Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda

fresco wrote:

Firstly, following Godels "incompleteness theoerem", all systems involve at least one axiom whose "truth" must be assumed. It follows that "truth" is about "what works" and "elegance" within a particular paradigm rather than some statement about "objective reality".

Hang on, slow down. Isn't the idea that "what works" is what's most likely to correspond to objective reality? I tend to think that the most elegant (or coherent or 'successful') theory is the theory that is most likely to be true. By 'true' I mean in the sense of 'correspondence theory' - corresponding to objective reality.

The rest of what you said was too convoluted for me to understand. And anyway, what does any of this have to do with my last post?

0 Replies

agrote,

IMO (and that of many others) there is no "objective reality", only degrees of paradigmatic consensus mediated through common language, purpose and perceptual apparatus. For example, it is neither "true" nor "untrue" that the earth circles the sun. Following Galileo (et al) the heliocentic model simply makes the maths easier. For common everyday purposes we still use the "reality" of the sun circling the earth. "Naive realists" might argue otherwise, but their number is declining even amongst physicists. Try some Kuhn to cure the convolutions. ( :wink: ).

vikkor,

"Philosophy" is many things to many people. For me it is a an attempt to gain a vantage point from which "interelational operations" can be viewed or assessed. In as much that some philosophers can agree on the nature of the "vantage point" and "the view" we might say they are empathic. Indeed such "empathy" might involve transcendence of "self"
towards a "holistic awareness".

0 Replies

Quote:

IMO (and that of many others) there is no "objective reality", only degrees of paradigmatic consensus mediated through common language, purpose and perceptual apparatus. For example, it is neither "true" nor "untrue" that the earth circles the sun. Following Galileo (et al) the heliocentic model simply makes the maths easier. For common everyday purposes we still use the "reality" of the sun circling the earth. "Naive realists" might argue otherwise, but their number is declining even amongst physicists. Try some Kuhn to cure the convolutions

if there is no objective reality and all reality is just mediated through language then
then what reality was kuhn talking about in his book "the structure of the scientific revolution" where all those examples he gave objective reality/truth or just a game of language
if there is no objective reality that must apply to kuhns arguments/ conclusion as well
so your adopting his point must rest on your own ideolgy/language and not on any objective reality/truth-in which case kuhn is just as good as his refuters for if there is no objective reality then all must be just arbitary language games - thus you support deans claim that all philosophy is ideology based upon ones psychology

0 Replies

Has anybody seen the insect spray ?

0 Replies

Re: Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda
nightrider,
What is boils down to is you cannot be dismissive of knowledge per se unless you are able to successfully argue against it.

Argue against the electrolysis of water.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

I tend to think that the most elegant (or coherent or 'successful') theory is the theory that is most likely to be true. By 'true' I mean in the sense of 'correspondence theory' - corresponding to objective reality.

Your thinking here is (arguably) a variant of Occam's Razor which (arguably) becomes suspect under the scrutiny of modern physics / cosmology.

I can't help thinking that at least some modern philosophy is a knee jerk reaction by those trying to intellectualize the weirdness modern physics / cosmology.

Wiki:

Quote:

The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

" entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, "

which translates to:

" entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

0 Replies

Quote:

For me it is a an attempt to gain a vantage point from which "interelational operations" can be viewed or assessed.

Fair enough. To further clarify, if I may ask one more - what purpose (or benefit) does it serve for you?

Quote:

IMO (and that of many others) there is no "objective reality", only degrees of paradigmatic consensus mediated through common language, purpose and perceptual apparatus.

The 'reality' that we see and understand may be distorted, but that reality exists in some form (that is, separate from our minds). The question that seems to be asked here is, can we ever be objective?

By the way, a phrase of yours needs to be clarified - the phrase 'only degrees of' : a degree must have at least two 'fields' to enable a degree - the two fields of the degree to which you refer sounds suspiciously like 'objective & subjective' reality. In other words, if that were true, then you would be contradicting yourself of the existence of objective reality, or I'm misunderstanding what you are saying - hence the need for clarification.

