[lit-ideas] Re: The principle of the uniformity of nature

  • From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:16:54 -0600

All I can tell you for certain is that eschatology makes me think of
scatology. Certainly Greek skat-, stem of skor (genitive skatos)
"excrement," from PIE *sker- "excrement, dung" (cognates: Latin stercus
"dung"), literally "to cut off;" see shear
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shear&allowed_in_frame=0> (v.),
and compare shit
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit&allowed_in_frame=0> (v.).
Certainly the Latinized form of Greek eskhatos "last, furthest, uttermost,
extreme, most remote" in time, space, degree, (from PIE *eghs-ko-, suffixed
form of *eghs "out") has little to do with our subject, but it is
interesting in the way that humans seem to be attracted to "nasty" things.
(But what the shit do know of such things?)  Also, is an "a
priori conception" in any way similar to an Immaculate Conception? I can
make something up if you don't know.  Other than those issues, life seems
to be pretty much in order and so I leave you to yourselves. "Define thine
own self" as I once said in a lecture entitled "Down And Dirty Down in
Dixie."to the Memphis Metaphysical Society. My blessing, I leave you.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In a message dated 2/20/2015 2:02:16 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time,
> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Popper's  account throws some light on these  issues. Rather than speak of
> "causal laws" etc. [laws do not cause anything  except in the presence  of
> initial conditions and may exist without actually  causing  anything], P
> uses
> the term "natural laws" to refer to laws of nature.
> Oddly, and nicely coincidental, an author that J. L. Scherb quotes  in  his
> essay, [translated, "Does the Nothing really noth?"] quotes  from Friedman
> who co-authored the below:
> De Pierris, G. and  Friedman, M., "Kant and Hume on Causality", The
> Stanford
> Encyclopedia of  Philosophy  (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
> URL =
> <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-hume-causality/>.
> "[S]ince particular causal relations, for Kant, necessarily  involve
> causal
> laws, all of our inferences from particular perceptions  to universal
> causal laws of nature are grounded in synthetic a priori  principles of
> pure
> understanding providing a synthetic a priori  conception of the unity and
> UNIFORMITY OF NATURE in general. Hume was  correct, therefore, that THE
> OF THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE  governs all of our inductive causal
> inferences;
> and he was also  correct that this principle is not and cannot be  analytic
> a  priori."
> Indeed, the keyword here would be what Grice calls  "PHILOSOPHICAL
> ESCHATOLOGY", a branch of metaphysics.
> Cheers,
> Speranza
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: