There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One’s called prickles, the other’s called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it’s waves.
*facepalm*
If one has a technical understanding of QFT[1] (or even half of technical understanding, like me), this sounds totally silly. There’s no real question as to whether things are fundamentally “particles” or “waves”. There’s nothing “goo” about waves either; waves refer to mathematically precise phenomena. Physics is precise and mathematical (“prickly” if you like). Anyone who understands QFT must have a prickly side, and can deal with both waves and particles without confusion. Those who think physics can be “vague” don’t understand the physics.
(Critiquing Watts of course, not primarily the author of this post)
I mean… what you’re actually criticizing is that Alan Watts is a goo philosopher.
He’s not trying to be precise or carefully define what he’s talking about. He’s instead using loose metaphors to convey a feeling.
And your objection is that his loose metaphors are pointing at things that have precise definitions and therefore he’s technically mistaken in how he’s trying to illustrate his point.
To which a goo person would shrug. Because they understood the message, and that’s the real point. Not technical accuracy of the words & metaphors.
So in a funny way, you’re actually illustrating Watts’ point.
*facepalm*
If one has a technical understanding of QFT[1] (or even half of technical understanding, like me), this sounds totally silly. There’s no real question as to whether things are fundamentally “particles” or “waves”. There’s nothing “goo” about waves either; waves refer to mathematically precise phenomena. Physics is precise and mathematical (“prickly” if you like). Anyone who understands QFT must have a prickly side, and can deal with both waves and particles without confusion. Those who think physics can be “vague” don’t understand the physics.
(Critiquing Watts of course, not primarily the author of this post)
Quantum field theory
I mean… what you’re actually criticizing is that Alan Watts is a goo philosopher.
He’s not trying to be precise or carefully define what he’s talking about. He’s instead using loose metaphors to convey a feeling.
And your objection is that his loose metaphors are pointing at things that have precise definitions and therefore he’s technically mistaken in how he’s trying to illustrate his point.
To which a goo person would shrug. Because they understood the message, and that’s the real point. Not technical accuracy of the words & metaphors.
So in a funny way, you’re actually illustrating Watts’ point.
Good point