0 Replies

Re: Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda

nightrider wrote:

philosophy is nothing but ideology or personal propaganda
philosophy is nothing more that a rationalization of a persons psychological dispositions
philosophy is a smoke screen to hide behind and make the psychological disposition more profound
people dont believe an idea because it was presented in a good argument
people believe for psychological reasons then invent the philosophical justification
that is why you can never un- convince anyone
all that Socrates does is threaten their very mind their psychology he does not threaten their philosophy because their philosophy was never about logic and reason in the first place

Could we add that philosophy is a venue for talking in arcane speech, so less erudite people can bow in deference?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

agrote,

IMO (and that of many others) there is no "objective reality", only degrees of paradigmatic consensus mediated through common language, purpose and perceptual apparatus. For example, it is neither "true" nor "untrue" that the earth circles the sun. Following Galileo (et al) the heliocentic model simply makes the maths easier. For common everyday purposes we still use the "reality" of the sun circling the earth. "Naive realists" might argue otherwise, but their number is declining even amongst physicists. Try some Kuhn to cure the convolutions. ( :wink: ).

So when we're trying to decide whether something is "true", all we need to do is have a show of hands?

So everything you've just said is neither "true" nor "untrue"?

0 Replies

nightrider wrote:

if there is no objective reality and all reality is just mediated through language then
then what reality was kuhn talking about in his book "the structure of the scientific revolution" where all those examples he gave objective reality/truth or just a game of language
if there is no objective reality that must apply to kuhns arguments/ conclusion as well
so your adopting his point must rest on your own ideolgy/language and not on any objective reality/truth-in which case kuhn is just as good as his refuters for if there is no objective reality then all must be just arbitary language games - thus you support deans claim that all philosophy is ideology based upon ones psychology

I know the punctuation's not very good, fresco, but you didn't respond to this.

0 Replies

vikorr.

The "clarification" you seek comes with the understanding of the paradigm of "non-dualism" in which a transcendent position above "self" and "world" is being attempted. Your confusion comes from mixing "domains of observation". See Maturana (for example) who uses second order cybernetic principles of "the observation of observation" to describe "cognition" as merely another name for the general life process. "Minds", "selves" and even "existence" don't figure at this level except as part of a common "languaging process".

Further expansion is beyond the scope of this thread. I usually recommend this as an introductory text.
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

agrote wrote:
I tend to think that the most elegant (or coherent or 'successful') theory is the theory that is most likely to be true. By 'true' I mean in the sense of 'correspondence theory' - corresponding to objective reality.
Your thinking here is (arguably) a variant of Occam's Razor which (arguably) becomes suspect under the scrutiny of modern physics / cosmology.

I see what you mean. I was throwing three words around: elegant, coherent and successsful. I think I should have stuck with 'successful'. I tend to think that theories, or arguments for theories, which are unsuccessful - for example because they lead to an infinite regress or because they beg the question - are false theories. False in that they do not correspond to reality.

'Successful' theories are theories which could be true (in objective reality). Perhaps their truth-aptness comes from the fact that they actually make sense. There might be many successful theories to explain one particular thing, and philosophers might choose between them using something like Occam's Razor, or by reaching a consensus rather like fresco suggests. Or by putting the cart before the horse. I suppose this is not the best thing to do if we assume that one of these theories (or none of them) is actually objectively true. I suppose it is like making things seem less weird, when in fact many things in reality (e.g. discoveries in physics) are very 'weird'.

But at least we're able to narrow things down, and reject the incoherent theories (because if we can't make sense of our theory for something then we clearly have not understood that something).

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Your confusion comes from mixing "domains of observation".

No, vikorr's confusion most likely comes from your constant name-dropping and reference to countless theories than only you have heard of. Rather than directing us to other texts, why don't you try outlining these theories for us? If you can't explain them, why should we believe that you even understand them?

