, some of the science is dated as the book was written 400 years ago, same as the science we rely on today will perhaps be dated 400 years in the future, but that should not stop us from reading it....more
Immanuel Kant is proof that one does not have to be an exceptional mathematician or a scientist to comprehend and unravel the origins and evolution ofImmanuel Kant is proof that one does not have to be an exceptional mathematician or a scientist to comprehend and unravel the origins and evolution of the cosmos.
Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1755) explores our silent and orderly cosmic structure and the mechanical principles of its celestial bodies that are constrained to self-governing laws of nature.
Kant claims that the universe developed from raw material and out of primordial chaos. A universe with a common mid-point around which the suns and their planets revolve. He believes that we must live in a limitless cosmos without borders with infinite planetary systems, as we cannot have a Devine eternity without spatial infinity. We occupy an expanding universe that will continuously develop and create new planetary systems and galaxies; a universe in which creation is never completed but repeated.
Although the planetary systems of our universe will eventually decay and collapse, nevertheless, the creation of new planetary systems will make up for their loss. Just as nature, which began in chaos, was capable of bringing itself into beautiful structural order, it can, over and over again, after its destruction, rise from its ashes into a collective harmony. Much of Kant's vision of the universe is in line with the modern view of the cosmos.
Kant correctly presumes that other planets, within our Solar system, exist beyond Saturn (Uranus was discovered in 1781 and Neptune in 1846). Kant also made a pivotal contribution to our understanding of nebulas.
He even entertains the idea that most planets will be or are inhabited, and that the quality of the inhabitant's material composition and level of spirituality increases proportionally with the distance from their sun.
There is a nice flow to this writing and a comprehensible thought process. He is capable of conveying a single thought in numerous expressions. If you want to learn the mechanics of the heavenly bodies, from this period in time, you should read Newton and Kepler, but if you desire to learn about the cosmos, as a whole, without being bogged down with mathematical formulas, Kant is the way to go....more
Immanuel Kant examines the characteristics and behavior of matter and how information that we acquire about matter is predominantly derived from our eImmanuel Kant examines the characteristics and behavior of matter and how information that we acquire about matter is predominantly derived from our experiences or observations by way of our senses. However, Kant claims, that the foundation that determines and makes it possible to arrive at empirical knowledge of matter lies in metaphysics. Therefore, some a priori concepts of space, time, and mathematics already exist in our minds that we are born with and subsequently these concepts predetermine how we comprehend things. So the way we perceive matter and the material world is through these built-in ideas, and through these hardwired spectacles, we experience things and arrive at what we know as knowledge. Hence, the knowledge we acquire in the natural sciences is grounded in metaphysics.
Furthermore, Kant perceives matter as something infinitely divisible, although through experience can never be endlessly divided. A matter capable of being compressed to infinity, but not expanded to infinity as the matter would eventually lose its density and leave an empty universe. But the cosmos will not end-up empty, Kant argues, owing to the balance between the repulsive and attractive forces that maintain a clockwork universe.
The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science is written in the late 18th century, where by that time much of the mechanical physics has been laid out by scientists such as Newton, his contemporaries and predecessors, and mathematics had become so complex that left relatively little room for philosophers to contribute and difficult to catch-up and this new reality was noticeable in this book. Not that you can compare the two, but I found Kant's Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens that he wrote at 31 years of age, a more fascinating natural science book than the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science that he wrote 30 years later....more
On the Heavens (350 BCE) is Aristotle's take on "cosmology". Aristotle’s universe is spherical, one, and finite in scale. It is vast in volume and masOn the Heavens (350 BCE) is Aristotle's take on "cosmology". Aristotle’s universe is spherical, one, and finite in scale. It is vast in volume and mass but does not stretch to infinity, and no time or space, not even emptiness, exists beyond it. So, there are no multiple universes (the multiverse) in Aristotle's world. His interpretation of the cosmos is that it was not created, so it is unborn, and it is imperishable, therefore, eternal. Where all the bodies and elements that move in perfect circular motion are reserved only for the heavens and the straight lines and their variants for our sublunary world. A world in which the heavy elements and bodies naturally move downwards, toward the center, and the light ones, move upwards, away from the center.
