3 ms·
This was an absolutely fascinating read... > An atomic bomb is a frantic explosion. Yet none of these phenomena is active; they are all passive. They lack the
by bjornsing 7y ago
This was an absolutely fascinating read...
> An atomic bomb is a frantic explosion. Yet none of these phenomena is active; they are all passive. They lack the power of cause.
To me it’s completely incomprehensible that an obviously intelligent and well educated (MD PhD) person can think like this... How is it possible to deny that a thermonuclear explosion can cause... a lot of things...?
I’ve lately come to realize that there is much more variation in how people see the world and reason than I thought possible. I would genuinely like to understand those “modes of thinking” that are most far removed from my own. Can anybody explain how this particular worldview works or point me to something I can read?
- mellosouls 7y agoI think the author is distinguishing between intent/agency/free will in the case of mental action and the empty, meaningless quality of material "causes". For causality and the slipperiness of it, read Hume.
- bjornsing 7y agoHume the empiricist... yea, I find this philosophical view incredibly difficult to understand. I naturally gravitate to the hypotetico-deductive way of thinking, and find it very hard to break out of. I don’t think going straight to Hume will be very meaningful for me. Is there anybody who has explained empiricism from a more hypothetical-deductive perspective?