GoshisDead wrote:
It is speculation, speculation is a serious argument it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. I cannot prove anything. My first post states as much. It is, however, something to seriously think about. So I would say that it is not wasted speculation, at least for me, because I enjoy thinking about such things. I would also say it is not wasted speculation because it has the potential to ring significant, which is all one can expect in cases such as these where any real truth is impossible to fathom.
Then why are you even speaking? I can speculate all day on what the world might be; but this does not change what the world is. In fact, I can spout all day on what the world might be and assert what it is from this based on zero proof. I can say that the "World is organic" and that it's entity is constantly moving (a dynamical process. Much like Hegel). But I need to prove this. In fact, the proof actually falls on me, based upon my assertion of the conclusion.
Dialogue: Say I am sitting with my friend and he tells me that "God exists." I would find this rather queer and ask him, "on what grounds?" and he simply tells me, "I just feel it." - Well that is not very good proof at all on anything huh?
But let us, if you are willing, make this thread worthwhile and take your metaphor seriously. If you want we can do this good old fashion Plato style (dialogue that is.). Perhaps we can salvage something from this. In fact, I am sure that by the end of this we can come to a better understanding of the world. Or maybe not.
Do you wish to engage?
Ding an Sich wrote:
GoshisDead wrote:
It is speculation, speculation is a serious argument it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. I cannot prove anything. My first post states as much. It is, however, something to seriously think about. So I would say that it is not wasted speculation, at least for me, because I enjoy thinking about such things. I would also say it is not wasted speculation because it has the potential to ring significant, which is all one can expect in cases such as these where any real truth is impossible to fathom.
Then why are you even speaking? I can speculate all day on what the world might be; but this does not change what the world is. In fact, I can spout all day on what the world might be and assert what it is from this based on zero proof. I can say that the "World is organic" and that it's entity is constantly moving (a dynamical process. Much like Hegel). But I need to prove this. In fact, the proof actually falls on me, based upon my assertion of the conclusion.
Dialogue: Say I am sitting with my friend and he tells me that "God exists." I would find this rather queer and ask him, "on what grounds?" and he simply tells me, "I just feel it." - Well that is not very good proof at all on anything huh?
But let us, if you are willing, make this thread worthwhile and take your metaphor seriously. If you want we can do this good old fashion Plato style (dialogue that is.). Perhaps we can salvage something from this. In fact, I am sure that by the end of this we can come to a better understanding of the world. Or maybe not.
Do you wish to engage?
I am writing because-
1) I can.
2) I feel like it.
3) It is interesting to some here.
4) The topic is not one in which anything can be proven or disproven. An argument on this topic can be nothing more than speculation.
5) burden of proof falls on no-one in this situation as I have asserted nothing.
6) The speculation was meant to spark a more in depth conversation, so feel free to take it as seriously as you feel.
7) The process of philosophy is exploratory and begins with speculation. Without abstracted curiosity, observation and speculation there is only synthesis of the mundane.
8) The forum is for the presentation and discussion of ideas. This is an idea.
9) I feel like it.
10) I can.
Well I did want to have an in depth conversation with you in the form of dialogue; but I suppose that is not worthwhile to you as it deals with proof and not "feelling-like-it". It would require input on your part good sir.
If this forum is about the "presentation and discussion of ideas" then there is indeed a lot we are missing out on, especially if it involves "feeling-like-it" attitudes. Philosophy is not simply to present and discuss ideas; in which case the forum then becomes simply lackluster (if we are still considering this a philosophy forum and not simply a "show and tell day" forum).
Is there anything wrong with the "mundane"? Last time I checked, even philosophers gathered their basis of knowledge from the sensible (experience) and not from some supra-sensisble intuitive oneness with the Absolute (to go with Hegel and his crew on this).
What in the world is "abstracted curiosity"? "A curiosity that I have abstracted? From where? The world? What kind of world" -The sensible world.
To quote a famous philosopher (again), "All our knowledge begins with experience." -Immanuel Kant
You asked why it was worth while for me to post, because I feel like it is one of the reasons. In fact it is one of the reasons anyone posts. Probably the primary reason anyone posts. Because I feel like it is worth discussing especially if the mundane is worth discussing. The presentation and exchange of ideas cannot happen without "because I feel like it". To quote a famous philosopher (again), "All our knowledge begins with experience." -Immanuel Kant. So obviously "because I feel like it" is not lackluster.
People can and do easily discuss ideas without proof, it happens all the time. It is at the core of ethics and metaphysics. Also pray tell me how anyone could prove or disprove an idea like we exist so meaning exists. Or pray tell me how anyone can say anything concretely universal about the universe other than it exists. Much like Hegel and his crew says (paraphrase) The only thing one can say for certain is that something is, once an attribute is ascribed we are in the realm of interpretation. Also I do not see the harm in talking about an intuitive sense of being. Bergson noted that the only truely accurate way to study the metaphysical is with pure intuition. By extention things that are impossible to prove or disprove must be intuited as they cannot be sensed otherwise.
One can also take this down the road of discussion of metaphor in text, or metaphor in cognition. One can take this down the road of hermeneutic interpretation. How one interpretation of ametaphor seems to naturally lead to one conclusion and another interpretation of a metaphor to another conclusion even though the same phenomena are witnessed.
We can bring post-modernist views - how to deconstruct the machine metaphor, anthropological views - was the change from pastoral to industrial a reason for a change in metaphor and thus catalyst for the existentialist school of thought, linguistic views - Why would metaphor change the outcome of interpretation in x society, and socio-political views - has the scientocracy changed our ability to express credible metaphor outside of the accepted standard etc... So I am at a loss as to why this would not be a series of posts in which to start a good discussion?
