ok, so let us begin with experience………
since oh, Descartes, philosophy has been done on
a “scientific” basis. Descartes starting point was with the
new physics… began in large part by the new science of Kepler and
Copernicus and continued by Tycho Brahe and moved along
with the new idea’s of motion by Galileo who died the same year as Newton was born…
Now for Descartes, he only knew the idea’s of motion from Kepler to Galileo, not
Newton………….
the new physics was about motion…the movement of the heavens,
the rotation of the earth and the stars and the planets…….
everything seemed to move including the earth……
And so to be scientific, that is where Descartes began, with movement…
so if everything is moving, how can one create a starting point?
so with that in mind, Descartes wanted to create a fixed and firm starting
point that didn’t move………………
he ended up with the mental mind, not the physical brain,
“I think, therefor, I am” is not about the physical brain, because
physical objects move and you cannot gain certainty from moving objects…
because they are always moving which includes the physical brain…….
“I think therefore I am” is about mental thought and not physical
movement or motion……… he was trying to avoid this motion…
Spinoza solution was to include everything into what he called “nature”
which was everything including god… everything was an extension of
“nature” which included motion and movement……….
so, Spinoza simply just included everything into one neat and tidy box
which he called “NATURE”… he didn’t have to worry about thinking about
how motion or movement needed to be included into his philosophy…….
it was already there as part of everything else…………
now Hume thought that cause-effect was simply formed by our thinking,
by our habits and myths (although he didn’t use the word myth, he meant it)
indoctrinations, prejudices and superstitions…………
space/time was part of our mental facilities and not some outside existing
force… and Kant accepted this… thus Kant tried to show how
time/space was relativistic, based on each of us and not on some outside
force…………
so we have as part of our modern philosophical history, science being
a key understanding of philosophy…whether the philosopher correctly understood
the science or not is actually irrelevant……….he based a large part or his entire
philosophy on the motions and movement of the universe, the reality of the universe
was about motion/movement of everything…….
Hegel began the shift away from basing philosophy on science……
so let us look at science today and understand it in terms of
philosophy………
Modern science is in a wild mess because it has several problems it cannot solve
and doesn’t know how to solve……
first we have the macro science, the large theories of gravity and the motions of
the earth, sun, planets, stars, which is pretty well understood except for the idea
of gravity……. Gravity is a major sticking point in our understanding of the universe…
what exactly is gravity? No one actually knows… we can predict it and we understand
its motions, but we cannot say for certain what it is…………
so we have uncertainty because we don’t know or understand exactly what gravity is…
and we have beside the macro, we have the micro world, the world of the small…
and we understand that fairly well… but and this is a really large but, we do not
have a theory to connect the two, the very large motions of the universe and
the motions of the very small universe………….this is the very dream of science
to connect and if someone does manage it, they will go down as one of science
greats with Newton and Galileo and Einstein………
so there is a lot of motivation to create such a theory……………
having laid out the groundwork of where we stand, let us take the next step…
Kropotkin