Thoughts on a New Book about "Romantic" Science

"Romantic Science." What an interesting idea. Expounded upon in "The Age of Wonder" by Richard Holmes, and in this book review. (I have reserved the hardcover from my local library.)

The reviewer, Michael Knox Beran, sums up the spirit of Romantic Science; a rebellion against the crude mechanism of the 18th century:

"The wonder revealed by science is not, finally, severable from the mind of the wonderer. Holmes cites Richard Feynman’s belief that science is “driven by a continual dialogue between skeptical enquiry and the sense of inexplicable mystery,” and that if either is permitted to get the upper hand, “true science” will be “destroyed.”

"Even as he studies the outer world, the Romantic scientist is preoccupied with the secret of his inward existence. Banks observing the customs of the Tahitians, Davy on laughing gas, Mary Shelley wondering “in what sense Frankenstein’s ‘Creature’ would be human”: all remained perplexed by the mysteriousness of man. What laws govern his being? How do changing conditions affect his nature? Is he a creature created on purpose or a mere material accident?

"If Enlightenment thinkers built on the metaphor of the well-ordered machine, the Romantics sought to understand the spark that makes a thing live, whether it be a human being, a work of art, or a nation-state."

I very much identify with the spirit of this science, in which the primary mystery is always "man's inward existence." I discovered a similar spirit in the Confessions of St. Augustine. I have a sense of confusion and wonder about myself, and as I look within I cannot fathom what I am (See the Confessions' "On Memory" for a taste.) Look to the world, and things are even more mysterious. (See the Confessions' "On Time").

While this spurred Augustine to a sense of awe and reverence for the creator of such mystery, I must confess that I am more prone to grumbling. Steeped as I am at this point in my life in the notion of efficiency of process, I express much frustration with, and to God instead. I am pondering writing a cranky book entitled, "Life: The End User Experience."

This is also why Descartes, a later student of Augustine, fascinates me. As a person, he seemed more troubled by mystery, and wished to obliterate it. (Was he stymied by his own embarrassments and failures?) Hence, the rise of what we are talking about here, in reaction to the mechanistic natural philosophy of Descartes, and others like him.

However, the last paragraph quoted above also points to the dangers of Romantic Science: Its vitalism prepared the way for myths of living states, such as Nazi Germany. While Lincoln did not go so far, even as he read the Romantics, Bismarck and the rest of the Germans did.

Thankfully, my own crankiness will not lead me to posit a living spirit in a country, which I would then, perhaps, feel a need to save. I will leave that to more optimistic types. Personally, I believe the mechanical "checks and balances" of our society, referenced by Michael Knox Beran in this review, are falling apart, and that this machine called the United States is piling up fatal political defects. I may be wrong, and I pray that I am wrong, but I don't see the machine lasting long.

But so long as man's sense of his own mystery lives, new experiments in liberty will come forward.

From Class: The Greeks' Ultimate Reality and the Abyss

The closing thoughts of last night's Dowling College class bear repeating.

When the Greek philosopher Anaximander posited the existence of an Apeiron, (the ageless, boundless and indeterminate ultimate reality) he looked past the whirlwind and "injustice" of change and sought something more.

Heraclitus despaired of the passage of time, with poetic reflections on life and death. And yet, he insisted, behind it all, had to be some "Logos." A fire that changed everything, but itself remained unchanged.

Parmenides used relentless logic to reason his way to the "One" ultimate reality - even if he destroyed motion and change in the process. Transcendent only by destruction, perhaps?

Aristotle looked beyond his own "common sense" philosophy of material things to talk about pure Form, the source of movement in the universe and pure "thought thinking itself," which all other forms at different levels of the natural order sought to imitate as best as their own natures would allow.

Contrast these thoughts with Nietzsche. Who, confronted with the whirlwind of change and contingency, embraced it by itself, in all its disorder. He looked into the abyss and saw nothing. God was not hiding behind change hoping we would notice. He was never there. Hence, Nietzsche elevated himself to the ultimate arbiter of truth in the universe. He became the One that "explains" the Many.

While I still think the Greek approach is superior and inevitable, and that Nietzsche's view is built on contradiction, I understand Nietzsche's sense of subjective isolation, and bring it up more in class.

Even if we too claim to see the Apeiron, the Logos, the One or the pure Form, we have to ask ourselves "How?" And, what follows from touching it with our minds? Even in a world in which there are millions of competing answers (including the suffocating comforts of divine revelation - more on that in a future post), attempting to draw our own conclusions leaves us very lonely.

BTW- Here's a remarkable documentary capturing the loneliness of Nietzsche. MC

Another One Page Refutation of Unbelief (Yawn)

I like the publication First Things. I respect the life's work of the theologian and philosopher Michael Novak. But, damn, and yawn, if I don't see simplistic, dismissive, curriculum vitae-padding arguments against unbelievers, like Novak's latest, too often in First Things and elsewhere on the Christian Right.

In a drive-by article, majestically titled "Atheism and Evil," Novak engages a friendly audience of First Things readers to quickly dismiss atheists and agnostics for their struggles with belief.

A good percentage of these unbelievers, according to a recent poll, have allowed the problem of evil to drive them away from the notion of a personal God. But, surprisingly, many of them cling to some notion of an ultimate force.

In the most insulting statement of the entire piece, Novak accuses all of them of possessing a "morose delectation" for the reality of evil. In other words, they should just get over their perverse hang-up with suffering. (Now break out the brandy.)

Novak reminds us, yawn, that Thomas Aquinas posited that evil was not a co-equal reality with good. Evil tends toward non-being rather than being. (Ah, how did millions of human beings miss that? It's all explained now!)

And, without the possibility of moral evil, the world could never reach its current heights of goodness.

