A Non-Metaphysical Theory

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:27 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151213 wrote:
That's not what the problem is here. I don't care what Jeeprs believes.

The problem is Jeeprs' always attacking analytic philosophy as a whole for not doing what Jeeprs wants it to do.



I think analytic philosophy is fair game for a meta-philosophical critique. I like Rorty, who in my mind acts as a bridge. Jeeprs and I probably both agree that some forms of philosophy have turned their backs on "grand" philosophy. I'm not going to use any terms(like analytic or continental), for they both have such vague meanings.

We could have a good thread in the metaphilosophy forum about philosophy's task, and/or whether or not it has one. It's a good issue. But this thread is dedicated to a particular theory, so perhaps we should shift such a debate away from here.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:29 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151211 wrote:
I see Jeeprs as a lover of science. & even if he weren't, still not a good plan to take it personally. I get attacked all the time on this forum. And only those who actually insult me, rather than my ideas, invoke my anger. For me, a separation person/ideas is desirable. I'll engage my ideological opposite in a friendly spirit, as long as a root human respect remains intact. Don't mean to talk about myself so much. Just seems like a safe point of reference.


But Jeeprs' own arguments are AD HOMINEMS against most, if not all, philosophers in the tradition, not to mention everything being a strawman about the discipline. That's precisely my point.

I would prefer the ignorance stopped.

What if you were an engineer and someone on this forum was always talking bad about engineers every chance they got, telling everyone how shallow, biased, materialistic all engineers were. You'd get sick of it after a while, just as I am tired of Jeeprs' attack my own profession.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 10:30 PM ----------

Reconstructo;151215 wrote:
I think analytic philosophy is fair game for a meta-philosophical critique. I like Rorty, who in my mind acts as a bridge. Jeeprs and I probably both agree that some forms of philosophy have turned their backs on "grand" philosophy. I'm not going to use any terms(like analytic or continental), for they both have such vague meanings.

We could have a good thread in the metaphilosophy forum about philosophy's task, and/or whether or not it has one. It's a good issue. But this thread is dedicated to a particular theory, so perhaps we should shift such a debate away from here.


But both of you know so very little, so unfortunately, you're not exactly qualified to pass that judgment--though you are certainly free to hold that opinion.

Truthfully, I'd rather not talk about this at all...It's a stupid point to be discussing.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:33 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151216 wrote:
But Jeeprs' own arguments are AD HOMINEMS! That's precisely my point.

I would prefer the ignorance stopped.

What if you were an engineer and someone on this forum was always talking bad about engineers every chance they got, telling everyone how shallow, biased, materialistic all engineers were. You'd get sick of it after a while, just as I am tired of Jeeprs' attack my own profession.


If we are going to stay on this issue, I suppose some quotes would be effective, but perhaps we should drop it until the mood is better. Or just forget it, start over. Starting over sounds best, to the degree that such is possible.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 11:35 PM ----------

Extrain;151216 wrote:


But both of you know so very little, so unfortunately, you're not exactly qualified to pass that judgment--though you are certainly free to hold that opinion.


Here you are, personally attacking me, now, as well as J. Presuming to know how much I know. Have we met? Have we even talked much? Did I tell you my profession, education? I'm not even going to counterattack, but only point out that you are guilty of the accusations you present against others.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:40 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151218 wrote:
Here you are, personally attacking me, now, as well as J. Presuming to know how much I know. Have we met? Have we even talked much? Did I tell you my profession, education? I'm not even going to counterattack, but only point out that you are guilty of the accusations you present against others.


NO, I am not. This is a truthful statement I am making! Any mathematician with an advanced degree can immediately discern when he is speaking with someone who has very little knowledge or formal training in the subject--just as I can tell with respect to analytic philosophy. And I can tell most people in this forum haven't had that training, such as yourself. There's nothing wrong with that.

I am not judging people. I am simply pointing out some people will be more qualified than others to pass judgments on matters for which they have had the necessary formal training and experience. This should be obvious. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. There's no need to get "politically correct" about this.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:48 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151221 wrote:
NO, I am not. This is a truthful statement I am making! Any mathematician with an advanced degree can immediately discern when he is speaking with someone who has very little knowledge or formal training in the subject--just as I can tell with respect to analytic philosophy. And I can tell most people in this forum haven't had that training.