For example, what is "the paradigm of "non-dualism" in which a transcendent position above "self" and "world" is being attempted"? See if you can outline it for us in plain English, in your own words.

0 Replies

agrote,

With respect, I refer you to the thousands of words I have written on this subject since 2002 on a2k which can easily be viewed via my posts.(For example I note our paths almost crossed on http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=85152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10)

Alas, there is no simple "word picture" which can substitute for background reading especally since "word pictures" themselves fall prey to analysis. In addition, vested interests in "self integrity" by some respondents mitigate against an understanding of a position in which "self" becomes an epiphenomenon.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Alas, there is no simple "word picture" which can substitute for background reading especally since "word pictures" themselves fall prey to analysis.

I'm not asking you to simplify what is complicated. I'm asking you to describe complicated ideas as clearly as possible, so that they can be grasped by people who haven't done the same background reading as you. This may mean that you need to write slightly longer posts and spend a bit more time on each point you make. There's no point in using specialist language in a forum which does not assume specialist knowledge, because people will just struggle to understand you, and they won't be able to engage in proper debate with you.

Quote:

In addition, vested interests in "self integrity" by some respondents mitigate against an understanding of a position in which "self" becomes an epiphenomenon.

I've noticed that your language isn't just convoluted and packed with jargon. You use quotation marks very strangely, or without explanation... are you implying that you don't believe in self integrity? And the phrase "mitigate against" is tautological, isn't it?

George Orwell wrote:

Never use a long word where a short word will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

I'll try to translate your last sentence...

"The ego or pride of certain Able2Know posters gets in the way of their understanding of my position in this debate, which is a position that entails that the self, or the ego, is in fact an epiphenomenon."

Is that about right? What do you mean here by epiphenomenon? An epiphenomenon of what?

Do you mean that self integrity is irrelevant to the topic of this thread, and that it is a waste of time to try and defend it? Are you asking me to stop getting personal?

0 Replies

agrote,

Sorry, but I really can't be bothered with this stylistic claptrap. Either you wish to understand a non-dualistic paradigm or you don't. Somewhat to my embarrasement, those who appreciate such a paradigm tend to praise my attempts at exposition. Those who don't, indulge in all sorts of displacement activity as a smokescreen for their indolence, to which I am, by now, indifferent.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

agrote,

Sorry, but I really can't be bothered with this stylistic claptrap. Either you wish to understand a non-dualistic paradigm or you don't. Somewhat to my embarrasement, those who appreciate such a paradigm tend to praise my attempts at exposition. Those who don't, indulge in all sorts of displacement activity as a smokescreen for their indolence, to which I am, by now, indifferent.

I know you said you can't be bothered, but you're showing signs of improvement. Laughing

That was quite a clearly-written post.

Okay. Well I would like to understand a non-dualistic paradigm. The only non-dualism I really know about is physicalism, and I don't think that's what you were referring to. It's not that I don't appreciate this non-dualistic paradigm, or some of the other things you've brought up. It's that I don't understand them, because you haven't explained them very clearly.

I'm not putting up a smokescreen. I freely admit that I don't understand what you've been talking about, and I freely admit that I have only read two sections of one of the links that you've posted. But that's not indolence. If I read everything that you have read, I might know what you're talking about. But when you enter into a debate, you explain your position by yourself. You don't just hand your opponent a pile of books to read.

I would love to forget about your style of writing and focus on the content of what you've been saying. But I can't do that unless I actually understand the content of what you're saying. Most of the time I don't. And the burden of resolving that problem is on you, as someone who has a very unclear style of writing. I am not indulging in displacement here, I want to learn about your views (through debate, not through background reading), and you're the one making that difficult.

0 Replies

agrote,

I would prefer it if you would refer to earlier threads of mine especially "Is reality a social construction". However in the interim I will just give you a few bullet points.

