Several people have criticized (gently) my speculation on why Heidegger
had never read Bacon. My comments were really speculation; I have no
real knowledge why Heidegger did not read him. Maybe it was just one of
those things.
Much of the criticism resulted from my erroneous use of the word
"empiricist" rather than "experimental", which was my intended meaning.
Heidegger thought that modern science was specifically mathematical
because the ancients did experiments as well. Since Bacon recommended
experimentation as the way to unlock the secrets of nature, Heidegger
would not have thought him as particularly revolutionary, unlike
Descartes or Gallileo.
Poeggeler, for one, has criticized Heidegger for misrepresenting the true
character of modern science. My point was not so much as to criticize as
to point out a plausible explanation for why Heidegger would not have
given Bacon much thought.
Another point (and why I mentioned Strauss) is that taken from a
perspective that would interest Heidegger, the use of technology by
humans to conquer nature and treat it purely instrumentally, Bacon works
well, as well as or perhaps even better than Descartes. If this is true,
then Heidegger's characterization of modern science would hold true,
whether it is mathematical or experimental.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
had never read Bacon. My comments were really speculation; I have no
real knowledge why Heidegger did not read him. Maybe it was just one of
those things.
Much of the criticism resulted from my erroneous use of the word
"empiricist" rather than "experimental", which was my intended meaning.
Heidegger thought that modern science was specifically mathematical
because the ancients did experiments as well. Since Bacon recommended
experimentation as the way to unlock the secrets of nature, Heidegger
would not have thought him as particularly revolutionary, unlike
Descartes or Gallileo.
Poeggeler, for one, has criticized Heidegger for misrepresenting the true
character of modern science. My point was not so much as to criticize as
to point out a plausible explanation for why Heidegger would not have
given Bacon much thought.
Another point (and why I mentioned Strauss) is that taken from a
perspective that would interest Heidegger, the use of technology by
humans to conquer nature and treat it purely instrumentally, Bacon works
well, as well as or perhaps even better than Descartes. If this is true,
then Heidegger's characterization of modern science would hold true,
whether it is mathematical or experimental.
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------