>
> These comments are really depressing. I've no idea why the discussion's
> digressed off to cognitive science here, but I couldn't help being uneasy
> about Keynes's surreptitious "left Hegelianism"…a word or two…
>
> First, even though it is true that the 'exact' sciences were for a long
> time stuck in the false dualisms of Descartes and up to a point those of
> Kant, this is hardly reflective of the modern trend, you could check
>
> - Einstein's popularization of 'Relativity' (this is the title of
> it) one of whose sections is titled 'On the Universe as a Whole', sound
> hardly atomistic to me;
>
> - David Bohm, one of the foremost innovators in Quantum Theory as
> well as one of Einstein's protégés –as well as a radical for which he got
> summoned up by the House of Un-American activities-, wrote a lot about
> "organistic" physics, see the end of his book 'Special Relativity' for
> example;
>
> - Kurt Gödel, the logician who shattered Bertrand Russell's
> mathematical work and one of Einstein's best friends, already adhered to
> several aspects of Kantian metaphysics, precisely those which were assumed
> valid by Hegel;
>
> - many developments in mathematical logic itself, where the law
> of the excluded middle is forgone, thus leading to new models of logic
> (intuitionism, Dialatheism, paraconsistent logic, etc. check for example the
> work of Patrick Suppes, Graham Priest, etc.)), some of which are being
> currently proposed for a foundation of Quantum Mechanics, i.e. category
> theory. Graham Priest, in particular, is a staunch admirer of Hegel, hence
> his Diale-theism (for dialectic).
>
> These are just some examples, but the trend is very much reflective of
> Marx's prospects: "There will be only one science", meaning you can only go
> so far with the mode of thinking in which reality is independent of our
> minds, with, that is, (pre)Kantian calisthenics.
Hey, I wasn't ripping on Science as such, only on..... well..... how the vast majority of the Anglo-Saxon human sciences have turned out. But not only the human sciences. Many of the hard sciences that come into direct contact with people tend to be dubious aswell (medicine, genetics, neurology etc.). Many of these are regressing to past states (genetics, for example, is raising arguments about people not taken seriously since the mid-19th century) while some are regressing to states that are pre-Enlightenment (folk medicine today is more popular among doctors than Freud!). If you're a Hegelian tell me this: what's the opposite of the movement of Spirit?