Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Indian Philosophy and Philosophy of Science (review)

Indian Philosophy and Philosophy of Science (review) totelian conception of nature (``we are not, any of us, merely what we are. We are also who we might become--a better or a lesser being, whose traits we acquire and indeed define in the choices we make'' [p. xxx]), which has rightly been termed teleological, his own ontology of nature appears to be strictly descriptive and causal, in conformity with modern scientific conceptions. It is thus an ``anthropomorphic'' confusion to apply our moral notions to the natural realm (p. 123). But the biblical account of creation is itself by fiat, as Hans Kelsen (Society and Nature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943]; The Pure Theory of Law [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967], pp. 18­22) pointed out in describing the ``primitive'' historical roots of the is/ought confusion. And Goodman himself describes law and nature as ``God's two utterances'' (p. 141). Jewish law itself adopted a ``teleological'' conception of the dherekh of animals, though Maimonides reformulated it in purely descriptive terms (Jackson, in Jewish Law Annual 1 [1978]: 168­176). Goodman recognizes the survival of such notions in the context of natural disasters when he writes: ``We take that fact [that nature stands aside for no one] for granted http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophy East and West University of Hawai'I Press

Indian Philosophy and Philosophy of Science (review)

Crossley, John N.
Philosophy East and West , Volume 59 (4) – Oct 25, 2009
Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/indian-philosophy-and-philosophy-of-science-review-xHuwbth64N

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'I Press
ISSN
1529-1898
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

totelian conception of nature (``we are not, any of us, merely what we are. We are also who we might become--a better or a lesser being, whose traits we acquire and indeed define in the choices we make'' [p. xxx]), which has rightly been termed teleological, his own ontology of nature appears to be strictly descriptive and causal, in conformity with modern scientific conceptions. It is thus an ``anthropomorphic'' confusion to apply our moral notions to the natural realm (p. 123). But the biblical account of creation is itself by fiat, as Hans Kelsen (Society and Nature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943]; The Pure Theory of Law [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967], pp. 18­22) pointed out in describing the ``primitive'' historical roots of the is/ought confusion. And Goodman himself describes law and nature as ``God's two utterances'' (p. 141). Jewish law itself adopted a ``teleological'' conception of the dherekh of animals, though Maimonides reformulated it in purely descriptive terms (Jackson, in Jewish Law Annual 1 [1978]: 168­176). Goodman recognizes the survival of such notions in the context of natural disasters when he writes: ``We take that fact [that nature stands aside for no one] for granted

Journal

Philosophy East and West – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Oct 25, 2009

There are no references for this article.