The author that occupies us today is an example that shows us how science and literature are two complementary – never contradictory – ways of representing the same reality. We are talking about Charles Percy Snow (1905-1980), an English scientist who planted science and literature in equal parts.
At the end of the 1950s, C.B. Snow gave a controversial speech in Cambridge under the title The two culturesHe complained about the polarization between science and literature in modern society. A duality that has created the current gap between complementary disciplines. The debate is still manual and the gap widens. Without moving forward, study plans reinforce this duality from the moment they give us a choice between science or letters. One of the two.
Contemplating and realizing the whole world is a matter of philosophy as well as science. If we go back to the past, scientific treatises were conceived as literary genres in their own right. These were the times of ancient Greece, when philosophers were called “physicists” because of their rational approach to nature. Without going further, Thales of Miletus cultivated philosophy, just as much as mathematics and astronomy. Plato introduced him to us in one of his “dialogues” as a man who walked and looked at the sky, looking for questions answered by the stars. In one of these, Thales fell into a well. The metaphor is to define Thales falling into the well as the letters fall into the basin of history.
Contemplating and realizing the whole world is a matter of philosophy as well as science
While science, separate from the humanities, has reached the highest peaks of evolution, the development of letters has been slower. Something similar is what CB Snow referred to in his lecture. He told the audience, “Literature changes more slowly than science,” then gave the example of the “distinguished man of science” who asked him about Yates, Pound and Wyndham Lewis as perverse authors who influenced when they contributed to the Holocaust. Something excessive, but nothing astonishing if we refer to the separation of two worlds that must remain united, as at the beginning of the story, before the letters fall into the sewer.
So, for CP Snow, number 2 is a dangerous number. “Any attempt to divide something into two must be viewed with suspicion.” Snow’s critique of divorce between science and literature shows us that both letters and the flag are in danger of degeneration if the two remain at a distance. Letters, without scientific instruction, give rise to obscurantism, in the same way that science, without the literary spark, gives rise to scientism.
This can be illustrated with the example of Shakespeare himself, who would end up defining Hamlet by scientism as a mixture of words, one after the other. Meanwhile, on the other hand, particle physics is showing us that we can be in two places simultaneously, and that the rules of the quantum game will change the monologue of Hamlet. In this way, “to be or not to be” will remain in “to be or not to be.” This is the question Snow posed to the Cambridge stage, dreading the reality of the separation between science and the humanities. For CP Snow, science and the humanities go hand in hand. Only by the sum of both can culture be the state of matter in its most intelligent dimensions.
Stone ax It is a section where Montero GlazeBy the will of prose, he exercises his own blockade of scientific reality to show that science and art are a complementary form of knowledge.
“Creator. Devoted pop culture specialist. Certified web fanatic. Unapologetic coffee lover.”