Physics, Second Thoughts
In the intellectual tradition of the West, through the Middle Ages, until the modern era, Theology was considered the “queen of the sciences.” With the demise of Roman law and order the Catholic Church was the guarantor of European social order in the Middle Ages. God’s law, the cathedrals and monasteries were the conservators of culture and of our heritage of knowledge.
In the modern era, characterized by the reliance upon reason and the development of the scientific method, physics ascended to prominence. The “queen of the sciences,” physics is regarded as the most fundamental of the natural sciences: the study of matter and its motion and behavior through space and time along with related concepts of energy and force. Physics excavates the foundations of matter, the quantum dance of energy. Physics is widely regarded as providing the explanation of reality.
Nietzsche had a thing or two to say regarding physics…….
14. It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that physics too is only an interpretation and exegesis (to suit us, if I may say so!) and NOT a world-explanation; but in so far as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more–namely, as an explanation. It has eyes and fingers of its own, it has ocular evidence and palpableness of its own: this operates fascinatingly, persuasively, and CONVINCINGLY upon an age with fundamentally plebeian tastes–in fact, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternal popular sensualism. What is clear, what is “explained”? Only that which can be seen and felt–one must pursue every problem to that point. Obversely, however, the charm of the Platonic mode of thought, which was an ARISTOCRATIC mode, consisted precisely in RESISTANCE to obvious sense-evidence–perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more fastidious senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to find a higher triumph in remaining masters of them: and this by means of pale, cold, grey conceptional networks which they threw over the motley whirl of the senses–the mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an ENJOYMENT different from that which the physicists of today offer us–and likewise the Darwinists and anti-teleologists among the physiological workers, with their principle of the “smallest possible effort,” and the greatest possible stupidity. “Where man cannot find anything to see or to grasp, he has no further business”–that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may notwithstanding be the right imperative for a hardy, laborious race of machinists and bridge- builders of the future, who have nothing but ROUGH work to perform.
Friedrich Nietzsche –Beyond Good and Evil , On the Prejudices of Philosophers #14
4 thoughts on “Physics, Second Thoughts”
As we enter an era (hopefully a brief one) where science takes a back seat to “gut reaction” policy decisions, researchers delving into the bucket of unanswered questions regarding physics, astronomy, and chemistry will be stymied by ignorance and a growing lack of funding. The increasing backlash towards intellectualism is drawing us towards a black hole of ignorance and the potential demise of the humans species. As I’ve wondered in past musings, perhaps this is not such a bad thing. We humans are narcissistic enough to believe we have pat answers for just about any question that arises with the vast majority of us refusing to embrace the one part of human culture that could eventually help us to understand our place in nature, that being science. So if we take the worst case scenario in terms of our longevity, extinction, we will cease destroying the planet and nature will have the opportunity to heal. Perhaps that would be best for all concerned. If that is the case, I say that we will have been a grand but flawed and eventually failed experiment in the evolutionary cycle. And if indeed we self-destruct, we will know there was no other possible outcome based on human nature. I can only hope the next iteration of whatever clever creature rises to the top of the food chain will not make such a mess of things.
No other possible outcome based on human nature….
That is a thought with some weight. Extinction being the outcome of human nature. My hope is that human nature is variable, and not disposed toward self destruction. There are definite warnings against hubris in the writings of Homer as well as in the Christian Bible. There is a chance that self awareness will somehow allow a measured response to the conditions we have created, an alternative to fight (predator) or flight (prey). Self control, self discipline is difficult, but can be learned as well as taught. It is possible to cease destroying the planet by an act of our will. The pat answers are those that serve our own illusory interest, and not our true interest or that of the planet. Not only do we need to increase our capacity for compassion, but we are not sufficiently analytical.
Those who labor out of sight, under compensated in the back of the house, are just as important as those who work and pleasantly dine in the front of the house. I am reminded that our exploitation of others, is linked to our exploitation of the planet. Seems to me that many of us could actually live better with less, thus making room for others to live better, as well as reducing the pressure on the planet. Can we not exploit one another less?
Thanks for your stimulating comments.
To embrace self-awareness there must first be a desire and a drive to become self-aware, to question one’s motivations and have the wherewithal to change course. This means we would have to admit our faults. Since the current head of government never makes a mistake [he’d be the first to tell you he doesn’t make mistakes] how can we possibly assume any responsibility for our own actions? For this reason I believe we’re toast. We were on the edge before DT and we are currently in free fall. I want to believe we have a chance to resurrect sanity before it’s too late, but I can’t put the pieces together to see how that could work.
We have all known personally individuals who could not afford to admit error. Certainly history offers ample examples. Louis XIV is not the only head of state who believed “I am the state” (l’état, c’est moi). One can only take responsibility for one’s own quotient of self awareness. There are many intersections in the fold point of a historical epochs. Perhaps we are living in such a time, the post industrial age. How can we not advocate for civility, for a tolerable planet upon which to build a decent house, —for everyone?