S
science man
Guest
yes but wat is the difference in idea of the subject?
yes but wat is the difference in idea of the subject?
kmguru
Staff member
For that you have to read a lot of posts starting from the beginning. But you can start with one of mine posted on 07-16-2001 at
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3325&highlight=Hinduism
There are plenty of great posts you will not find anywhere on the planet
I think we lost a few between 1999 and 2001 while being switched to a new server.
It is like, an artist does a modern painting. At the time of painting, the ideas flow fom deep within rather than conscious thought based on the sum total of life experience of that person. So the artist will have a hard time explaining why and the meaning of that painting.
This happened to me a long ago. While I am somewhat artistic, I do not claim to be an artist. But on a challenge, I entered a painting contest in college (If you are so smart, can you paint type). To my great surprise, I was in third place while the first and second place were by well known student artists.
Then time came for art critique and my friend who is a famous art critique explained what the painting represents. Everybody loved it.
I came away thinking - was it my crap or his eloquence won the day!
Need I say more?
this is a satisfactory explanation. i'm a musician and so... anyhows, this part struck me:
Then time came for art critique and my friend who is a famous art critique explained what the painting represents. Everybody loved it.
I came away thinking - was it my crap or his eloquence won the day!
funnily enough, i said very much the same thing in another thread a couple of weeks back.
kmguru
Staff member
As a musician...I am glad, you understand. It is that "je ne sais quoi" thing....
actually, your response (the previous one--post#20?) made my day. thank you.
Indeed.
While the metaphor is poor, you do realize that there are indeed different types of mathematics yes?
S
science man
Guest
yes but there isn't different types within those types. e.g. there isn't two geometries or algebras.
kinda OT, but in the other philosophy subforum there are presently a few threads tangentially related:
when considering the nishidas and nishitanis, for instance--both of whom were very much influenced by husserl and heidegger, and i believe merleau ponty--and their innumerable western counterparts, the results often fall flat, leaving a sour taste in one's mouth. i'm not suggesting that translation and/or syncretism is wholly futile and pointless, but there are limits--take the classic example of schadenfreude: how many words must we employ to really get to the "essence" of such? i think i get it just fine, but i'm third generation german/part-jew, so i've got an advantage; perhaps i get it too well.
lotte eisner, in her fantastic volume on pre-war german cinema, the haunted screen, makes frequent generalizations about the "german character." can we really "get"/grok such? do we armchair anthropologists truly understand the sorrows of young werther?
heidegger addresses this with respect to a variety of others: in "conversation between a thinker, theologian, and scientist" (the "thinker" being the philosopher, because, you know, scientists and theologians can't think) and "dialogue with a japanese" (in discourse on thinking and on the way to language respectively). even the earnest and determined anthropologist has to recognize his own limitations.
anyways, given that, what is the appropriate subforum in which to discuss the philosophies of australian aborigines?
when considering the nishidas and nishitanis, for instance--both of whom were very much influenced by husserl and heidegger, and i believe merleau ponty--and their innumerable western counterparts, the results often fall flat, leaving a sour taste in one's mouth. i'm not suggesting that translation and/or syncretism is wholly futile and pointless, but there are limits--take the classic example of schadenfreude: how many words must we employ to really get to the "essence" of such? i think i get it just fine, but i'm third generation german/part-jew, so i've got an advantage; perhaps i get it too well.
lotte eisner, in her fantastic volume on pre-war german cinema, the haunted screen, makes frequent generalizations about the "german character." can we really "get"/grok such? do we armchair anthropologists truly understand the sorrows of young werther?
heidegger addresses this with respect to a variety of others: in "conversation between a thinker, theologian, and scientist" (the "thinker" being the philosopher, because, you know, scientists and theologians can't think
) and "dialogue with a japanese" (in discourse on thinking and on the way to language respectively). even the earnest and determined anthropologist has to recognize his own limitations.anyways, given that, what is the appropriate subforum in which to discuss the philosophies of australian aborigines?
Really?
I suggest you drop into the Math forum then.
Ask about Euclidian vs. Lowbachevskian space for a start...
For someone who's [ENC]snotwuh[/ENC] says
you've so far shown yourself to be singularly uninformed on both subjects.
S
science man
Guest
Yes I just realized that as I was in the shower I'm sorry. hmm I'll to think of another way to prove my point.
kmguru
Staff member
You are welcome...:thumbsup:
S
science man
Guest
For that you have to read a lot of posts starting from the beginning. But you can start with one of mine posted on 07-16-2001 at
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3325&highlight=Hinduism
There are plenty of great posts you will not find anywhere on the planet
I think we lost a few between 1999 and 2001 while being switched to a new server.
so the different way of thinking is a religion? There are Hindu people in the U.S. too.
Peace unto you