I am not judging people. I am simply pointing out some people will be more qualified than others to pass judgments on matters for which they have had the necessary formal training and experience. This should be obvious. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. There's no need to get "politically correct" about this.


Alright, but what is your particular training (for instance)? And from there we have subjective evaluations as to the quality of your school, profession, etc.

The issue of the relationship between truth and consensus is something I associate with philosophy. A group of engineers can scoff at a group of psychiatrists. Soft science, hard science. Pure math, applied math. I like Hegel. Many hate him. Who's right? Let's just ask God. But there is no God? So it's a matter of what? Self-persuasion, rhetoric, war?

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 11:53 PM ----------

Ok, I see your background is in philosophy. And maybe you come from a certain side of the aisle? But I don't want to make assumptions. In my opinion, a debate about whether Plato is a mystic, for instance, is not absurd. How does one define mystic?

(I switch into this mode because you seem to have a degree in philosophy, and it's my prejudice that humanities are humanities, and that anyone who can read and think can "jump in." )

Do you like Kojeve? For me, that's "metaphysics" done well. But maybe we should move to another thread.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 10:54 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151223 wrote:
Alright, but what is your particular training (for instance)? And from there we have subjective evaluations as to the quality of your school, profession, etc.


If you must know, I am finishing my MA right now at CU in Boulder and going on to earn my PhD in same department. And you can see our relative placement with respect to other departments in the nation of the Philosophical Gourmet Report online. Out of the hundreds of graduate departments in philosophy throughout the States, our own department is definitely one of the better ones.

Reconstructo;151223 wrote:
The issue of the relationship between truth and consensus is something I associate with philosophy. A group of engineers can scoff at a group of psychiatrists. Soft science, hard science. Pure math, applied math. I like Hegel. Many hate him. Who's right? Let's just ask God. But there is no God? So it's a matter of what? Self-persuasion, rhetoric, war?


I refuse to discuss this subject with you. I don't understand what you are even saying most of the time. And I am not kidding. Sorry, man.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

Reconstructo;151223 wrote:
Ok, I see your background is in philosophy. And maybe you come from a certain side of the aisle? But I don't want to make assumptions. In my opinion, a debate about whether Plato is a mystic, for instance, is not absurd. How does one define mystic?

(I switch into this mode because you seem to have a degree in philosophy, and it's my prejudice that humanities are humanities, and that anyone who can read and think can "jump in." )

Do you like Kojeve? For me, that's "metaphysics" done well. But maybe we should move to another thread.


Again, I won't discuss exegesis with you because your writing happen to be either very generalized, or very difficult to understand. Again, sorry.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 11:02 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151225 wrote:
If you must know, I am finishing my MA right now at CU in Boulder and going on to earn my PhD in same department. And you can see our relative placement with respect to other departments in the nation of the Philosophical Gourmet Report online. Out of the hundreds of graduate departments in philosophy throughout the States, our own department is definitely one of the better ones.



I refuse to discuss this subject with you. I don't understand what you are even saying most of the time. And I am not kidding. Sorry, man.

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------



Again, I won't discuss exegesis with you because your writing happen to be either very generalized, or very difficult to understand. Again, sorry.


Fair enough. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. We may just be from different countries, to speak metaphorically. I salute anyone who seeks/finds education, no matter if our styles are different. I started a thread on the significance of formal education, just for kicks. I suppose we should drop our discussion within this thread, and meet there or elsewhere if we feel like it.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 11:04 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151228 wrote:
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer. We may just be from different countries, to speak metaphorically. I salute anyone who seeks/finds education, no matter if our styles are different. I started a thread on the significance of formal education, just for kicks. I suppose we should drop our discussion within this thread, and meet there or elsewhere if we feel like it.


That's probably good avice.