Excuse me if I yawn, again. These arguments are repeated endlessly against modern unbelief like a Thomistic spell. And yet, unbelief doesn't seem to go away. Curious.

Of course, the reality of physical evil (hurricanes, cancers, etc.) is not addressed here. That would have required at least another page of strenuous quoting of the Church Fathers.

Or perhaps it is, encrusted within Novak's brief, metaphorical reference to the world as a "tapestry of human experience." Or in his sweeping notion that "[a]ll the stuff of a good story depends on creation being not just a world of iron logic and inflexible arithmetic, but also a world of immense crisscrossing variation and 'blooming, buzzing profusion.'”

There you have it. The whole thing, from Krakatoa to Katrina, is just another "good story," and "blooming, buzzing profusion." What?

I know that Michael Novak means better. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens' delectations have gotten too much under his skin.

But I think that if one were actually concerned with these issues, in a spirit of genuine solidarity with non-First Things subscribers, it might help to acknowledge the serious concerns of "unbelievers" -- and perhaps more "believers" than one might care to acknowledge -- with moral evil, physical evil, and even metaphysical evil -- where one grinds daily against the limits of one's own being.

In a media-mad world in which human beings are buffeted daily by images of untold suffering and cruelty, and even levels of human success and honor that they will never achieve, it will require more than a series of dusty syllogisms to ease the suffering and dissension caused by the "immense crisscrossing" within the human spirit of the problems of moral, natural and metaphysical evil.

Back to Teaching Philosophy

After a six-month hiatus from teaching, I will be back teaching at Dowling College this fall.

I have at least one evening section of Western Philosophy; an introductory course covering from the Pre-Socratics all the way to Idealism and Empiricism. A second course may run if there are enough students. That's the killer course, I think, which starts later in the semester and goes for 3:45 each meeting. Which is way too long. I have to do cartwheels to keep the students interested.

Even though I took a break, I love to teach. I just hate the apathy of some students.

I don't take it personally. I get enough compliments from students. I just hate the lost opportunities the students have to make connections from philosophy to the rest of their lives, and to gain almost indescribable insights.

Philosophy is the most important subject you can study. I'll prove it.

What is a Ph.D. degree anyway? You know, as in Ph.D. in economics, chemistry, psychology, etc.? It is, a doctor of philosophy degree. In economics, or chemistry? Why?

Because the degree signifies not only that you know a lot of stuff. It also signifies that you have been to the boundaries of your field and seen all the things that you do not know the answers to. The same way Socrates, the model philosopher, did when he said he was only wise because he knew that he did not know. The university is built around the Socratic/Platonic model of knowledge and ignorance.

You're not "smart" (wise) if you don't know that you don't know. I hope to convince some students of that this fall, and help them see the "hidden blessings" of it, as Socrates notes in Plato's Apology. Wish me luck.

The Final Explanation of Everything . . . Not!

As discussed in the previous post, numbers seem to be at the bottom of everything in physics. As Stephen Hawking noted, "a physical theory is a mathematical model."

Father Stanley Jaki has been arguing for years that Kurt Gödel's famous mathematical theorem says something very important about such physical theories, and their ability to provide a complete explanation of reality.

By complete, I mean one that says there is nothing more, and what is has to be here and behave in a fixed, deterministic manner. And that because it is necessarily this way, it is not contingent upon God.

"It should also be obvious," notes Jaki in an important essay entitled "A Late Awakening to Gödel in Physics," "that the more advanced is a physical theory the more mathematics it contains and the more advanced is the mathematics. From this the ground for connecting Gödel's theorem with physics readily follows.

"For insofar as Gödel's theorem states that no non-trivial system of arithmetic propositions can have its proof of consistency within itself, all systems of mathematics fall under this restriction, because all embody higher mathematics that ultimately rests on plain arithmetic. Then it follows that there can be no final physical theory which would necessarily be true at least in its mathematic part."

You may have a physical theory, but because it is based upon mathematics, you cannot know that it is final, and you can never show that the universe is a certain way "necessarily."

The essay goes on to bemoan the fact that many prominent physicists have not picked up on this little inconvenience to their search for a final answer to the universe.

Particularly ironic, as Jaki notes, the close relationship between Einstein - who searched for a unified field theory -- and Gödel, whose work showed he'd fail.

As Jaki notes in another essay entitled "Reflection on Einstein's Theories," "the application of Gödel's theorem to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open."

Interesting to ponder.

Einstein on Mystery

As part of a great online exhibit from the American Institute of Physics about the life and works of Albert Einstein, one section contains his views of the relationship between science, philosophy, art and religion. Einstein notes:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."

I think this sums up the mindset one would hope to find in any philosopher, theologian or scientist. Check out this online exhibit when you get a chance. It's very interesting.

Best of Success to My Students

Another year, another semester, another crop of students on their way. Thank you to all my students this semester for your active participation, your effort and your feedback. I wish you the best of success and hope that you do in fact see the relevance of philosophy and mythology as you go through life. Remember it begins with logic: "What if this were true?" From this position all your future creativity and critical thought will follow. Good luck and keep in touch!

Thoughts on Gary Numan

British industrial rocker Gary Numan fascinates me. Not only do I love his deeply engaging and original sound, but some of his works are thought-provoking and powerful.

His "Prayer for the Unborn" (below) is a remarkable statement of dissatisfaction with God, who didn't intervene in the death by miscarriage of Numan's unborn child. Whether you are an atheist (as he is) or not, you can understand the frustration he expresses here. In fact, as this song demonstrates, Numan's atheism seems to be directed at a God who is hearing, but not answering him.



Critics note that Numan, who in his early career struggled with some very derivative work, has finally discovered a unique voice and vision as he wrestles with darker themes.

Gary Numan's official website