knowledge, whether scientific or otherwise: intuitive, telepathic, psychic, Para-psychic, artistic,moral, aesthetic or spiritual or even perceptive (karma), to interpret phenomena and eventualities.
Directionality of knowledge
Finality
Can the scientific mind exclude all precautions relative to finality, by trying to explain it? Can we limit the explanation to science only? Can science satisfy the questioning of meaning posed by philosophers?
How can we explain that starting off from confrontation with phenomenon, i.e. the vitalized object, belief in a cause emerges as alternative?
Philippe Descamps explains that, ‘describing a phenomenon in finalist terms proposes the existenceof a consciousness capable of envisaging the whole and the future, also capable of working out a project that will organize the means of establishing and arranging harmoniously a ‘being’ made up of parts that develops in terms of the totality and contributing through its cooperation to the survival of an organism, we assume that it is animated by an internal finality, this ‘being’ is provided with intention.’ (Science et Avenir, October,2000).
The mechanicist explanation by the positivists does not lead to the explanation of the ‘reason of being’ that imposes itself.
In other words the ‘how’ does not explain the ‘why’.
Facing a world already made, and constantly changing, man interrogates himself about it, in its totality and in parts. What is the universe and how did it come about? Is there an architect or is the universe eternal, which does not exclude an architect, as Stephen Hawkins assumes, ‘If there was a Big Bang then there is a God but if the
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24