Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
Yes,
|
ok, i'll take that as an agreement
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pbradley
but I'm talking about coming to understand today's problems in a classroom environment both in origin and as it is today. Not answering today's problems! Have you never taken a philosophy seminar course?
|
so you're talking about teaching the
history of philosophy, not about
practicing philosophy.
because if you're going to
practice, you have to face the questions that make sense
today-- and if you're going to discuss creationism, sure you can start with aristotle's first cause, but then you have to input the fact that time approaching the big bang is nothing aristotle ever imagined, and his laws of motion that justify the first cause argument do not apply to how we see the origin of the universe today-- not at all--
in the singularity from which the big bang presumably originated, there was no such thing as "time" as we understand it, and this singularity is described as a physical phenomenon, not a deity, which neutralizes the need for a deity that ancient-world first-cause begged for.
and any kid that watches science fiction today is going to know this shit and say "hey, wait a minute, aristotle's laws of motion don't apply to the big bang, and our everyday laws of causation don't apply to quantum mechanics, and his argument therefore is moot!"
and with aristotle gone, aquinas is consequently de-nutted.
aristotle would be a good mental exercise, like doing pushups, but discussing the origin of the universe, they would be better off with a paul davies text-- not because he's a better thinker, but because his information is more relevant.
let's see....
here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=C7g2WSzd6IcC&pg=PP6&source=gbs_selected_p ages&cad=0_1&sig=ACfU3U04WvlBD6CqguLrPH8emIYbWsuPN w#PPA10,M1