pride and humility are not merely human passions, but extend themselves over the whole animal creation. A Treatise Of Human Nature, by David Hume, David Hume on signaling from Marginal Revolution by Tyler Cowen
Friedrich Schelling’s 1809 text Philosophical Inquiries into the Nature of Human Freedom forms a watershed for 19th c. European thinking, initiating a Romantic tradition which leads through Nietzsche to the existentislists and the post-structuralists. Heidegger devotes considerable attention to this text and many sxcholars have seen this as a seminal influence in his thinking.
In this text, Schelling challenges the prevailing tradition of Metaphysics by casting his attention on the irreducible longing which inheres in the body. Furthermore, undercutting the primordial mourning of human existence, he excavates the ground of Being in a radical freedom which knows of good and evil and aspires unendingly for the Other which its excess intuits and which for ever eludes it. POSTHUMAN DESTINIES
People deemed conversations to be stricter after touching a hard object, but not more positive. Heavy boards make interview candidates seem more serious but not more sociable. As Ackerman says, “These findings emphasize the power of that unique adaptation, the hand, to manipulate the mind as well as the environment.” And the last study with the chair suggests that even our buttocks have some sway over our minds… When sitting on a hard chair, negotiators take tougher stances but if they sit on a soft one instead, they become more flexible. Science
25 June 2010: It matters what you touch. Assorted links from Marginal Revolution by Tyler Cowen
Is psychology key to construction of philosophical arguments? from Feel Philosophy Does psychology really influence the sorts of answers, questions, and methods at work in construction of philosophical arguments? […] Perhaps we only ask the questions we want to hear, and only produce the problematics that bring us comfort? […] Our paradigms and problematics are defined, from science to philosophy to everyday life, by the community of those whose feedback we trust. Certain approaches to ‘research questions’, be these in science or philosophy, are simply dismissed as ‘out there’, and never pursued, not so much because they might not have something to them, but that even following up on them would require a massive reorganization of the schemas we use to structure our lives. In the world of the everyday, we’d say they were thrown aside because they violate ‘common sense.’ Peeling the Fuzzy Onion: On Philosophizing, Denial, and Anosognosia from Networkologies by chris 9:39 AM
I forgot to respond to some of Reid’s questions about system-references in my last post. I don’t know whether Reid has been following my posts for the last few months, but I argue that objects are essentially systems. Following Maturana and Varela (though my major points of reference are Bateson, von Foerster, and especially Luhmann), I distinguish between autopoietic systems and allopoietic systems… At any rate, if Reid is interested he can read more about systems here, here, here, and here, or he can do a search for Luhmann on this blog.
When we contemplate the wonders of Nature, the precise and effective interaction and symbiosis of all forms in Nature, the precisely engineered symmetry of crystals and atomic structures, the incredibly complex sequencing of genes and chromosomes to create infinite variety of forms that nevertheless both have an intricate pattern behind them and a precise interaction to make the entire universal Nature function effectively, we can see that there is a greater Knowledge and Power that guides, manages, and creates this outflowering of Nature. reference: Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, Book 2, Part I, Chapter 4, The Divine and the Undivine