Dear barendse et al.:
There is no need to be puzzled. I did not say that one world
picture is as "good" as another. Of course some theories seem applicable
to more facts than others, i.e., seem to US in OUR time and in OUR place.
We have the responsibility as scholars to devise theories and concepts of
the maximum utility and fidelity to the "known" "facts." But I am saying
that all theories and concepts and even facts (as verbalized or quantified
by us) are relative to our perspectives in space and time, and since no
one person has exactly the same perspective as any other, and no one
person is immune to change over time him/herself, it is impossible to
reach the ding-an-sich as it would appear to an omniscient being. As one
ant said to the other while standing on her ant hill and surveying the
starry heavens above, "Gee, doesn't it make you feel insignificant!"
Your insignificant servant,
Warren Wagar
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, barendse wrote:
> 5.) Finally I am a bit puzzled by W.Wagar's posting: - it may not be very humble but it reminds me a bit of Hegel's famous dictum that `the owl of Minerva only flies in the evening' meaning that any period interprets its history differently; the problem, humility aside, is that some of our zilion interpretations may be better -meaning applicable to more facts than others- and perhaps even more true than others. Try applying it to the holocaust (6 milion Jews were not killed or the Jews are themselves to blaime for the hololocaust) and the problem with the statement `any world picture' is as good as any other is clear. Anyhow- why spend the evening writing dull pieces if this `world picture' is as good as any other - why not write poems, play games, or just watch TV >
> Cheers
> R.J.Barendse
> Leiden University
>
>