David Bohm’s Critique of Modern Physics by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030455378
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Oct 23, 1967

Dear Jeff

This is to continue the letters of a few days ago, concerning questions of fact, inference, beauty, glamor, violence, etc.

Now, you have objected to my using terms like fact, observation, inference, etc., because these have become very confused (essentially as a result of their being used as “weapons” in the struggle between the “romantic” metaphysicians and the “hard-headed” empiricists). At the same time, you tacitly adopt the empiricist position by saying that in using the term “fact”, I should at least be able to say what it is not (i.e., how it differs from inference). Thus you imply that certain “fundamental” terms should be capable of clear and unambiguous definition, by being referred to other words, so that these definitions would constitute an “incorrigible” basis for our further discussions.

In response to this, I find the the word “love” springs to my mind. This word has been misused and confused all through the ages. And now, it is worse than ever. Every movie advertised is full of the word “love”, which is equated with sex, violent excitement, mutual dependence and emotional exploitation, cheap sentiment, etc., etc. Likewise in books and in common usage. Following the spirit of your suggestion, I would ask “Why do we use a word that has become so confused? Can we at least say what love is not? Since we can’t, wouldn’t it be better to drop this word all together?”

The difficulty with this approach is that there is a vast domain of life to which people have always referred by using the word “love”. If we stop using it, we simply become unable to refer to this domain. We could introduce another word, but this would only confuse the issue, because deep down, this word is imprinted into the structure of the mind. Besides, any other word would soon become involved in the same confusion, because the latter pervades all of our lives, and is not merely the result of certain words.

Basically, the confusion originates because of the struggle between the “romantic” metaphysical view of love and the “hard headed” empiricist view. The “romantic” is able to delude himself easily by accepting any glamorous or exciting notion that comes into his head, saying “This is such a beautiful feeling! Surely it must be real love!” Then along comes the “hard-headed” empiricist, who says “Away with such silly sentimentality! Let us get clear and well defined ‘incorrigible’ facts! Don’t mistake superficial motions for a ‘solid’ and ‘well-founded’ mutually advantageous relationship, that is the only ‘reliable’ basis for real love”. But of course, the “hard headed” realist is just as deluded as the “sentimental romantic”. Love is actually too subtle and immeasurable a thing to be defined “solidly” and “incorrigibly”. It can be perceived only with tremendous sensitivity. And because both the “romantic” and the “realist” are violent, neither can know love. Deep down, neither of them is very different. What is called for, therefore, is to end the meaningless struggle between “romantic” and “realist” that goes on within every human being.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.