"It seems as if in the process of growing up we lose the ability to wonder about the world."
I take this to mean that we are no longer intrugued by what is around us. We have lived for long enough in this world to, in the bland form, feel indifferent about our surroundings. Yet this is not (as Knox suggests) such a formidable thing. We act this way because we have travelled a long distance (from the tips of the rabbit's fur down into its depths) and have learnt much about the world, and we have come to accept it as it is. If Knox says that we all start off as being at the tip of the rabbit's fur, then have we not already seen everything there is to see at taht early stage?
Indeed I agree that it is prodigious to ask questions and try to find answers to them, as philosophers do, but the questions posed in the book have been answered already to this day, and what were once called philosophers are now called scientists, and many still are being answered, and the questions, because they are answerable, do not seem as enigmatic and big a problem. Because of these trivialities that differentiate Sophie's World and ours, I find I cannot fully acquiesce with Knox as his theories are slightly outdated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Questions posed in the book have been answered already? So where does the world come from then...?
Hi Helen
I agree with Claire's comment. You seem to assume that philosophy has been replaced by science, yet this is not the case. There are many philosophers who are right now asking new questions and many of the old questions which science has not satisfactorily answered. Quite a few of these philosophers are also scientists, for example Stephen Hawking. What makes you as a person put so much faith in science? Is science so all powerful?
mturver
@Claire: The Big Bang, the subsequent formation of stars, planets, etc.
Yes, as the others have said, I do not fully agree that all philosophy has been replaced by science. Science is science and philosophy is another. They do tend to cross paths but they are not the same thing. Philosophers still exist currently.
And does that mean scientist can prove whether there is life after death?
Science is a type of reasoning - proving things wrong or right. In this way it is an extension of our wondering curiosity.
However, can one rely on science completely. Think of physics, psychology, economy - the terms, measurements we accept at their values - the limits we measure our lives by - do they mean anything in the end?
Lastly, What is life without reflection? I have lived quite enough to know that the answer is probably 'because it just is' but even if it's unlogical or childish, sometimes I still feel science is unsatisfactory - don't you ever want to simply ask 'why' to everything?
I agree that science and philosophy are different. =)
Claire- A very recent discovery in Geneva (some of my intricate details may be wrong, I just glanced this briefly) has been able to produce some sort of mini model of the Big Bang, and scientists are sure they are very close to finding out how it all occurred.
Mr. Turver- No, science is not all that powerful. There are things that science has not yet been ablt to answer, yet by far, it is the most promising in answering many questions. All I gather (correct me if I'm wrong) is that philosophy is the art of wonder and questioning, ("the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder") whereas science is the art of proving and experimenting. Of course you can say otherwise, but this is how I see it.
Lawrence- Nice one.
Lori- Can philosophers prove there is life after death?
Zoe- scientists are indeed asking why, but they have not yet the ability to answer it.
To all- thanks for your wonderous and thoughtful comments.
Post a Comment