Basically I agree with Woj.
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Maybe you could elaborate why you think Heidegger's
> anti-science approach is
> "good " ?
>
>
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> [WS:] I am not an expert on Heidegger, but based on
> what I read, he does not
> strike me as being "anti-science." He merely
> objects to a certain mode of
> science that developed in modernity and substitutes
> action for
> understanding, that is to say, concentrates on
> constant, almost ritualistic,
> research activities -or "research activistism" as
> Doug would say.
>
>
>
> Personally, I do not think that there is any
> "understanding" beyond human
> experiences - which consists in a large part of
> research activities -
> linguistic exercises of much of the philosophical
> thought notwithstanding.
> Btw - the connection between philosophy and poetry
> did not escape Heidegger.
> Both are exercise of creating meaning from syntax
> and word usage rather than
> empirical procedures. However, this also seems
> like a valid criticism of
> what passes for science (or art) nowadays i.e.
> whatever scientists (or
> artists) do is science (or art), and its truth
> function does not matter as
> long as it is accepted as science or art.
>
>
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> > ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com