I don't think Leibnitz was the last one, Goethe for instance is a shinning example of someone who strived to extend his world knowledge instead of specializing in a single niche. Nietzsche thought he was the closest person to an "Uebermensch" because he didn't restrict his knowledge to a single facet of his life. For instance he used his insiration towards nature not only to write poetry, but also to create laws that ensured public parks. He was also the last non-scientist to conduct empirically valuable experiments.
I am more inclined to think about ideals than ethics, since science and technology do not contain any inherent meaning. But I do think science does help in informing ideals, after all scientist must also hold beliefs in order to generate new ideas. I think science offers a unique method of probing and controlling for our beliefs, which is what seperates it from a purely dogmatic religion. I do not think generating more and more hypotheses is in itself a problem, since new scientific discoveries also reveal new uncertanties. The problem I see is that people may start worshipping science as some kind of deity and stop ackknowledging uncertainty. Science cannot give anything meaning after all...
Thank you. Yes, those are good points of yours, dácord. In particular what you said about "new scientific discoveries also reveal new uncertainties". I remember that scandal about "Contergarn", a pharmaceutical specimen which caused severely disabled newborn babies. Or the research about placebos ... or ... hypnoses connected with anesthesia which they investigate in France when I remember correctly.
I need some more clarification about "ideals" and how you define and include them in your personal life.
I myself have difficulties to define an ideal without pulling ethics on one hand and role models on the other hand. The third factor is the social realm in which it is allowed to debate ethics and let me being taught from those who study what is attached to birth and death in the sense of giving me spiritual guidance in experiencing an inherent meaning.
For example: The fact of death directs me towards having a spiritual problem. This problem I like to discuss with a person who is educated in spiritual matters and also does not lecture me from an isolated but an embedded place. Say, being a member of a community where giving company to the dying people is actively practiced. Which, as a consequence shows me some reputation in order to feel trust in the provided services.
Without these supporting mental and physical realms, I wouldn't know what and who is representing this ideal. Where do I have to place myself? When the ideal is too low - like nobody I know can serve as one - I lack orientation to where I can look.
Following this logic, this led me to my personal life to begin to study religion and re-think my Christian experiences within the community I grew up in.
After giving you this brief derivation of mine I would like to read yours if you don't mind. I think you are a sensible and good debating partner.
Well I hardly disagree with you here, I use ideals in the sense of meta-ethics or reasons to behave ethically. To put it the other way arounf, ethics are applied ideals. For me, ideals presuppose ethical dilemmas and I typically boil it down principles that help us form meaningful relationships. I think death is key here too, because it directs you towards the search for meaning. I think when Heidegger was asked how people could live more meaningful lives, he said they should visit cemeteries more often.
With regard to science and ideals, I think you can probe ideals in a scientific manner. The scientific manner necessitates that we test our assumptions meticulously and so we should also use this to test our ideals.
Another point worth mentioning is that science has increased the average life expectancy, but it hasn't necessarily made people happier in their entirety. One could hardly argue that hunter-gatherers were unhappier. Individuals were always surrounded by their family and friends. Personally I believe in forming meaningflu connections to others, which is (I) talking with them and not them, (II) learning to love people for their differences and not just looking for people that remind you of yourself. Not to say I don't like people with common interests though :D .
"Visiting a cemetery", what a good example! You know a lot, that is for sure. What you said reminded me of Alan Watts' lectures where he talked about that Zen Masters always answer worldly when being asked a spiritual matter and answer in a spiritual manner when being asked a secular question.
It's always an act of balance to accomplish the task of not rejecting people for their differences and welcome their perspective. Common interests are the ground to feel commonality.
I am looking forward to what you come up with next.