Sorry to throw something I'm still in the process to understand it... but you seem to be missing Hegel. Quantitative models and craftmanship are both parts of a whole. One tends to think in either/or terms... but, alledgedly, Hegel may help one get rid of that frame of thought. That's what a philosophy professor from the UCV told me recently. I'm not able to go beyond from what I just said. Sorry to interrupt... ciao!
Hegel is nice, at least the little that I understand from his work, to frame things in tension fields instead of dualities. So far so good. But I do not think that there is any space for tension fields in between these approaches. They are fundamentally contradictory. I guess that different tasks might be better approached by different systems. It might also be that both systems are just equal, but in japanese fencing I have not achieved a level (yet) that allows me to approach it in the more western way. Or it might be something else that I have not seen... yet.
Please, let me advance in knowing more on this dialectical thing... But, in the mean time, I dare to tell you something about contradictions. According to my "tutor" on Hegel, there are 3 types of contradiction brought by Aristotle:
1. Contradiction in strong sense: rain/not rain
2. Contradictoriness: black/white (and a whole range of grayness)
On the other hand, there is distinction between terms, in which there are not correlations between them. For example, Zidane/TigerWoods. Where you find contradiction (correlation), theres no problem to "dialectisize" the thing... But, where there is distinction it seems that it won't work.
In the case of craftsmanship/industrialization, I think it's a correlated phenomena. It's similar to a father/son opposition, since there wouldn't have been any craftsmanship era, the industrial one couldn't even have started.
hum… that last one… that one is precedent of the other does not mean that they are not opposed. And I am not sure that craftsmanship was needed for industrialization… they seem to me different world views…. not views that evolve from each other.
That's the point. They oppose each other, but they are correlated at the same time. And this reminds me the dilemma thing, the logic/ilogic coexistence, the clear and the unclear, that we were talking about. One can view it as the paradoxical russellian way of ending "the party" for rationalists from the west, but Hegel may have thrown us a lifesaver to avoid getting drowned in contradictions. But I must dive deeper, paradoxically... coming soon.
I still disagree. My take on Hegel is that he saw contradictions as forces of disruption and creation. In that sense the contradictions between capitalists and the people created the revolution. BUt this is not that kind of contradiction. There are no tensions in between these two things, they are conceptual alternatives.
Sorry to throw something I'm still in the process to understand it... but you seem to be missing Hegel. Quantitative models and craftmanship are both parts of a whole. One tends to think in either/or terms... but, alledgedly, Hegel may help one get rid of that frame of thought. That's what a philosophy professor from the UCV told me recently. I'm not able to go beyond from what I just said. Sorry to interrupt... ciao!
Hegel is nice, at least the little that I understand from his work, to frame things in tension fields instead of dualities. So far so good. But I do not think that there is any space for tension fields in between these approaches. They are fundamentally contradictory. I guess that different tasks might be better approached by different systems. It might also be that both systems are just equal, but in japanese fencing I have not achieved a level (yet) that allows me to approach it in the more western way. Or it might be something else that I have not seen... yet.
Please, let me advance in knowing more on this dialectical thing... But, in the mean time, I dare to tell you something about contradictions. According to my "tutor" on Hegel, there are 3 types of contradiction brought by Aristotle:
1. Contradiction in strong sense: rain/not rain
2. Contradictoriness: black/white (and a whole range of grayness)
3. Opposition: left/right, north/south, father/son
On the other hand, there is distinction between terms, in which there are not correlations between them. For example, Zidane/TigerWoods. Where you find contradiction (correlation), theres no problem to "dialectisize" the thing... But, where there is distinction it seems that it won't work.
In the case of craftsmanship/industrialization, I think it's a correlated phenomena. It's similar to a father/son opposition, since there wouldn't have been any craftsmanship era, the industrial one couldn't even have started.
hum… that last one… that one is precedent of the other does not mean that they are not opposed. And I am not sure that craftsmanship was needed for industrialization… they seem to me different world views…. not views that evolve from each other.
That's the point. They oppose each other, but they are correlated at the same time. And this reminds me the dilemma thing, the logic/ilogic coexistence, the clear and the unclear, that we were talking about. One can view it as the paradoxical russellian way of ending "the party" for rationalists from the west, but Hegel may have thrown us a lifesaver to avoid getting drowned in contradictions. But I must dive deeper, paradoxically... coming soon.
I still disagree. My take on Hegel is that he saw contradictions as forces of disruption and creation. In that sense the contradictions between capitalists and the people created the revolution. BUt this is not that kind of contradiction. There are no tensions in between these two things, they are conceptual alternatives.
Well, I'll get back to that someday, later. I ran out of intellectual "gas"