Oh, yes. I took the test a second time, changed twp answers to my alternate "best" response and came out skeptical, which is o.k. too. I also am polite (or would like to be). I'm just not daring or fun.
Compassionate you say....that had me thinking...alongside empathetic. Perhaps....a little compassionate, a little empathetic, but my fear of getting dragged into the quicksand, keeps me from getting to close to the person, so does that make me smart or selfish?
Here it is.baron_wasteDecember 14 2014, 16:52:37 UTC
I've been trying to find where I'd put this:
“Meanwhile, bobby1933 and I amuse each other because of a basic respect for the others’ view and awareness of its worth - yet I’m a Western Renaissance Rationalist Enlightenment Libertarian, very much the 18th-century powdered wig and lace cuffs dilettante experimenting with electricity and tuning fork, building a better mousetrap because I can, while he is on the other side of the planet from me in several ways: Does the mouse not have a right to live? Think, as you gaze at the stars, what they see of you.
“Bosh,” I say… but I remember it later, and think about it.”
“You see what Rene Descartes' graphs and equations mean. With a system like that, there's no more mumbo-jumbo. Just mathematics, that you can now use to describe and predict everything - even the stuff you can't handle, like the planets!
“All you needed, to get the really precise data you could now handle with your fancy new maths, was instruments.And there were none better than those made in
( ... )
Re: Here it is.bobby1933December 14 2014, 17:31:52 UTC
You more than do me justice, but basically, yes.
As to science, it answers certain questions well enough and others not at all. In the last few pages of The Day the Universe Changed, Burke compares Science and Religion as he sees them, and finds them similar and, perhaps, complementary approaches to "knowledge." Correlation + chronology suggest causality, other things being equal. But it is the inequality of those other things which continues to shift and broaden and appear that should keep both religion and science humble and on their toes.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Happy Birthday anyway!
Reply
Reply
Reply
I've been trying to find where I'd put this:
“Meanwhile, bobby1933 and I amuse each other because of a basic respect for the others’ view and awareness of its worth - yet I’m a Western Renaissance Rationalist Enlightenment Libertarian, very much the 18th-century powdered wig and lace cuffs dilettante experimenting with electricity and tuning fork, building a better mousetrap because I can, while he is on the other side of the planet from me in several ways: Does the mouse not have a right to live? Think, as you gaze at the stars, what they see of you.
“Bosh,” I say… but I remember it later, and think about it.”
“You see what Rene Descartes' graphs and equations mean.
With a system like that, there's no more mumbo-jumbo. Just
mathematics, that you can now use to describe and predict
everything - even the stuff you can't handle, like
the planets!
“All you needed, to get the really precise data you could now
handle with your fancy new maths, was instruments.And there were none better than those made in ( ... )
Reply
As to science, it answers certain questions well enough and others not at all. In the last few pages of The Day the Universe Changed, Burke compares Science and Religion as he sees them, and finds them similar and, perhaps, complementary approaches to "knowledge." Correlation + chronology suggest causality, other things being equal. But it is the inequality of those other things which continues to shift and broaden and appear that should keep both religion and science humble and on their toes.
Reply
Leave a comment