@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:You are saying you understand what is going on and it is confusion, or madness or anarchy
No. That is how
you understand my words.
Quote:The problem lies in the fact that our meanings, our forms, physical and moral forms are all considered as absolutes
That is by no means a fact. At best, it is a popular "philosophical"
belief. These absolutes, or moral forms, are assumptions, just like god is an assumption of the religious. All their effort goes into devising ideas and philosophies that support and validate their initial assumption, which seems to be the case with you and your absolutes.
So, I guess that's where we stand now; I think it's only proper that you try to validate your assumption about moral forms. To me, they seem like redundant ideals that serve no purpose but to substantiate a philosophy that would fall apart without them.
I repeat what I already said; we will never find a solid or absolute foundation of understanding that we can point to as being the context in which meaning emerges, because it's always another relationship between different aspects of perception.
All your attempts to "describe it in detail" are merely examples of this, and if you take any one of your examples and follow it as far as you manage, I am pretty sure that you will find that at the bottom of one relationship there is always a foundation, or context, that is made up of another relationship. No absolutes, no moral forms or pure meanings that don't relate to anything. Consider that a challenge!
It may be that I misunderstand the Greeks and their theories of form, but What I get from it is that the idea is perfect and all reality is flawed... No one builds a perfect house out of a plan knowing the plan is imperfect... The reverse is true, that people start with a perfect plan and produce and imperfect product... But only in the MIND are ideas perfect and the reason for this is that we cannot conceive of every example of imperfection found in nature which are infinite, but only have the ability to consider the finite, and all physical forms are finite in nature, and for this reason can be de-fin-ed... All dogs are different, and yet all dogs are the same... Does your MIND list every difference in its definition of Dog, or only make note of differences, and then abstract the basic dog in definition???
As much as Duns Scotus is justly reviled by Eurasemus, his critique of reason was acute... He saw how little possible it was for us to know, and also how we framed that knowledge... As a moderate nominalist, concepts initially were just names to him...To quote Rudiger Safranski in his book on Martin Heidegger, in referense to Duns Scotus, or his pupil Thomas of Erfurt: "Between thought and thing lies and abyss of diference-Heterogenety, but There is also common ground- Homogeneity. The bridge between these two is called Analogy." We know by analogy which is hardly to say we know at all...
If the parts of mechanical clocks were named after parts of older water clocks it is only because people could only call them by what they knew because they were nothing like anything else they had experienced... Biology is full of names of structures taken from appearance, just as a muscle is named for the mouse it appears like when it is separated from the bones and body... But this is just a name, and what we know of muscles will always involve an analogy of its workings... The more accurate are our analogys, the better and more useful are our concepts, but we never with out concepts define by way of inperfections and exception... And I know that it may seem strange that to the Greeks all the natural, and imperfect examples of reality could give rise to the perfect and ideal in our minds, but they had in their minds already the metaphysical notion of our being the creations of God and reality too as being created, and it is much easier to grasp the idea of perfection giving rise to imperfection, than what is much more likely, that imperfection gives rise to the notion of perfection in our MINDS... And, while we can conceive of the perfect dog, or a perfect circle we are taking account of all that dogs have in common with dogs, and circles have in common with circles, but when we do so we lose sight of all that makes each example unique which is all that makes the real imperfect...
So; neither ideas nor philosophies are devised... Every philosophy has in common with ideas the fact that each takes what is known and unknown and presents an analogy of reality... Since we know solittle and presume so much failure is certain, but in no instance is their anything like devising going on... The analogy must fit with what is known, just as God may easily be presumed by those who know nature as a creation, and who see in their parents a perfection not shared by their children...