See you around. Cheers.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 11:35 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151216 wrote:
But Jeeprs' own arguments are AD HOMINEMS against most, if not all, philosophers in the tradition, not to mention everything being a strawman about the discipline. That's precisely my point.




Sir, your preciseness is way off the mark. Please prove how jeeprs had done an Ad Hom on any individuals, philosopher or pretenders or otherwise.

By the previous posts, it seems that a wolf is crying 'wolf, wolf'.

You are confused about philosophy. A Ph D doesnot mean you are a philosopher, i humbly state.

Differences are natural. It is said that no two philosophers will ever agree completley or wholly on any subject, and its topics. I also disagree with his points of view. He is developing a theory, and like a man, he has invited criticism, that shows he is better than most of us. It is also possible that i may agree with your points too. But it should be argued in an academic spirit.

So, if jeeprs does not agree with your perspective, it should not mean you should attack him Ad Hom.

Have some spirit (doesn't matter of which kind), and relax.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2010 11:56 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Peace!

:flowers:
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 01:11 am
@jeeprs,
I appreciate contributions in the technical areas of philosophy from someone who is highly trained and educated. But there are other things to consider, including general attitude.

We are not in grad school here. The standards here are highly variable, from very capable, to middling, to 'fools pesting the fora'. You have to let some things go by. Challenge and be challenged by all means, and be critical, but past a certain point it becomes counter-productive.

One thing I am trying to learn is NOT to get too emotionally involved in this activity. I have done this in the past - I look back at the tone of righteous umbrage I used to take in some threads. (Poor old KJ :surrender:) Now I am trying to put my viewpoint, knowing it will be challenged, rejected or ignored, without being too 'attached to views' (which is a valuable Buddhist principle in its own right.)

There is a huge diversity of views nowadays, in the world generally and here in particular. The scientific types will look askance at the spiritual types who won't understand a thing about the formal logic or valid syllogisms of the 'real philosophers' and so forth and so on. After a while, you work out who you can profitably engage with and who not and make your calls accordingly. But one thing for sure, I have gained a lot talking to people who DON'T think like I do. And whenever anyone says something that really annoys me, I get up and take a walk before I do anything else.

Now I think the fact that I got such a huge rise out of Extrain really ought to be a wake up call for him. I am not advocating global jihad or social revolution, although you would think I was, looking at the reaction I got. It might be the frustration of trying to take swings at someone standing outside the ring, so to speak. Or it might be something else. In any case, I am deliberately outside the frame, in terms of Standard Issue Western Philosophy, and I make no apology for that. This is because I am an amateur - no professional will ever go where I go:bigsmile: - a spiritual seeker, and I am naturally counter-cultural - a hippie, in the old-style parlance. (I am also a highly paid technical writer, so I am extremely effective at getting ideas across, even if nobody understands or like them. But enough about me.)

And, I maintain that what is real, and what exists, are not always the same....
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 01:38 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;151233 wrote:
Sir, your preciseness is way off the mark. Please prove how jeeprs had done an Ad Hom on any individuals, philosopher or pretenders or otherwise.
By the previous posts, it seems that a wolf is crying 'wolf, wolf'.


You're completely out of context here. This highly pejorative strawmanning attitude exemplified by Jeeprs toward the analytic tradition is all over this forum. I've been carrying this same discussion with him on various threads, so its not just here.

Jackofalltrades;151233 wrote:
You are confused about philosophy. A Ph D doesnot mean you are a philosopher, i humbly state.


Oh yes? In what respect? You have me wrong.

Jackofalltrades;151233 wrote:
Differences are natural. It is said that no two philosophers will ever agree completley or wholly on any subject, and its topics. I also disagree with his points of view. He is developing a theory, and like a man, he has invited criticism, that shows he is better than most of us. It is also possible that i may agree with your points too. But it should be argued in an academic spirit.


You are missing the point. Disagreements are not the problem. I've been in the academic community for many years where these differences are not only common, but also essential for working out the problems in philosophy. Disagreement is the best part of philosophy because that's when the real work happens and we begin to carve out new territory. The same goes for all academic disciplines.

The problem is Jeeprs wholescale dismissal, strawman, and ad hominem of the entire Western Tradition. And I am not alone in thinking this. Others have been having the same problem with Jeeprs on this forum. It is not Jeeprs views I find problematic--in fact, I greatly respect Eastern Philosophy--the problem is Jeeprs constant caricature of Western Philosohy as being "shallow, deeply misguided in its 'Scientific Materialism" as a result of having taken a wrong turn somwhere--because it is incompatible with spirituality." For some reason jeeprs thinks analytic philosophy misses the "deeper" or "higher truths" about reality" presumably the East possesses which Western Philosophy somehow lacks--(not to mention his several pejorative remarks about "Western Religion" too--as if Western religion were one single united system of belief/symbol and personal worship, and everyone in it were totally lost:rolleyes:).

But analytic philosophy is not even a "School of Thought" at all! There is no such thing as analytic philosophy simply because there are no common set of principles, or worldview to which analytic philosophy subscribes. The Analytic style is simply an attitude of critical thinking you take toward philosophical problems. It's not a "school of thought." But Jeeprs treats it as if it were a school of thought--which it is not.

This isn't a phenomenon of "mere disagreement" encountered between different schools of thought. This is Jeeprs way of trashing the entire Western tradition altogether with faulty generalizations, bad arguments, and mischaracterizations of every philosopher within it. It is abusive, irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest.

Jackofalltrades;151233 wrote:
So, if jeeprs does not agree with your perspective, it should not mean you should attack him Ad Hom.

Have some spirit (doesn't matter of which kind), and relax.


This is not even what the problem is about. You miss the point. I am not ad hominem' anyone. I've been overly patient with Jeeprs misrepresenting Western philosophy for too long now. And I am tired of it.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 01:55 AM ----------

jeeprs;151252 wrote:
I appreciate contributions in the technical areas of philosophy from someone who is highly trained and educated. But there are other things to consider, including general attitude.

We are not in grad school here. The standards here are highly variable, from very capable, to middling, to 'fools pesting the fora'. You have to let some things go by. Challenge and be challenged by all means, and be critical, but past a certain point it becomes counter-productive.

Now I think the fact that I got such a huge rise out of Extrain really ought to be a wake up call for him. I am not advocating global jihad or social revolution, although you would think I was, looking at the reaction I got. It might be the frustration of trying to take swings at someone standing outside the ring, so to speak. Or it might be something else. In any case, I am deliberately outside the frame, in terms of Standard Issue Western Philosophy, and I make no apology for that. This is because I am an amateur - no professional will ever go where I go:bigsmile: - a spiritual seeker, and I am naturally counter-cultural - a hippie, in the old-style parlance. (I am also a highly paid technical writer, so I am extremely effective at getting ideas across, even if nobody understands or like them. But enough about me.)


You still don't get it.

People having competing views is not the problem. People being "amateurs" is not the problem. The problem is your own abusive treatment of Western philosophy. It simply doesn't matter what you believe. It's the fact that you consistently misrepresent an entire tradition and then knock down your own strawmans of it. It's your attituded that is the problem, not your allegiances. It is so obvious to me (and even to some others on this forum) that something is seriously amiss with your handling of Western philosophy. You and I have discussed this bad attitude of yours, Jeeprs, many times already. So some of us are wondering why you have such a negative attitude toward whatever this thing you think called "analytic philosophy" is.

Analytic philosophy is nothing more, nothing less, than critical thinking.

Time and again I have told you it is NOT a "School of Thought"--but you continue to treat it as if it were a school of thought. Wake up and smell the coffee, and start learning what the analytic tradition is all about instead of quoting from Russell, Frege, and others some terribly shallow remarks from their own private views, and then saying "See??? This is how all analytic philosophy is like. Analytic philosophy is shallow because Russell and Freage were shallow, etc." ya, whatever.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:44 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;151256 wrote:
You and I have discussed this bad attitude of yours, Jeeprs, many times already. So some of us are wondering why you have such a negative attitude toward whatever this thing you think called "analytic philosophy"


