Diderot
worked to spread the Enlightenment philosophy that reason is the ultimate tool.
However, Diderot says, one cannot establish ultimate knowledge of nature
through science. According to Diderot, reason can only take us so far,
only so much knowledge can be gleaned from reality. Science is therefore
limited. This thought was very interesting to me, and I thought I’d consider it
here.
Diderot was not a spiritual man. On life, he writes, "never to know where
you come from, why you come and where you are going! That is what is called the
most important gift of our parents and nature. Life." Diderot was
originally a deist, and later turned into an atheist. In his time, certainly,
religion had a much larger influence. In fact, it was the influence of religion
that philosophers like Diderot were attempting to escape. This behavior is
reflected in his work, in which Diderot tends towards the pragmatic and
empirical. However, has he taken it too far? Has he disregarded spirituality in
an effort to understand the practical? Einstein would probably agree. Einstein
was a devout agnostic, and certainly not an atheist. This distinction isn’t
subtle as it allows for the sublime, for what Einstein called “an attitude of
humility.” Einstein and Diderot agree on the limitations of science, however
Diderot fails to explain what lies beyond our empirical observations. In fact,
so does Einstein; however, the root of Einstein’s spirituality is in his marvel
for the unanswerable questions of science. That is to say, unlike Diderot,
Einstein was spiritual. Diderot touches on this subject when he writes:
“Do you think one can adopt a position on the
supreme intelligence without knowing what to believe … (various aspects of
scientific inquiry)?”
“No”
Is there room for spirituality? Or, more
importantly, is it advantageous to include spirituality in a concurrent pursuit
of scientific inquiry?
I actually disagree with your claim that Diderot allows no room for spirituality in this text. I think there's a difference between accepting his materialism as a philosophical launching point and leaping to the conclusion that he disregards spiritual thinking altogether; similarly, I believe that, at least to an extent, his interest in biological materialism and the aesthetic/moral arguments that result from it are compatible, if not synonymous, with spirituality. I think that spiritual awareness can be something largely related to connectedness and sensitivity - the very subjects that Diderot talks about! The issue Lauren brings up in her post reveals that, I think - the idea that molecules lose their "identity" when they assimilate into the whole is not necessarily in conflict with spirituality - in fact, I think it almost reaffirms it, in a way. We are not just concrete *beings." Diderot's point is that life is in a constant state of flux, it's always recycling itself, and the smallest of stimuli can affect what the spider at the center of the web experiences. Furthermore, as I said in class, resonance is not just a physical, external phenomenon - it's internal to living things. Life, too, is relative (based on the fallacy of the ephemeral.) I find all of these ideas spiritual in a certain *aesthetic* way (not in the "religious" or "godly" way) - even this text, in its sneaky way of entering into the middle of a conversation, is sort of spiritual. You know there's more there, and that it came out of previous discussion, but you can't see it.
ReplyDeleteScientific inquiry is by design supposed to be an unbiased, highly controlled investigation. As such, spirituality, and even past scientific theories to a certain extend, need to minimally involved in the process so as to not confound present results. However, certainly in Diderot's time, and even through to present day, I would agree with Allison that spirituality plays some role in scientific inquiry. Spirituality is so ingrained in beliefs held today, I would argue even in those that identify as atheist, that completely separating the two is difficult to impossible depending on the topic at hand. Specifically, in many of the philosophical pursuits discussed in the text (things that may fall into the category of Thought Experiments that we discussed in class) and topics such as morality, separating the two should be a goal, worked towards in increments over time.
ReplyDeleteTo Janelle's point about most disciplines sharing common roots and maintaining connections to this day, Chris's comment actually reminds me of another class I'm taking. In the class "Philosophy of History," taught by Professor Kelly, we are examining how history has been written over time with consideration of its meaning in philosophy and sometimes religion. The scholars that we have been looking at questioned human nature, the course of reason, the universe's fate, and so on. Professor Kelly actually talked about Diderot in class on Tuesday, right after we discussed D'Alembert's Dream! One thing that I have learned in that class that can be applied to Diderot is that in many thinkers of the enlightenment's minds, providence has an inherent part in history and science. Therefore, some may talk profusely about God or some deity's role in nature, while others, even skeptics, focus on reasoning their position and assume that reader's will understand that providence plays a role in foundation of their theory. I guess having an Enlightenment thinker's perspective would help us in our readings for Crossroads!
ReplyDelete