Everything in Aristotle's universe serves a purpose and nothing in it is excessive or meaningless. He claims that the Earth is small, round, motionless, and composed of and enveloped by the four elements; earth, air, fire, and water and that the Earth sits in the center of the universe where all the heavenly bodies, made up of the pure fifth element, aether, revolve around it.
I would say that the absolute majority of Aristotle's description of the universe is not in line with the discoveries made in cosmology and astronomy in the last half of the millennium. But who can blame him? We don't feel the Earth's rotation, and when we look at the sky, in all directions, it does seem as if we are in the center of something. Furthermore, all the planets and the Sun appear like they are revolving around us. Hence, Aristotle's viewpoint is a rational and logical one that he deduced from observation through his senses. But it seems that we can't depend on our delicate senses and rationality to unravel the cosmos?
Aristotle is also overly critical of his predecessors Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, and Plato and their concept of the universe, but it was these individuals' descriptions of the cosmos, utilizing their mathematics, imagination, mysticism, and reasoning that modern cosmology can find their roots, not in Aristotle's cosmos.
Being a morally virtuous leader will increase the probability of your failure, which can lead you to your downfall, but adhering to your intellectual Being a morally virtuous leader will increase the probability of your failure, which can lead you to your downfall, but adhering to your intellectual virtues and vices (when necessary) will in all likelihood bring you well-being and prosperity. It's that simple, Machiavelli says!
Niccolò Machiavelli's (1469-1527) The Prince (1513) is a rulebook for rulers or those who aspire to be one. He dedicates and gifts this little book to Lorenzo de Medici the young new ruler of Florence who likely never read the book.
Machiavelli in The Prince uses the a posteriori method, along with the examples of historical events, and deduces that in order to be a successful political leader, one has to be pragmatic, calculating, manipulative, and to emulate a role of a genuinely moral person, but not be one. He advises that it's better for your citizens to fear you than to love you, although you must confine and limit your brutality and cruelness, so they don't hate you, as this hatred can jeopardize your political function and safety. Machiavelli goes on in several details on how to organize a state, system of government, military, and how to choose your battles and pick your sides.
A great short read, although, many leaders throughout history, before and after Machiavelli's work, have mastered this art of unscrupulous pragmatism and were able to structure stable governments and nations and lead sustainable military ventures and struggles without having read the book. ...more
The universe is an embodiment of symmetrical patterns and rhythmical movements, where the celestial bodies stroke against the sky to conduct a cosmic The universe is an embodiment of symmetrical patterns and rhythmical movements, where the celestial bodies stroke against the sky to conduct a cosmic harmony of musical sounds.
Kepler proposes that the five regular solid figures are in a proportional distance relationship with the six, then known, planets and behave as a structure for our solar system.
Kepler also explores the audio space of our planetary system in which the Sun is the composer and the source of musical harmony amongst the planets. He finds that the ratio between the two extremes motions of an elliptical orbit (perihelion and aphelion) correlate to a different harmonic interval and that a pair of any two planets will always strive for a perfect consonance. Where the "movements of the heavens are nothing except a certain everlasting polyphony" orchestrated by the Creator.
While reading Harmonices Mundi you get the sense that, Kepler, vision of the universe is an idealistic one, and his approach to philosophy is more Platonic or Pythagorean, rather than Aristotelian, even though his laws of planetary motion were derived from observations by the senses, therefore, are based on empirical evidence i.e. which is more Aristotelian. At times it felt like I was reading about an esoteric science that is substantiated by mathematics expressions. Although, the numerous propositions discussed have not been confirmed or are incorrect, except for one, that is mentioned at the end of the book: the time it takes any one of our planet’s to revolve around the Sun, squared, is proportional to the planet’s average distance from the Sun, cubed. This came to be known as Kepler’s third law of planetary motion. The book is too dense in content and not as clear as I would like it to be, therefore, somewhat difficult to follow but that should be expected when indulging into the mystical realm of the cosmos....more
Loading...
