Americans traditionally used to have a suspicion (a kind of prejudice) against experts. I share in this to some degree. I think a lot depends on the field in question. For example, in plumbing I would go with the experts.  But there are other field like "Gender Studies" where the experts confer diplomas on themselves and their buddies. Fields that are all just make believe. Philosphy seems to be somewhere in the middle. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Authenticity was my motivation I believe for going to Shar Yashuv in NY and then the Mir. Reform Judaism did not seem all that authentic to me at the time. Nowadays I would have to revise my opinion. Not that the issue is all that clear one way or the other. True that the Litvak Yeshiva world is the most authentic approach to Torah. On the other hand there are lots of aspects that Reform and Conservative Judaism have that are not in the Litvak world.
Read more
There is a kind of interplay between DNA and ideals. The USA works to a large degree I think because of both its principles and also because of its principles coming out of many generations of conflict and thinking about politics and religion in England. [Not just the Magna Carta but especially looking at Daniel Defoe I saw this.--In where he deals with the issues facing England in the 1700's] There is a kind of conflict between the facts of DNA and ideals, between Darwin  and the ideals of John Locke. [Hegel would call this process a kind of dialectic between Being and the Absolute Idea. This is a good idea but I think it needs to be taken in context of the post Kant thinkers like Maimon, Shultze, Reinhold.] A lot depends on what kind of people you are dealing with before you can state a priori what kind of system they ought to live under in order to having tranquility and justice and freedom. It is hard to tell. On one hand you can see MacArthur imposing a kind of Ameri...
Read more
Einstein suggested  the knowledge depends both on pure reason and also  empirical observation--not one or the other. This seems to be the approach of Hegel. I mean in his Encyclopedia the part on Logic around part 169 or so[I forget where]. Hegel talks about God as object and then shows how the whole idea of Christianity is to bridge the gap between God as Object and us mankind. Then right away says that is whole idea of true knowledge to bridge the gap between subject and object. This is different from the Kant Fries School of Dr Kelley Ross where you also have non intuitive immediate knowledge.
Read more