True – and I’m all for people wanting to join in a common ‘something’.
It’s just when people band together to a point where one can start a sentence and another could finish it, word-for-word… it’s just… creepy as heck.
Well, there’s self-organizing systems as well, for a newer formulation of the idea.
There’s also saddle points for example, resting spots where similar things roll down together. “Gravity well” is an old term for it.
Organizations don’t need heads or explicit structure from the outset. They can self-organize into a “something” even if, at their Fundamantalist level, they’re not an organization.
Historical consensus has him as real. There’s some fringe proofs showing he wasn’t but in the world of historians it’s not taken seriously. For me I let historians do history and fill in gaps however I can. As soon as someone says “agenda” or “historical revisionism” towards historians – when it’s their JOB to do history… It’s hard to take seriously although I always listen.
Oh he was a fine scientist just as Krauss is a fine string theorist with the dark energy and such, and Bill Maher was once a savvy and funny political humorist. But… Yeah well.. The political activism and the preaching from their respective pulpits kinda has been overshadowing that stuff for a while now. It’s nice for those who already agree with them but for us on the outside the speaking with one voice about a singular issue and making it the be all focus kinda gets old and it makes it hard to maintain respect. I try to but it’s hard cause they’re so wrapped up in it these days it seems. I dunno.
Quite so. Still good to consider the “whole person” as well though at times. I know people who won’t touch Heidegger because he thought his time had come as supreme Philosopher … and never renounced his Nazi card.
Now for me, I don’t have a problem with that. I like the man for his work in Philosophy.
Yet, I also don’t fault people who focus on his extra-Philosophy activities either. After all, that’s _their_ focus, and if feel that a “purity of person” is critical, then by all means. To me, it’s just another perspective to take into consideration.
For me, the more perspectives, the better. I don’t like singular perspectives much, or singular systems as having the only way to do things. It’s up to us to weigh them out and decide for ourselves.
Yeah, it’s forced me to be agnostic (broad term – still useful as a broad term ) about a lot of things. I consider things from a pragmatic point of view: What’s useful. Somewhat utilitarian although not exclusively so by any means.
I like “I don’t know”s because they allow me to have “working assumptions” that are nimble and changeable whenever necessary. Its not really shifting sands because you can feel where the sturdier piles of sand are, and where the quick sand is, to speak metaphorically.