Anaximander is a hero in the development of scientific thinking

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect Anaximander did not find a new way, rather he's the first named philosopher you can say this of.


https://archive.vn/IHkhy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder if anaximander kept slaves.

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if anaximander kept slaves.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

Isn't it important to review any historical hero these days in the light of historic slavery? Or are certain classes exempt?

[jeremyp]

I suspect Anaximander did not find a new way, rather he's the first named philosopher you can say this of.


https://archive.vn/IHkhy

Such is life. We celebrate achievements of people only when we know about them.

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't it important to review any historical hero these days in the light of historic slavery? Or are certain classes exempt?

If you want to make that that's what you think is important then I suggest you (a) make it and (b) make it to The Economist whose headline it is.

[Nearly Sane]

Such is life. We celebrate achievements of people only when we know about them.

  So if you want to celebrate the invention of fire, you celebrate the first named person to use it, not the invention?

[Sriram]

There is a time and stage for scientific thinking....and a time and stage for mystical thinking....

These two need not be in conflict and are not mutually exclusive. In fact they should be integrated.  That is the third stage.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a time and stage for scientific thinking....and a time and stage for mystical thinking....

These two need not be in conflict and are not mutually exclusive. In fact they should be integrated.  That is the third stage.

What methodology do you propose to evaluate 'mystical thinking'? And while you are at that, what is 'mystical thinking'?

[Udayana]

There is a time and stage for scientific thinking....and a time and stage for mystical thinking....

These two need not be in conflict and are not mutually exclusive. In fact they should be integrated.  That is the third stage.

Mysticism is fine, but the "mystical thinking" is a contradiction in terms.

[Sriram]

I agree I was unclear....but what I mean by mystical thinking is trying to understand mystical experiences intellectually.

We cannot evaluate mystical experiences through rational and empirical methods. 

[Nearly Sane]

I agree I was unclear....but what I mean by mystical thinking is trying to understand mystical experiences intellectually.

We cannot evaluate mystical experiences through rational and empirical methods.

What is a 'mystical experience'?

And without a rational method which would seem to preclude any rational approacj, how would one interpret anything 'intellectually'?

[Sriram]

What is a 'mystical experience'?

And without a rational method which would seem to preclude any rational approacj, how would one interpret anything 'intellectually'?

A mystical experience is one which we experience...but not directly through sensory means.

Rational thinking requires sensory inputs. Mystical experiences are not amenable to that. Therefore they can only be speculated on...through philosophical concepts. PLease see my thread on Faith.

[Nearly Sane]

A mystical experience is one which we experience...but not directly through sensory means.

Rational thinking requires sensory inputs. Mystical experiences are not amenable to that. Therefore they can only be speculated on...through philosophical concepts. PLease see my thread on Faith.

Why would thinking require specific sensory input? If speculation is not rational, it is incoherent.

There's also an element of poisoning, or rather in this caee sweetening the well by using the term 'mystical'. You seem to be referring to a split between external experiences and internal ones. Attaching the title 'mystical' is just indulging in a preconceived idea.