Bollocks. You sound like a patronizing schoolboy. I am perfectly entitled to my opinions. I like jazz, I hate American football, and analytic philosophy is soul-less. Whaddya gonna do? Get Bertie and Freddie over to break my kneecaps? Get a life.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 09:58 PM ----------

Incidentally, I want to give a big hand to Kennethamy (loud applause sound.) I have been jousting with Kennethamy ever since I got here, I think he was the first person to reply to my first post. Now, I rarely agree with Kennethamy, we are poles apart politically, and probably temperamentally, and I am sure he thinks a lot of what I write is very strange. But I commend his knowledge of the subject and his evenness of temper. I am beginning to learn to put arguments to him, and even get him to agree with some points, and he is one hard dude to get anything past. So, overall, I will say he is one of the people I have learned from on the Forum.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 10:20 PM ----------

I think what is bugging you, extrain, is simply that I won't play the game you are good at. It annoys the s*** out of you that I make a move which amounts to changing the game. From your perspective, I am off the board. So all the arguments you have, all the stuff you are good at, doesn't apply. The thing is, I am not doing this as a rhetorical device to win an argument with you. I am not on your board at all. I am just a participant on Philosophyforum. So you ought to look real hard at why I am pushing your buttons like this. Then you will be starting to do some real philosophical work, as far as I am concerned.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 02:41 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;151295 wrote:
Bollocks. You sound like a patronizing schoolboy. I am perfectly entitled to my opinions. I like jazz, I hate American football, and analytic philosophy is soul-less. Whaddya gonna do? Get Bertie and Freddie over to break my kneecaps? Get a life.


Lol. At least you come right out and admit it instead of couching your negative bias in your well-mannered politically correct facade.

And can you please tell me what this School of Thought called "Analytic Philosophy" is supposed to be? Can you tell me? Nope, because there is no such thing.

Notice, I disagree with the central tenets of Buddhist Philosophy as contained in the "4 Noble Truths", but I don't subsequently throw out all philosophy coming from the East, nor do I thow out everything Buddhism itself says. I am clear about what I do, and do not, object to in Buddhism.

My own charge against Buddhism is that "truths" numbers #2 and #3 are EXPLICITLY nihilistically soul-less precisely because they deny the existence of the soul, while preaching against real-world distinctions, and promoting the abandonment of reason by melting everything into a pot of rational absurdity and countless superficial platitudes a 14 year old high school teenager thinks he can understand. Buddhism's diagnosis of suffering as contained in #2 and #3 doesn't promote growth; it subsequently stunts growth. It doesn't promote clarity of thought, it preaches against it. It doesn't promote the overcoming of error; it promotes the flight from error by suppressing it--buddhism never corrects error because it thinks truth/error distinctions are just as illusory as its own dogmatic Nirvana/Samsara distinction--since it explictly SAYS "ALL DISTINCTIONS ARE ILLUSORY." And you see this everwhere in Buddhism. None of it makes sense to me. And any fool who thought he did understand it is completely unaware of the fact that he really doesn't understand or know anything at all. As Socrates always pointed out,

"If I don't know that I know nothing, how can I begin to change my own condition if I don't have this kind of recognition of the wide difference between the true and the false within me"?

Buddhism gets lost down the rabbit-hole of gibberish, and succeeds in making a mess of sober-minded, real-world clarity.

So, though I particularly don't agree with Buddhist philosophy, you'll never find me condemning this so-called thing "Eastern Philosophy" across the board because that's irrational, and I'd a be a presumptuous fool if I did do that without specifying to which philosophical principles I was referring.

You, on the other hand, attack the positivists and then say "The critical thinking of Analytic philosophy is refuted!" But this isn't an argument at all!! These are logical fallacies!! I charge your condemnations of Western philosophy for Committing the following errors with respect to the entire Tradition:

(1) Hasty Generalizations
(2) Guilt by association.
(3) Ad Hominem
(4) Strawman

jeeprs;151295 wrote:
I think what is bugging you, extrain, is simply that I won't play the game you are good at. It annoys the s*** out of you that I make a move which amounts to changing the game. From your perspective, I am off the board. So all the arguments you have, all the stuff you are good at, doesn't apply. The thing is, I am not doing this as a rhetorical device to win an argument with you. I am not on your board at all. I am just a participant on Philosophyforum. So you ought to look real hard at why I am pushing your buttons like this. Then you will be starting to do some real philosophical work, as far as I am concerned.


This is precisely the problem--you think philosophy is a game. But philosophy is not a "game." Clarity of thought will always trump your "game-playing." Philosophy is a serious discipline requirng serious study just like any other science.

In fact, Philosophy departments nation wide have had to address this shallow cultural relativism coming from students. It constantly interrupts class discussion and only succeeds in making everyone else confused. The professor has to stop the class lecture and spend another 20 minutes explaining to everyone why "why it is true for you may not be true for me" is a nonsensical statement.

This post-modern cultural relativism is a specifically Western Disease you've picked up from the massess, and it stunts your ability to the actually assimilate what it is that you are reading from Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Frege, Russell, etc.

You might find this site more up your alley if you like the post-modern way of doing philosophy so much:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:20 pm
@jeeprs,
Is philosophy indeed a serious discipline? I feel that this question is a fair example of critical thinking. Rorty worked at dissolving the boundaries between philosophy, literature, and politics. I don't 100 percent agree with him, but he wrote both clearly and with depth. And in English!

I'm going to make no assumptions. Just state my own perspective. For me, Nietzsche and Hegel, for instance, are brilliant philosophers.. Others have hated them, described them as not worth study. This is basically a line in the sand. Just as a person could decide that non-representational art is a lazy con. (My kid could do that.)

Personally, I think certain more recent French thinkers are over-rated. I have yet to find Foucault interesting, except for his biography. On the other hand, Derrida's book Spurs was pretty damn good, although his style in other works seems unnecessarily tedious. (Rorty writes well on him, both saluting him for this and criticizing him for that.) Still, I have heard these Frenchmen lumped with Germans like Nietzsche and Hegel. Nietzsche's style is as clear as icewater. Hegel's maybe not. But then I have expressed thoughts with efficiency and been entirely misunderstood. I have now found a great parallel in math. The sigma sign is a handy and efficient way to symbolize an infinite series, but it requires an understanding of the sigma symbol. Maybe this was Hegel's problem. He was just too slick with abstractions, and forgot how crazy it would sound to those who weren't already where he was.

I don't see how we can dodge the exegesis problem. And then philosophy is tied to value, so it's almost impossible to avoid an impassioned collision. I count myself as a member of the fusion club. I want continental depth with analytic clarity. Philosophy seems stuck with the job of discussing value and method on their most primary levels. In my opinion, to retreat from these is to retreat from philosophy in the grand sense. And I'm not accusing anyone of doing so, stereotypes aside.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:33 pm
@jeeprs,
I am interested in any criticism of this proposal, from an essay I rather like on another forum:
Quote:
Reality, to put it in the simplest form, is here defined as that which is not fake. Existence is that with which an encounter is comprehensible. Reality contains everything that exists, but existence is only a subset of what is real. Nothing unreal exists, but some things which are real do not exist. Existence is of objects, while reality also covers ideas beyond objects. A number is only real, while a baseball exists. The gross national product is only real, while Antarctica exists. The probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is real, while the sun itself exists.

While existence is narrower than reality, it should not be made too narrow. It would be a mistake to say that for something to exist it must be possible to go out and observe it. Taking existence in that strict sense the planet 51 Pegasus would not exist simply because with current technology we have no way to see it... clearly this wouldn't make sense, as it would have things popping in and out of existence depending on our own capabilities at a particular time. Even in cases where we haven't yet derived the existence through any means, so long as we can imagine that it would be coherent to call the thing an object we can satisfy the metaphysical criterion for existence (and are simply left with the epistemological question of it the imagined object is actually out there). In the case of anything which cannot be coherently thought of as an object -- where the form "if I were to be there, I could sense this" simply cannot apply -- we cannot say that the thing exists. A number (in the sense beyond numeral) cannot be a sense object and so does not exist... there's no place to go to look for a number. Anything which has no spatio-temporal meaning (and thus no "there" to be at to observe) cannot be said to exist. Anything which is not an event itself but instead a probability of events cannot be said to exist. Such things can be real if properly derived out of experience, but they do not exist.
Note by 'criticism' I don't mean insult, derogation or contumely. I think it makes a valid point about the distinction between 'real' and 'exist'. Can anyone show why it doesn't?

 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:37 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;151506 wrote:
I am interested in any criticism of this proposal, from an essay I rather like on another forum:

Note by 'criticism' I don't mean insult, derogation or contumely. I think it makes a valid point about the distinction between 'real' and 'exist'. Can anyone show why it doesn't?



It sounds good. And it will ease the worries of those who don't like the notion of abstract objects, as it goes out of its way to distinguish.

It all hinges on its definitions of "exist" and "real" of course. So it's a different angle than my own, which is that the real is rational. This doesn't keep me from recognizing its value, though. It seems like a justifiable organization of experience.

As to the differences twixt my view and that, for anyone who cares, I am feel that existent objects (spatio-temporal) are only objects and not just a mess of qualia because they are framed by concept (and is concept spatio-temporal?). So for me, this system would be a bit too dualist...and yet an improvement on the general confusion, to say the least
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:41 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151496 wrote:
Is philosophy indeed a serious discipline?I feel that this question is a fair example of critical thinking.


I agree 100%. That's exactly the meta-philosophical question at stake. And the answer is "yes, philosophy is very much a serious discipline--Nietzsche, Rorty, and everyone else thought so too."

Reconstructo;151496 wrote:
Rorty worked at dissolving the boundaries between philosophy, literature, and politics. I don't 100 percent agree with him, but he wrote both clearly and with depth. And in English!


I don't agree at all. Rorty is pop-culture philosophy in spite of Rorty's coming out of the analytic tradition himself--and he is a terrible writer.

Read what Susan Haack, a famous pragmatist herself practicing in the analytic tradition (and for which she has even written several books on Logic), thinks of Rorty:

"Rorty's "pragmatism" is simply an abandonment of the very attempt to learn more about the nature and adequacy conditions of inquiry. Instead of aiding us in our aspiration to govern ourselves through rational thought, Rorty weakens our intellectual resilience and leaves us even more vulnerable to rhetorical seduction. Rorty's pragmatism is dangerous, performing an end-run on reason, and therefore on philosophy."
Richard Rorty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Ordinary non-academic "philosophes" don't understand that Pragmatism is all over analytic philosophy today: in fact, someone is invariably a pragmatist somewhere in his philosophy at some point.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:44 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151511 wrote:
-Nietzsche, Rorty, and everyone else thought so too."

I think it's more complicated than that. I've immersed myself in both of them, read them deeply, so I'm pretty confident about my notions of them.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 04:47 PM ----------

Extrain;151511 wrote:

I don't agree at all. Rorty is pop-culture philosophy in spite of Rorty's coming out of the analytic tradition himself--and he is a terrible writer.

I completely disagree, but such is life. Of course I'm quite aware that he is a lightning-rod for controversy. And I stand by my assertion that he is a great stylist, especially in his essays. Pop-culture? Come on, now. You can't even find his books at Borders. Well, maybe one, but its never his more serious work.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:49 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151513 wrote:
I think it's more complicated than that. I've immersed myself in both of them, read them deeply, so I'm pretty confident about my notions of them.


...and I got Nietzschean quotes tattooed on my body when I was 19 years old, so this doesn't count for anything really. Anybody can read Nietzsche, and so many non-academics DO read Nietzsche. And FYI, N- is more widely read in LITERATURE departments, NOT PHILOSOPHY departments throughout the States. Most academic philosophers condmen Nietzsche, and not for his beliefs, but for his poor Freudian psychological generalizations and his failure to be disciplined in his approach to philosophical problems.

N- is a creative and powerful writer, and he does say some very truthful things. But non-academic philosophers too often mistake Nietzsche's well-articulated prose for critical thinking--which it is not.

Nietzsche's philosophy is full of logical fallacies almost on every page.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 07:19:44