Back on Track

It worked. I stayed away from my computer for a week. When I checked in last night nothing much had happened during the week so the loss was slight. I also feel much refreshed.

Svante Nordin, the professor of history of philosophy in Lund, has written a narrative called Filosofins Historia. I gather from this volume that what made people start to use their brains forward in the 17th century was the discoveries in Nature made by early scientists or natural philosophers. One conclusion might be that we need Nature to make progress in our minds. Observing Nature is the same thing as posing questions worth their while answering.

The heliocentric theory from 1543 and the discovery of blood circulation from 1628 that led Descartes to think of our body as a machine really shook things up and could do so in the less dogmatic religious environment. Leibniz (influenced by Anne Conway) made this notion a little more subtle by proposing energized monads as the minutest particles making up the body. A forerunner like Francis Bacon who died 1626 had realized like a prophet that science was going to make us conquer Earth and free mankind from bondage. Almost like a prophet of my religion.

Nordin claims that Sweden did not contribute with a single philosopher to international philosophy. Scandinavia only had a single one, Sören Kierkegaard of Denmark. It is then satisfying to note that what propelled philosophy forward was discoveries in natural science from which Sweden during the 18th century had international actors like Linné and Scheele which ultimately led to a country excelling in engineering. Perhaps an explanation from Montesquieu's climate theory would work. The harsh Nordic climate forced us to cooperation and practical work. Scandinavians might be more survivalist in character than people from the Continent and the United Kingdom.

Nordin also claims that there is a discussion as to where the largest contribution from science, philosophy and religion is and how this changed during the 16th and 17th centuries. I think I belong to the people claiming that philosophy has become a branch on the stem of science. Why not theoretical science? Religion still affects science as is seen in the stem cell debate. However, George W. Bush's veto of stem cell research in the US only affected federally funded research and can therefore be considered a protecting of the results rather than an inhibition of research as such.

As remarkable as the revolution in experimental and observing natural science was the discovery by Hugo Grotius 1625 of natural law. Which was supposed to be the same even if God did not exist! John Locke further developed natural rights, a biological origin, and published his Two Treatises of Governments 1690. Psychological discoveries are currently transforming the way people are governed. Perhaps one can call it societal engineering. Political science has become a natural science. It is interesting that the revolution of 1688 made Locke a famous man despite the fact that he was way ahead of his time with his reasoning. He had to spend many years in exile in Holland because of the turbulent times. Words where weighed on a gold balance these days. As today I have realized.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "Study Nature" in the middle of the 19th century. The US became the leader of Natural Science research. Currently is of great importance to study the behavior of people while assaulted by TTDE. The future of Man depend on the outcome. The Political Science front?