1. "Reality" lies at the interface between "observer" and "observed". Neither can"exist" without the other. All "things" imply a "thinger". "Reality" is neither material nor mental, both of which are subconcepts of "properties" (see 2).

2. Conventional "knowledge" is about prediction and control. "Object properties" are not possessed by objects as such. Such properties are statements of expectancy about the nature of relationships between "selves" and "the world".

3. "Selves" and "the world" are evoked and mitigated by language use which provides a socially transmitted set of spectacles through which relationships are classified or segmented. The commonality of language and perceptual apparatus provides the basis for consensus and "meaning" (as opposed to "truth") which is subject to paradigm shifts. In as much that "science" uutilizes a relatively culture free metalanguage (mathematics) degrees of consensus are likely to be higher.

4. There are levels of observation ( or "nested systems" or levels of consciousnes) which enable such non-dualistic philosophical analysis to take place from "higher vantage points". Such levels are now modelled by "second order cybernetics" having been historically chiefly the province of esoteric philosophy with concepts of "holistic consciousness".
Hegel perhaps was one of the exceptions to this generalization.

5. Nondualistic principles are embodied in Bohrs interpretation of quantum mechanics, Piagets "genetic epistemology" and Maturana (et al)'s
Santiago Theory of Cognition. (Direct challenges to Bohrs view were refuted by the findings of "non-locality" following developments of appropriate technology)

I point out in passing that the phrase by Dean (aka nightrider aka etc etc)
"personal ideology" is vacuous when viewed from the above position of the social nature of language through which such ideology might be expressed by "persons" who are epiphenomena of such language use. I no longer respond to Dean whose adolescent brand of "anti-philosophy" is merely a reactionary adjunct in support of his problem with self-publicity.

0 Replies

fresco,

I'll have a look at your old thread.

I agree that something observed implies something observing, and vice versa. But that doesn't rule out unobserved things. It seems arbitrary to use the term 'reality' to describe the interface between observers and observed things, because it is perfectly possible that things could exist (and therefore be part of 'reality') which are unobserved; either unobservable, or just not presently being observed.

Quote:

The commonality of language and perceptual apparatus provides the basis for consensus and "meaning" (as opposed to "truth") which is subject to paradigm shifts. In as much that "science" uutilizes a relatively culture free metalanguage (mathematics) degrees of consensus are likely to be higher.

I agree with this. But even if all we are able to reach is a concensus, that does not rule out the possibility that there is a real world out there. Perhaps realism is true, and our experience of the external world, once mediated through sense and cognition, allows us to reach good approximations of what that world is like in-itself.

When I look at a pear, I don't 'see' it directly. All I am really aware of is a mental state. But that doesn't necessarily mean that my mental state is not caused by a real, physical pear, which continues to exist even when it is not observed.

It seems arbitrary to assume that reality is only the connection between observer and observed, and that there is nothing in reality which is not observed. But then, my position is equally arbitrary.

Your claims seem to be kind of solipsistic, but solipsism is just something that I don't like the idea of. It's not something that I know how to refute. Ho hum.

0 Replies

agrote,

"solipsism" is indeed perverse within an act of communication such as this !

As for "unobserved reality" this I suggest is a mental "sleight of hand". Its another version of the celebrated "tree in the forest" game. Those who say there is an "unobserved tree" falling somewhere forget that they are seeing that tree in their "minds eye".....think about it ! (along with Occams razor).

For me, the easiest way "in" to nondualism is to imagine the "perceptions" of a nonhuman species such as birds. Irrespective of language use, would "trees exist" for birds or only the relationship of "perchness" ?
Indeed no separation would be made beteween any "object" providing such "perchness" (roofs, areals, telephone wires etc). By expolation, if "worlds" are species specific with respect to their perceptual apparatus and needs, there can be no ultimate "reality".

0 Replies

Philosophy is nothing but personal ideology/propaganda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know