@kennethamy,
kennethamy;67315 wrote:
Why can't I say that Aristotle was a great philosopher, but not use him as an authority? I did not say that Aristotle's theory of truth was true because it is Aristotle's theory, and Aristotle is a great philosopher, did I? If I had done that, then I would have been using Aristotle as an authority. But, I did not do that.
If computers had already adapted the ability of using language they would probably communicate on this level, but communication between humans does not function this way.
Communication between humans always takes place on several levels.
If i say for example "I saw your husband at the chinese restaurant this morning." this sentence has a level of mere information. However it contains more than only one implied message, right? It could mean "I wonder why he wasn't at the office. I wonder if he was expecting somebody. I wonder if you knew about it."
If i say "There's no water in the fridge" it has a level of information, a level of implied message and a level of intention:
It also says "we won't have cold water for at least an hour", but also "would you please go get some water from the basement", (maybe even "this would have been your job by the way".)
So back to your question wether or not you have been using Aristotle as an authority:
When you tell the king that he is to clever to be charmed by someone's flattering you are at the same time charming him with your flattering.
So when someone sais that "Aristotle is known to be an authority, but i am not using him as an authority", then why would he even mention Aristotle's authority?
kennethamy;67315 wrote:
That theory X is more "sophisticated" (however you are able to tell that, which is another issue) than theory Y, does not seem to me any reason to think that theory X is a better theory, or a more correct theory, than is theory Y. Why should the more "sophisticated" theory be a better theory? You don't say why you think that. Have you a good reason for thinking that?
At this moment i remember only one tool that allows to discriminate without any doubt:
Ockham's Razor.
In this case however i have to admit that it was my own personal opinion, a question of taste that led me to claim ontological ideas less sophisticated than others. Although i have to say that yes: Metaphysics does have a reputation of being antiquated, so i am not the first one to claim this (although i do not use others as an authority
But i am certainly ready to discuss it.
Ontological questions have led to terribly false considerations:
If a stone is a part of a wall, then how much 'wallfullness' has the stone contained before it was built into the wall?
Metaphysics are not so much an explanation of the world but rather an explanation of how our brain works.
Physically touchable things are the first category we understand.
Before babies understand the meaning of verbs and adjectives they learn how to use names for things.
There are some things that our brain does automatically due to its evolution: One thing is e.g. realizing faces.
Children see faces everywhere, in clouds, stones, trees, etc.
Our brain will always realize patterns. Pattern recognition is one of the primary aspects of our intelligence.
A returning pattern like a face or a circle will be recognized and given a tag by our brain. That's another thing our brain does automatically - attaching tags to whatever. Anything that gets perceived needs to get a name, and thus an 'isness', giving it a state of something that 'is'. The 'idea' of a circle is an ideal you won't find in nature.
However the pattern of a circle has its particular place of memory assigned to it in our brain.
That's why we -> project its existence to the outside world giving the idea of a circle an ontological existence.
Actually any shape (like any piece of lint's shape) could be considered to have an ontological existence. But the idea of circle has a stronger impressiveness due to its recognition value. That's why we consider a circle something that 'is'. A lint-shape though...
That is why great authorities like Platon assumed that the idea must have existed before the material existence appeared.
I find it interesting that there was a trend amongst christian mysticists referring to Plato, considering anything that exists a result of god's thoughts before the creation.
In other words the concept of a circle must have been thought by god to come to existence in our world.
That is a very precise description of how our brain does it.
First of all the pattern is realised as a reappearing shape, so that it is realized as belonging to the same category and soon it will be given a name (tag), attaching an ontological existence to it. Humans attach tags of ontological existence to anything because their mind is just made for it.
Modern philosophers have realized this epistemical process as partially misleading.
Actually it is obvious that the ontological view is highly incompatible with modern science.
Classical Physics are based on the assumption of a material reality that was there and will be there wether or not there is any kind of mind or intelligence.
Radical constructivists like Heinz von Foerster get along much better with modern scientific paradigms, as they are claiming that what we perceive as the outside world is a huge complex construction of tags that we attach to reality. It helps us to deal with it but it's just a crutch because reality in its whole complexity will always stay inaccessible to us.
Which is actually something that already Kant said about the world of things that we can touch but never completely access mentally.
