Page 1 of 1

Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:27 pm
by Brando
Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is - like in Sartre - a fundamental way of existence apart from science. This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:40 pm
by phyllo
Is this a solution in need of a problem?

Nobody has "total knowledge" of science. Most people have very little knowledge of it. (school science that is.)

But one could say that people have a lot of common science knowledge ... friction, fluid mechanics, the motion of objects, effects of heat ... stuff you learn by bouncing a ball, playing with buckets of water, cooking, etc.

Is there a hard separation between science and non-science?

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 4:23 pm
by James S Saint
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is - like in Sartre - a fundamental way of existence apart from science. This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

Affectance Ontology declares specific concepts that are simple and confined to their given definition. The ontology builds an understanding utilizing merely one "field" concept and logically derives how all fields noted in current physics come about as aberrant, emergent effects of that one, the physical field of affectance is defined as follows:

    Affectance ≡ ultra subtle influences or changes in the potential to affect.

The principles involved apply to all fields of study, but most notably to; Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Economics. The concept terms change for each field, but the principles are the same.
General topics involving Affectance are:

1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How long has this Affectance been around? - "Cosmology"
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:29 am
by Ultimate Philosophy 1001
i agree. being a genius it makes it hard to emotionally connect with people. though it was already hard for me to emotionally connect with people to begin with.

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:35 pm
by Brando
General topics involving Affectance are:

1) How does one measure this Affectance? - "Science".
2) How can this Affectance be organized and understood? - "Ontology".
3) How can this Affectance lend to our knowledge? - "Epistemology"
4) How long has this Affectance been around? - "Cosmology"
5) How can an understanding of Affectance relate to our lives? - "Psychology", "Sociology", "Economics",...


Does affectance mean that the individual has a personal perspective on what is organized in Society as science?

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:31 pm
by Arminius
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:56 pm
by Alf
Arminius wrote:
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?

Re: Total knowledge of science is the hell

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:25 pm
by Arminius
Alf wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Brando wrote:Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.

Brando wrote:This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?

The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.

Is this fundamental way the one Heidegger described?

Yes. I think that Brando has meant Heidegger’s fundamental ontology as a component of his existence philosophy.