On Dec 3, 7:23 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:12:17 -0800, MonkeeSage wrote: > > Being fair, the bulk of Liebniz' writings have also been rejected by > > those in related fields. Most modern metaphysicians hold a view closer > > to Boston Personalism or at least post-Kantian Personalism (a la Buber), > > than monadic unity and pre-established harmony, a la Liebniz. It is an > > instance of the genetic fallacy to reject the achievements of a person > > in one field, simply because of their failures in another. > > I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist than Newton > was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's achievements should be *rejected* > (er, except for those pesky Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...). > I'm just saying that we should understand Newton for what he actually > was, and not based on the 18th Century revisionism. > > -- > Steven
Fair enough. Understanding a person in their own context, especially given the modern tendency to appropriate anything remotely similar to the modern view as their own, is a rare quality (at least among philosophers). I'm not a 'Newtonian fanboy' as it were, I just dislike the uniformitarian push for a "one right view" of physics/metaphysics, as if there were no room for innovation! Regards, Jordan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
