gk63. Having made clear his position on reincarnation in his book Immortality, Paul Edwards goes on to ridicule the notion of resurrection as expressed in the philosopher John Hick's "cloud cuckoo land" fantasies. As an antidote, Edwards brings to bear The Future of an Illusion, a defense of atheism by Edwards's fellow Austrian, Sigmund Freud.
In James Strachey's English translation of Freud's Illusion, the quotation reads:
We may note that in his introduction to his anthology, Edwards -- who signed the atheistic Humanist Manifesto II -- goes to great lengths to test spiritual concepts on the basis of materialist or "scientific" concepts, but rarely if ever considers using a converse test -- not that it is very clear how one would go about making a converse test. Yet, it may be observed that for centuries materialistic concepts were indeed weighed in accord with a spiritual (or spiritualized) scale.
In other words, why should the truth of a claim only be provable by the currently accepted set of assumptions? What if we were to test modern "facts" by a different set of assumptions -- say those of Thomas Aquinas? Who is to say which set of assumptions is correct?
Despite his admiration for Russell, Edwards had, I would say, the engineering outlook so prevalent among 20th Century intellectuals. I don't mean that he was an engineer or could do mathematics; I mean that he saw the world as based on a nuts-and-bolts no-nonsense materialist machinery. Much of his output -- he wrote or edited 16 books -- was focused on skewering those whom he saw as obscure or unscientific. As far as I know, nothing he wrote is regarded as a major contribution to philosophy, which is not to say that his work was not worthwhile.
While no doubt there is value in exposing some claims of popular parapsychologists; was that endeavor worth all the attention he gave it? I suppose something can be said in favor of his analysis of the work of Martin Heidegger, Heidegger's Confusions (Prometheus 2004), but one wonders how Edwards could do anything but debunk Heidegger, given Edwards's materialism.
Please see the anthology Immortality edited by Paul Edwards (Prometheus 1997) and James Strachey's translation of The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud (Norton 1962). Strachey based his translation on the translation of W.D. Robson-Scott, which was published in 1928 by Hogarth Press and the Institute for Psychoanalysis in London. Freud's book was first published as Zukunft einer Illusion (Internationaler Pyschoanalytischer Verlag. 1927).
For other footnoted information on Edwards, please see:
Footnote dh97
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-dh97.html
Footnote np54
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-np54.html
Footnote ds45
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-ds45.html
Footnote sf51
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-sf51.html
"What use to man is the illusion of a kingdom on the moon whose revenues have never yet been seen by anyone?" Let us leave the heavens (he then quotes his fellow skeptic Heinrich Heine) to the "angels and the sparrows."
In James Strachey's English translation of Freud's Illusion, the quotation reads:
Of what use to them is the mirage of wide acres in the moon, whose harvest no one has ever yet seen? As honest smallholders on this earth they will know how to cultivate their plot in such a way that it supports them. By withdrawing their expectations from the other world and concentrating all their liberated energies into their life on earth, they will probably succeed in achieving a state of things in which life will become tolerable for everyone and civilization no longer oppressive to anyone. Then, with one of our fellow- unbelievers, they will be able to say without regret:Strachey footnote:
Den Himmel uberlassen wir
Den Engeln und den Spatzen.
‘We leave Heaven to the angels and the sparrows.’ From Heine’s poem Deutschland (Caput I). The word which is here translated ‘fellow-unbelievers’ — in German ‘Unglaubensgenossen ’ — was applied by Heine himself to Spinoza...The words of Freud that Edwards omitted ring somewhat hollow in light of the atrocities and mass death of World War II, much of it instigated by people with little regard for heaven -- Nazis, communists and materialists of every sort, along with not-very-sincere churchmen.
We may note that in his introduction to his anthology, Edwards -- who signed the atheistic Humanist Manifesto II -- goes to great lengths to test spiritual concepts on the basis of materialist or "scientific" concepts, but rarely if ever considers using a converse test -- not that it is very clear how one would go about making a converse test. Yet, it may be observed that for centuries materialistic concepts were indeed weighed in accord with a spiritual (or spiritualized) scale.
In other words, why should the truth of a claim only be provable by the currently accepted set of assumptions? What if we were to test modern "facts" by a different set of assumptions -- say those of Thomas Aquinas? Who is to say which set of assumptions is correct?
Despite his admiration for Russell, Edwards had, I would say, the engineering outlook so prevalent among 20th Century intellectuals. I don't mean that he was an engineer or could do mathematics; I mean that he saw the world as based on a nuts-and-bolts no-nonsense materialist machinery. Much of his output -- he wrote or edited 16 books -- was focused on skewering those whom he saw as obscure or unscientific. As far as I know, nothing he wrote is regarded as a major contribution to philosophy, which is not to say that his work was not worthwhile.
While no doubt there is value in exposing some claims of popular parapsychologists; was that endeavor worth all the attention he gave it? I suppose something can be said in favor of his analysis of the work of Martin Heidegger, Heidegger's Confusions (Prometheus 2004), but one wonders how Edwards could do anything but debunk Heidegger, given Edwards's materialism.
Please see the anthology Immortality edited by Paul Edwards (Prometheus 1997) and James Strachey's translation of The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud (Norton 1962). Strachey based his translation on the translation of W.D. Robson-Scott, which was published in 1928 by Hogarth Press and the Institute for Psychoanalysis in London. Freud's book was first published as Zukunft einer Illusion (Internationaler Pyschoanalytischer Verlag. 1927).
For other footnoted information on Edwards, please see:
Footnote dh97
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-dh97.html
Footnote np54
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-np54.html
Footnote ds45
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-ds45.html
Footnote sf51
https://thetaman.blogspot.com/2020/05/footnote-sf51.html
No comments:
Post a Comment