For Aristotle taught us, we cannot speak of any part without the whole, and as the whole of history has not yet achieved its final end, history as yet has no form. And what has neither form nor shape cannot be subject to definition according to the univocal categories of any science. In fact, the essence of history and of the artifacts of history is antipodal to the essence of science, since historical meanings cannot be indicated by a neat positivistic formula. Uniquely human expressions are pierced with an irreducible uncertainty, their meanings akin to a perpetually open question, the corresponding answer to which is adumbrated but never attained--since what is really grasped at is a glimpse of the Infinite.This is from The Intercollegiate Review. Mrs. Don-o might be interested in this publication from isi.org. They have back issues online.
No frogs? ... But did he mention birds?
Having stared at the horizon on the ocean on many occasions or into(not at) the stars at night.. Infinity is where my mind "went".. Seeking infinity or to "be a part" of infinity was my "need" I suppose.. Maybe there is a deep need for release to infinity.. If you have lost the open ended "what is it?" out there beyond "infinity"..
Have you become a Toad Stool?.. a Mushroom?..
The childlike wonder of infinite possibilities is a blessing..
Even if "we" have to covertly peek around a corner to view them..
Adding to the pleasure..
Thanks for the thought, cornelis. I’ve been to the isi.org site, but good Lord, there’s so much there. I shall have to take it by the teaspoon :o)
Oh, I so much admire Noah Waldman's comments here! The "essence of science" is to reduce observations to "neat positivistic formula." Scientific observations necessarily depend on direct sense experience. Yet there is so much in human experience that is inaccessible by and independent of sense perception.
There really are superpersonal objects and goals that neither require nor are capable of foundation by means of direct observation/sense perception alone. Such objects and goals have informed the conduct and progress of human life from time immemorial. These objects and goals refer primarily to nonsensory modes of human experience that are “superior in rank and worth,” as Ellis Sandoz put it, to the objects of sense experience — the domain of the scientific method.
As Sandoz says, “Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective.”
Such nonsensory modes of experience lie entirely outside the reach of the scientific method as presently constituted: methodological naturalism. But the fact that science cannot reach them does not mean they do not exist in Reality.
I appreciate Waldman's mention of Aristotle in this connection. Aristotle didn't lose sight of the "whole," the context in which natural phenomena occur. It's interesting that the methods of the "father of science" were supplanted by the "father of modern science," Sir Francis Bacon, who was motivated by the desire to expunge "philosophy" from science, thus to make it more "reliable." He inaugurated methodological naturalism, which is based on direct observation, replicable experiments, etc.
But Bacon misses something that Aristotle saw: that observation is limited precisely because we cannot see the whole, the context in which the visible/phenomenal things occur. As such, the scientific method as presently constituted is a very limited tool. I'm not saying it's not an important tool for the acquisition of human knowledge. But it is limited in the kinds of knowledge it can acquire, and therefore needs to be supplemented by other knowledge disciplines, preeminently philosophy and theology.
Thank you so much for writing cornelis!