The Self-Moving Soul, The Absolute and Naturphilosophie

  • 2 Replies
  • 11025 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What Came Before

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Emwama
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
    • First Second Apocalypse
« on: June 01, 2013, 11:12:57 pm »
Quote from: lockesnow
So it's occurred to me that there could be multiple takes on just what  a self-moving soul could comprise.  this is kind of semantic.

1)  The Dunyain variant.  Where one's soul is moved only at one's own discretion, and no external factors cause uncontrolled variables or sub-conscious, un-conscious movements of the soul.  Meaning that the Dunyain have conquered Nietzsche; their thoughts come when they want, not when it wants.

Spoiler from TUC excerpt chapter 1
(click to show/hide)

I said it was semantic, the first is a theory, notable for how it demands a perfection of form and practice that seems inherently unachievable given the frailties of organic lifeforms.   The second is a more literal take on it, the messy practice of what a soul needs--if it were to self-move--to achieve such a goal.  And I find it interesting that something which is elegant in theory is horrific in practice--and that the practice has little similarity to the theory.

In addition to this, I was once again reminded that The Dunyain seek to achieve the Absolute.  If I recall correctly, the Absolute is closely tied to the Self-Moving Soul.  But, in the spirit of Sologdin, the Absolute also reminds of Freidrich Schelling, and Naturphilosophie.  I have long wondered at the connections I see between the naturphilosophen and Bakker's fantasy world, but I often chastise myself that this is only selection bias at work.  Here's a bit of an overview, and I'd think that some of what's mentioned here should be of interest to many readers of Bakker and his peculiar and fascinating metaphysics. 

Quote
Natural philosophy contains much nonsense and phantasy, but no more so than the contemporary unphilosophical theories of the empirical natural scientists.
--Friedrich Engels


It is the way of all science not to explain the most complicated phenomenon from the simplest reasons but from the next simpler [complicated reason] which is itself already an abbreviation for lawful connections.
--Herman Lotze

Naturphilosophie was a major framework in German romantic scientific thought from the 1790s until the 1840s. Naturphilosophie is a complex framework of ideas and philosophies.  It was not effectively systematized until Friedrich Schelling’s Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur (Ideas on a Philosophy of Nature, 1797) was published.  Schelling’s philosophies built heavily on Kant and Fichte; however Schelling envisioned Naturphilosophie to have a systemizing effect on science, not replace it outright.  Schelling hoped that Naturphilosophie would create a unity between empirical science and the spiritual realm.  If physical and empirical science investigates the relationships of the body to the world, then Naturphilosophie investigated the relationships of the mind and human spirit to the world.  Schelling later conceived Naturphilosophie as a separate philosophy, independent of transcendental speculations and theology—although he never believed this conception was achieved in his lifetime.

Schelling had two basic principles of Naturphilosophie.  The first was that the force nature and the force geist are opposing, but fundamental, forces.  Geist and nature together form the absolute (everything that occurs in nature).  All natural phenomena and experiences are a result of the human mind’s ideas.   Ideas produce everything seen in nature; nature exists in our mind as a projection.  Nature is the visible spirit of the invisible spirit of the mind.  To understand nature, a scientist must penetrate his own mind.  The second principle was based on polarities.  In nature, everything is arranged in opposing pairs; nature only functions because of the tensions between the opposing pairs.  The tension between the force nature and the force geist is one of the most basic pairs.  Some scientists believed it was possible to reduce all of nature down to attraction and repulsion—the most basic principle and opposing pair.

Kant contributed at least three major, fundamental tenets that would evolve before being systematized by Schelling. First, attraction and repulsion are the fundamental forces that construct matter.  Kant rejected Newtonian atomism and the empty space it demanded.  Kant’s approach to science is known as dynamism because it is a dynamic (nature/matter are alive through some force) view of nature.  Second, was his contribution of a teleological,  not causal, structure of nature.  Mankind’s objective judgment is limited; Nature cannot be judged objectively except as a metaphor.  Any judgment of nature (or of a structure of nature) naturally rejects mechanistic thought and is highly subjective.  Third, was his conception of self-consciousness—in essence, to ‘know thyself.’  Experiences are not passive receptions but are determined by our own understanding .  Man defines what he knows and learns; above all he must know his own mind, or he can know nothing. 

Fichte built on Kant’s theories and rejected the determinism in Kant’s latter contribution to Naturphilosophie.  Kant’s unity of self-consciousness was only formal; Fichte also said self-consciousness is also material. In other words, the influence of objects upon your consciousness is not dependent on the self as it is in Kant.  Fichte believes that we determine our own reality, that the self is the object. For Fichte there is no object, the object is a reflection of our self as we wish to see it.

Fichte was teaching transcendental philosophy at the University of Jena, but was fired when he was accused of teaching atheism in 1799.  Schelling was appointed to the position in his place.

Schelling’s first principle of Naturphilosophie is deeply concerned with how nature arrives at I.  The force of nature and the human spirit are two opposing but fundamental forces that only appear to be separate.  Together they form the absolute  identity.  Because of limitations on our senses all we see in nature is a projection of our human minds.  Nature is the visible spirit and the mind is the invisible spirit; they are two aspects of one whole.  To understand nature you must penetrate your own mind, bringing about an understanding of nature as derivable from the ego. Schelling’s second principle was much more simple: polarities.  The attractive and repulsive forces are fundamental to the operation of the universe.  In nature, everything is arranged in opposing pairs and nature only functions because of tensions in these pairs.
 
As mentioned above, Schelling saw his initial conception of Naturphilosophie as an augmentation to traditional science that would allow science to investigate the invisible spirit. In this first Naturphilosophie he established a framework to systematize empirical science, not to replace it.  He filled much of the first half of the work with detailed and exhaustive citations of the latest scientific discoveries which made his philosophies very compelling and more accessible.  His basic hypothesis was that “diverse natural phenomena might be regarded ultimately as transformations of two underlying, polar forces, those of attraction and repulsion.” This hypothesis makes little allowance for Newton’s atomistic beliefs, but that is because Schelling thought Newton’s atoms were too limited in conception.  They could not possibly explain all phenomena.  He hoped, at this early stage, to deduce an irrefutable justification from transcendental idealism 

Later in his career, Schelling’s view of Naturphilosophie shifted from his initial focus on augmenting empirical science to an organism centered conception.  The organism should be the fundamental conception of Naturphilosophie through analogies to organisms one can understand the workings of the cosmos.  Schelling thought the entire cosmos is more like an organism than a clock mechanism.  The aspects of the cosmos relate to each other yet have separate identities as a body’s organs do.  They are bound together in unity but maintain personality.  The inorganic and organic realms are governed by laws and principles of living nature, as reflected in the human organism which has the highest degree of perfection and organization.  At this stage of his career he had come to strive for an explanation of Naturphilosophie that did not depend at all on transcendental idealism.  He never did find it.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2014, 08:01:22 pm »
Thanks for linking this gem in another thread.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

locke

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 648
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2014, 06:48:52 am »
Still think it is selection bias but the comparisons are tantalizing

All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.