Simone Vs. Dawkins

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Nick_A
Sage
Posts: 504
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:49 am

Simone Vs. Dawkins

Post #1

Post by Nick_A »

How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85


“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #91

Post by QED »

Nick_A wrote: Consciousness by definition cannot be an illuison.
Why not? Perhaps Descartes was under the same illusion when he came up with his catchy conclusion.
Nick_A wrote:But seeing that Dennett is in the book, my guess is that it deals solely with the creation of contents of consciousness but that is only a guess. I hope I'm wrong.
You seem to have invested your rejection of a material solution to consciousness in your concept of the "contents of consciousness". I'm sorry to be slow here but could you try and spell out for me what the beef is all about?

User avatar
bernee51
Site Supporter
Posts: 7813
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 5:52 am
Location: Australia

Post #92

Post by bernee51 »

QED wrote:
Nick_A wrote: Consciousness by definition cannot be an illuison.
Why not? Perhaps Descartes was under the same illusion when he came up with his catchy conclusion.
And maybe he (Descartes) got it back to front?
QED wrote:
Nick_A wrote:But seeing that Dennett is in the book, my guess is that it deals solely with the creation of contents of consciousness but that is only a guess. I hope I'm wrong.
You seem to have invested your rejection of a material solution to consciousness in your concept of the "contents of consciousness". I'm sorry to be slow here but could you try and spell out for me what the beef is all about?
Is there evidence, other than subjective claims by practitioners of 'inner empiricism', that consciousness exists independent of the 'contents of consciousness'?

IOW without the contents does consciousness exist?
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"

William James quoting Dr. Hodgson

"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Post Reply