tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3690077250072100801.post5478214199333517892..comments2024-02-26T11:04:22.115+13:00Comments on Reid's Reader – A Blog of Book Reviews and Comment.: Something OldNicholas Reidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05497366104216216952noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3690077250072100801.post-36931252535237874992013-04-16T19:37:02.161+12:002013-04-16T19:37:02.161+12:00It strikes me that aspects of Unamuno's philos...It strikes me that aspects of Unamuno's philosophy outlined here could be supported by many thinkers of his own time, and by many still living.<br />His belief that consciousness must be at the centre of the universe is a fundamental conclusion of quantum mechanics: that observer and observed are inseparable. Jung was also helpful in stating the obvious: 'it is almost an absurd prejudice to suppose that existence can only be physical. As a matter of fact, the only form of existence of which we have immediate knowledge is psychic (i.e. in the mind)'<br />The equation 'God is eternally producing things = things are eternally producing God' could be a maxim straight out of Whitehead and Hartshorne's Process Theism, wherein such reciprocities are paramount - e.g. God creates the world as much as the world creates God. The God of traditional theism is too static in that it lacks potentiality to change, to participate in the evolving universe it has created, and to be affected by the triumphs and tragedies of its creatures. It would be a God who acts but is never acted upon and therefore can never interact.<br />What seems to be Unamuno's central thesis, that a valid philosophy has to take account of the whole human being, not just the faculty of logic and reason, has a wealth of support. That there are aspects of the personality that are not rational is of course true. Colin McGinn acknowledges reason as a way to acquire knowledge but has a strong conviction of the limitations of reason. His fellow philosophers Papineau and Strevens claim that the best philosophy defies or overturns common sense. Similarly, John Hick states that 'the limitation of rationality is that the only truths capable of being strictly proved are analytic and ultimately tautological. We can't by reason alone demonstrate any matters of fact and existence - they must be known through experience.'<br />As you suggest, Unamuno also seemed to explain or foreshadow the anger of the New Atheism. As perhaps the angriest of the bunch, Dawkins denies that feeling has any validity as the basis for belief in God - there can only be 'facts,' thus misunderstanding that religion is primarily about feeling and is not subject to rational analysis - it is not something objective and observable, but subjective and invisible.<br />Your idea that philosophy is imaginative literature is a useful way of freeing it from pure analysis. Robert Brandom would probably agree, saying that philosophy is 'a peculiar genre of creative non-fiction theorising,' with the aim of understanding.Hugh Majornoreply@blogger.com