Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Just how queer is our reality?

  1. #1 Just how queer is our reality? 
    Guest
    Whilst trawling around the net I stumbled upon this lecture my Prof Dawkins

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...28560462155344

    Where he talks essentially about our natural inability to easily understand both the small and large worlds, (ours being the middle) - complete with some dry humour.

    Its runtime is about 22 minutes.

    And I think a decent piece of work.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    actually, on the subject of large and small objects I kind of have a phobia.

    If, say, I was next to the sun and couldn't be harmed, I'd be terrified. Something that big is utterly freaky. Similarly, if I was on a planet with a red giant for a sun, I'd be overly terrified (since that sun would probably take up most of the sky).

    Even seeing the earth from space (just before one would hit the atmosphere) I find a leetle scary.

    However objects like the moon or whatever else invoke no fear.

    Good luck figuring that out. O.o


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Interesting essay in that it embraces perspectivism so effectively. It treats human beings not as rational or humanist agents, but as biological agents, which I think is pretty close to my own, 'Nietzschean' thoughts on the subject.

    A philosophy based upon naturalistic premises - a scientific philosophy is required for the future. However, I reject Dawkins in his view that 'as a human' he views criminals, in two manners.
    I distinctively don't. I do not make a separation between my what Dawkins would call 'human self' and my intellectual self, because such a separation does not exist. What I believe as an intellectual, as an academic, I believe thoroughly and deeply.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    I am not as well read on Dawkins as you appear to be, but to seperate 'intellectual self from 'human self' does [to me at least] have some merit.

    I have always considered there are two parts to me, that is 'The animal self' and the 'civilised self' in that, faced with certain situations I have a chioce, the 'animal instinct' may suggest one course of action yet the 'civilised self' may demand a diametrically opposite course.

    If this is essentially the same as that proposed by Dawkins then I agree.

    I can of course also see that penalty# or fear of penalty may be a clouding factor and I may have misconstrued this and 'created' the two selves where as you argue, only one exists, I'll think a bit further but It's a long held [and very firm] belief of mine that may be a little difficult to shift.....

    # The choice of 'animal' over 'civilised' does not always involve penalty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    actually, on the subject of large and small objects I kind of have a phobia.

    If, say, I was next to the sun and couldn't be harmed, I'd be terrified. Something that big is utterly freaky. Similarly, if I was on a planet with a red giant for a sun, I'd be overly terrified (since that sun would probably take up most of the sky).

    Even seeing the earth from space (just before one would hit the atmosphere) I find a leetle scary.

    However objects like the moon or whatever else invoke no fear.

    Good luck figuring that out. O.o
    Could be called "bigofobic". How's that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •