Proto-Logic

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

attano
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 03:55 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
You say man is a class of animals. I would counter by saying that "man" is the imposer of classes. I see "man" "animal" and "class" as abstractions, as inventions. They are real because we live in them.

I can't offer any proof that we are intrinsically special. I do feel that humans are the salt of the earth. I love this Planet Earth documentary. I wonder if a lion could enjoy it? I am forced to use the same abstractions I have called contingent, but I think that human consciousness gives the Earth much of its meaning and beauty. If the world were devoid of thought, would it not be mostly eating, mating, and excretion in the relative dark?


It seems to me that we do agree on many things up to a certain level, but then we differ on a moral ground.

OK, you are right. Classes are artifacts, men make classes, even impose classes onto objects - and that' s the beauty of it, that is right too.
We - humans - are special, intrinsically or not. I mean, our species has been so hugely successful that we are entitled to think that we own this world.

And this is the problem to me.
How did we get there and where are we going? These are old trite philosophical questions, but the answers define very different philosophical orientations.
I see no divine right that conjured for this supremacy - again, God is dead...
I don't see a world ennobled by mankind. No, we are usurpers (and I don't really mean to express a negative connotation by that).

Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
I can tell you what I mean by it. I think there are certain ways that human experience is always structured. I can't prove this. But to give you an example, I can't truly imagine four spatial dimensions, and I don't think any human can. I don't think we can imagine a round square, or a spot that is simultaneously red and blue. Number is an ideal example. Whence the number one, the concept of unity? I don't see that as an invention. Experiments have been done on babies, who before they speak react to changes in quantity.
I too side with the 3rd group. I think the subject is an abstraction. The "self" is learned. Of course survival may demand this sort of learning, and the adoption of that which is not strictly logical. In a way, absolute idealism (which is just as much an absolute realism) is art made of logic. Of course I have been equally passionate about the pragmatism of Nietzsche, especially when presented in the sunnier style of Rorty, for instance. I don't know if Nietzsche would have liked the term pragmatism, but I feel he can be included in the group. I think of Nietzsche as a partisan of dynamic "truth." Truth is whatever makes us thrive. That sort of thing. I may be arguing the Kojeve / Hegel angle because I spent so much of my earlier forum days arguing the Nietzsche/Rorty angle. Smile


Your definition of transcendental is OK with me.
There are 2 open questions.
How far does transcendentalism goes? Kant built a pure formal subject that was possibly the only real thing in the world, then he thought to implement it with a moral law. (And we know that we both don' t stop here).
Or is the subject and epiphenomenon of a larger self? And what would that larger self be? Hegel answered reason, Nietzsche will-to-power. The chosen answers lead to incompatible perspectives - and that has a deep impact on praxis.
Hegel though that nothing on earth could be better than the Prussian state, Nietzsche called for a radical revaluation of all values.

Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
But what about physics? What about electrons? F = ma? I can't help but see physics as implicitly transcendental. We have science which, apparently, exists only as equations who meaning cannot be intuited. What is a wave-particle? With respect...


I am with you in this. I just wanted to mention that ditching realism is not that easy.
Actually my reference to the law of economy in science is an implicit criticism. Because if "science" organises and reorganises its laws according to that principle, then maybe those laws are not so real... (to be honest, I believe that most scientists and epistemologists would agree with that).

Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
This sort of linguistic self-consciousness seems like a central part of philosophy to me. Kojeve (blending Hegel, Heidegger, and Marx) presents the dialectical progression of philosophy as an advance of "self"-"consciousness." "He" realizes that "his world" is made of his "language." I know all those quotes are a bit thick, but that's sort of the way I experience abstractions, at least when I think about Kojeve/Hegel. For me, a sublime notion is that the "real is rational" and rational in the sense of intelligible. If we say the world is not intelligible, this is still the application of concept.


As long as one thinks that "real is rational" it makes sense to see the advance of consciousness as dialectical.
Btw, "real is rational" can be trivial in some transcendental perspective, meaning that what is real for the subject must be perceived and organised by reason. But Hegel meant a lot more than that and his view is definitely something that I don't agree with, that leaves too many things unaccounted and unexplained - and it contrasts with my basic observations in daily life.
And I have problems getting your view too when I consider the quote above together with
Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
that leaves out what is difficult to speak of --qualia, emotion, value.


But I put it all down to your intellectual honesty, notably when you write such a brave sentence as
Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
So my quest for the absolute or the transcendental cannot be neutral. It's an idiosyncratic painting that strives toward my idiosyncratic notion of the universal.


(I wish more people - possibly myself too - posting here were as humble and honest as you).

Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
In fact, I think and feel as if we are on our own "down here" --unless Hawking's aliens show up.

Who knows... As long as they don't, it is one more reason to think that men are more special than them.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 01:09 pm
@attano,
attano;168763 wrote:
It seems to me that we do agree on many things up to a certain level, but then we differ on a moral ground.

I don't know. I've been thinking on ethical themes quite a bit lately. I was sort of neglecting that issue when I started this post. How's this? It's dangerous for man to think of himself in isolation, as if he were not intimately connected with his planet. As far as interpersonal morals go, I think the Christian ideal is sublime. Forgiveness, recognition of the other as self. An extension of the self to include all existence.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:15 PM ----------

attano;168763 wrote:

OK, you are right. Classes are artifacts, men make classes, even impose classes onto objects - and that' s the beauty of it, that is right too.
We - humans - are special, intrinsically or not. I mean, our species has been so hugely successful that we are entitled to think that we own this world.

And this is the problem to me.
How did we get there and where are we going? These are old trite philosophical questions, but the answers define very different philosophical orientations.
I see no divine right that conjured for this supremacy - again, God is dead...
I don't see a world ennobled by mankind. No, we are usurpers (and I don't really mean to express a negative connotation by that).

The complicated part of this is that "usurpers, intrinsic, ennobled, god, etc." are all within man. Animals are indescribably beautiful, but is that how they find each other? Probably they do experience a sense of beauty and love, especially the warm blooded animals. I should make clear that I see no divine right at all for man. I think he should wise up and treat this world like the garden of eden it could be. If we had a consciousness of values and our politics in order, we have the technology to live well without destroying all that's good on the earth. Sustainability! A population that does not grow. Let's replace the ones we lose. If we do want to breed like crazy, we can colonize the moon. Of course it's not just about population. Not at all. I suspect that 10 billion could live here without destroying shapeship Earth, if we cared enough. Of course nations having military tensions with other nations make such concerns secondary, to name just one example. In short, I do care. Man is a fool if he sh*ts in his cradle.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:28 PM ----------

attano;168763 wrote:

There are 2 open questions.
How far does transcendentalism goes? Kant built a pure formal subject that was possibly the only real thing in the world, then he thought to implement it with a moral law. (And we know that we both don' t stop here).
Or is the subject and epiphenomenon of a larger self? And what would that larger self be? Hegel answered reason, Nietzsche will-to-power. The chosen answers lead to incompatible perspectives - and that has a deep impact on praxis.
Hegel though that nothing on earth could be better than the Prussian state, Nietzsche called for a radical revaluation of all values.

In my opinion, the "transcendental" (a term I am moving away from if only because of its confusing associations...) does not go all that far. I personally think it's a few pieces of protologic, especially the intuition of unity. The bit tells us something, I think. Color and sound are where qualia come back in. Now these are raw experience of course, and we don't expect them to be "out there" except in the form of EMW or pressure waves in the air. I've been really looking at this in Ineffable and 9In)significance of Qualia threads. Even if we just ignore the Kants, a simple consideration of qualia shows just how abstract a concept like "matter" is. And yet ask most folks and the world is made of "matter." And yet matter is made of...? "mind"? But "mind" is another abstraction.

Maybe Hegel thought the Prussian state was closest to his ideal, that the end of history was out of the womb if not full grown. Kojeve's version is the one I know best. The idea is that a society where the master and slave have been synthesized into the citizen whose individuality is recognized as a value in itself..legal personhood without the necessity of bring home a skull to pour wine from.. Basically Napolean spreading the French revolution's ideals was the beginning of the end of history. That's my understanding. (I'm no Hegel expert, but I do love that Kojeve book.)
It's my understanding that Hegel saw reality as spirit. So the "real" is tricky here. Being is revealed by discourse. Man is time is the concept. Spatial being is the present. Man's project is conceptual, a desired future that steers his work on the spatial present. You may already know all this. But I swear on my own grave that within this Kojeve book there are some brilliant concepts. I don't swallow it whole, and Kojeve is surgical when it comes to showing Hegel's overextensions of favored concepts.

About the "subject." We dont have experience, I suggest. We are experience, sensual/emotional/conceptual. Concept is a system of division within sensation, emotion, and itself. We also mysterious share this world, but perhaps it's better said that "we" are overlapping experience, including the concepts of self, mind, matter, physics, psychology, all the rest. I know it's not practical. A practical view is everyday realism. But it's more logical than most of what I can think of.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:34 PM ----------

attano;168763 wrote:

And I have problems getting your view too when I consider the quote above together with

Well, I'm just know trying to address this apparent dualism. I had this avatar, a triangle with infinity on one end, and a minus sign on the other, with a plus sign at the top. The infinity sign represented continuous sensual/spatial/emotional experience. The minus sign represented negation/unity. It seems to me that every unity is bounded by a "not." The chair is surround and bounded by not-chair. Justice by in-justice. The finite by the in-finite. Essence and accident. But it's so hard to even notice "qualia" in such an abstract society. We live in our symbols. Hegel writes about the skeptic and stoic escaping their slavery by means of abstractions. The Christian creates a master above the master. It's not that simply, for one thing. And Hegel really sides with slave anyway, as the slave drives history, by finding himself in his work, and by creating abstractions. I notice that humans usually justify their contempt for another with their abstractions. So I'm seeing a morality better expressed by metaphor, which is still abstract but more nakedly pointing at rather than being the truth.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:36 PM ----------

attano;168763 wrote:

But I put it all down to your intellectual honesty, notably when you write such a brave sentence as


(I wish more people - possibly myself too - posting here were as humble and honest as you).

Thanks. Especially now, I want to be able to step back from my favored abstractions and open myself to learning from the "Other." It's in no way my doctrine or superstition but only a metaphor. All humans are one. Their sins are mine, and mine are theirs. So I better behave.This is just an ideal for non-practical mind states. A way to get past hatred, envy, greed, etc., as much as possible. "emotional hygiene" is my scientifically approved phrase. .Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 02:14 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164047 wrote:
Well, the viewpoint I enjoy "arguing" for (because I'm really not a fanatical type, just a person who likes to work a theme thoroughly) is difficult to express exactly because I see all essences as contingent.



What is the viewpoint you enjoy arguing for. Any?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 02:26 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169180 wrote:
What is the viewpoint you enjoy arguing for. Any?


Sure, the Hegel-Wittgenstein theme that language is the intelligible structure of human existence, for one. That "matter" and "mind" are both abstractions.
That humans should not fall under the spell of their abstractions to the point of feeling contempt for one another. That religious myth is profound. I'm very interested in Kantian-style investigates of "transcendental logic." I want to see as cleary as possible the basic structure of human thought, which would be the structure of the structure of the world. Just as in calculus one determines the slope of a slope. But maybe in reverse. We can move back from dynamic relationships to see the static essence ---and I mean the essence of essence.

Essence and accident. Positing and negation. How are concepts made? I have strong opinions on the matter, and I have presented them. But not recently. I doubt it interests you, but I answered you anyway. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 02:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;169189 wrote:
Sure, the Hegel-Wittgenstein theme that language is the intelligible structure of human existence, for one. That "matter" and "mind" are both abstractions.
That humans should not fall under the spell of their abstractions to the point of feeling contempt for one another. That religious myth is profound. I'm very interested in Kantian-style investigates of "transcendental logic." I want to see as cleary as possible the basic structure of human thought, which would be the structure of the structure of the world. Just as in calculus one determines the slope of a slope. But maybe in reverse. We can move back from dynamic relationships to see the static essence ---and I mean the essence of essence.

Essence and accident. Positing and negation. How are concepts made? I have strong opinions on the matter, and I have presented them. But not recently. I doubt it interests you, but I answered you anyway. Smile


Sorry, that is not a viewpoint I can make sense of.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 06:40 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169192 wrote:
Sorry, that is not a viewpoint I can make sense of.


Would you say at least that you are interested in the structure of human thinking? What do you make of Kant's categories?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 12:46:43