Ideas on the Philosophy of Science - Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1987)

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (Professor emeritus of physics and philosophy at Munich and Hamburg) explains his view of philosophy and the philosophy of science in a lecture given at Cornell University in 1987 as part of a series on the philosophical and political consequences of modern science.
00:00 Talk
58:01 Q&A
#philosophy #science

[@JonSebastianF]

0:00:00 Preamble 0:02:17 part 1.1: What is Philosophy? - In Essence 0:11:07 part 1.2: What is Philosophy? - In History 0:14:31 part 2: Proposed Philosophy of Science 0:57:56 Q&A: 0:58:00 / 1:00:47 / 1:04:21 / 1:07:56 / 1:11:25

[@AN-999]

I take it this is the sibling of Richard von Weizsäcker. This is off topic, but to those who don't know; Richard was the 1st statesman of the unified BRD. When i came to Germany for studies, i remember i came across his 8th may 1985 speech... and i would listen to it over and over. The eloquence, the poise...like music to the ears. Tip to those learning german, look up "Die Rede von Richard von Weizsäcker"

[@capitanmission]

really cool dudes. Her son was president of the Club Of Rome, he writes on ecology and politics, very interesting too.

[@rustyroche1921]

finally an oasis of German clarity in a desert of Anglobabble. earlier American pragmatists like Pierce were quite well-versed metaphysics and its critique. Weizsacker even quotes William James' famous line that consciousness itself is an unconscious act. However, present day Anglo philosophy stays limited to the classical question of consciousness while ignoring psychoanalysis and therefore stays at the level of ego psychology, questions of normativity etc. OP, plz post more Germans speaking to Americans

[@capitanmission]

Im well versed in von Weizsäcker and Peirce, Peirce was veryyy ahead of all others. Ideas that are revolutionary in physics, for example in Wheeler (law without law) in fact were established by Peirce in the 19 century. The ur theory of Weizsäcker and his philosophy is compatible with the general framework of Peirce.

[@jakecarlo9950]

Gosh this was good. Thank you.

[@rafaelsa8575]

Um conteúdo desse vale ouro.

[@dikkie2913]

❤ it, thanks!

[@capitanmission]

Amazing!!! i did a translation to Spanish of an excellent documentary made by his daughter, and also Ive written a book (in spanish, free to download) on his Ur Theory.

[@Jersey-towncrier]

If the universe is unintelligent, then why is intelligence so necessary for having any conception of what the universe is?

[@seanblanchet1058]

Why should we suppose that conceivability would imply an intelligent universe? Because it would imply a logic? Why would the existence of a logic to things imply a logic giver? Does logic stops being logic if there are no more logic teachers? If a thing is logical by the choice of a maker, does logic not lose one of its principal axioms to be logic? If logic is independent of the whim of its maker than isn't his maker not all powerful?

[@TryThinking]

@@seanblanchet1058At first there was the word and that word was logos.

[@seanblanchet1058]

@@TryThinking Proving the book by quoting it is circular logic.

[@TryThinking]

@@seanblanchet1058 Book? Logos must be before the book if logos came first, it’s the reason you can’t prove the axiom of reason without reasoning, there is no book.

[@seanblanchet1058]

@@TryThinking You used a bible quote. We are discussing the legitimacy of the bible indirectly by discussing whether or not there is a god. You are coming back to the original commenters point, you are not answering any of the questions.

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Philospphy outside of the German mind!! hahaha.