How is it obvious that "because I feel like it" is not lackluster? I was not even talking about such a "feeling-like-it" being lackluster; I was talking about the presentation and discussion of ideas. That to me is lackluster. It is nothing short of show and tell day in the first grade. It merely acquaints us with something, but it does not help us think about something (critically mind you.).
This begs the question. What things are impossible to prove or disprove? And if so, why do we need a supra-sensible intuition to do so when we have all the tools we could ever need (Logic)? Also what is pure intuition? Are we taking this from Kant to mean the mode into which all our sensuous intuition goes (such as space and time). What does Bergson have to say about "pure intuition"?
Once an attribute is given to an object, we have given this object a predicate. How is this in the realm of interpretation? Also were does Hegel say this? Or is there perhaps another philosopher who you are talking about?
Is there a reason why we need metaphors for everything? We say that "the universe is like x", but we are not actually saying what it is. This is non-sensical. Why speak in metaphors when we can say what something "is"? Logic does exactly this. Although I do admit we could make a Language Game with rules that allowed us only to speak in metaphors. If you wish to dance we shall!
You could start "good discussions" on these; but perhaps somewhere else. Maybe in Interpreting Literature. Or maybe Political Science. English? Linguistics (of the meta-language kind)? Im sure there are fields of study in which your views would find an outlet, and possibly lead to fruitful discussions.
Language does not only consist of the meta-language, but of the form of the language. The form of the language is the logic, the Calculus of the Language. The two do inter-mingle in a meta-language, but it would be wise not to confuse them.
To quote a famous philosopher (again), "All our knowledge begins with experience." -Immanuel Kant.
Your inability to think critically about an idea that wasn't spoon fed to you would be your problem if you hadn't noted the following. "You could start "good discussions" on these; but perhaps somewhere else. Maybe in Interpreting Literature. Or maybe Political Science. English? Linguistics (of the meta-language kind)? Im sure there are fields of study in which your views would find an outlet, and possibly lead to fruitful discussions."
Since I can't find a digital copy of the first chapter of Phenomenology I'll paste a stanford link synopsis.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#PheSpi
Something of Hegel's phenomenological method may be conveyed by the first few chapters, which are perhaps among the more conventionally philosophical parts (Westphal 2009). Chapters 1 to 3 effectively follow a developmental series of distinct “shapes of consciousness”—jointly epistemological and ontological attitudes articulated by criteria which are, regarded from one direction, criteria for certain knowledge, and from the other, criteria for independent objecthood. In chapter 1, the attitude of “sense-certainty” takes immediately given singular perceptual contents—the sort of role played by “sense data” in some early twentieth-century approaches to epistemology, for example—as the fundamental objects known. By following this form of consciousness's attempts to make these implicit criteria explicit, we are meant to appreciate that any such contents, even the apparently most “immediate” ones, in fact contain implicit conceptually articulated presuppositions, and so, in Hegel's terminology, are “mediated.” One might compare Hegel's point here to that expressed by Kant in his well known claim that without concepts, those singular and immediate mental representations he calls “intuitions” are “blind.” In more recent terminology one might talk of the “concept-” or “theory-ladenness” of all experience, and the lessons of this chapter have been likened to that of Wilfrid Sellars's famous criticism of the “myth of the given” (Sellars 1997).
Perhaps if there is something that we cannot speak of, we should not say anything at all of it, lest we end up speaking non-sensically.
To quote a famous philosopher (again), "All our knowledge begins with experience." -Immanuel Kant. If our knowledge comes from experience and neither of us have experienced "the universe" we have no knowledge of it. That of which we have no knowledge must be rendered into a form comparative to that of which we do have knowledge, which by default becomes a metaphor. You can say X part of the universe, which has been experienced, is, but you cannot say the universe is.
Last I checked Philosophy has many sub-disciplines that include, postmodernism, language, history, culture, and society. However if the secret cabal of master philosophers have clued you in on a change. Then okay cool. Also since there are no specific philosophy subforums as of yet, the general area will have to do. the
The philsophy of language does consist partly of meta-language. It discusses metaphor and all that jazz. One can do predicate calculus and discuss meta-language one without the other is useless. A calculus breakdown is not applicable to anything without a discussion of usage, semantics, prosidy, pragmatics etc... Language consists of much more than its calculus. Its calculus is an arbitrary analysis of its usage per incident. If a language consisted only of its calculus computer programmers would have been able to create a language algorythm.
It may be beneficial not to conflate formal logic and philosophy or for that matter the syntactic form of language with language the former is simply an analytic method used in the latter, they are not the same.
GoshisDead wrote:
To quote a famous philosopher (again), "All our knowledge begins with experience." -Immanuel Kant.
I am afraid you gave only half the quote from Kant. The entire quote goes, "Although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience" According to Kant, the human mind also contributes to human knowledge, so that even if we do not experience the universe (at least, not as such) still, we may still have knowledge of the universe.
I have come to see reality as meaningless and therefore a wonderful playground for all imaginable thought.
Have you come to this conclusion that there is no meaning in the universe?
Why or why not?
How is this an interpretation? Can you please state in the Phenomenology where Hegel does this. Hell give me the translation, page number, and paragraph number, and I will look it up myself (I have the Miller and Baillie translation so which ever one will do.). Now I am simply interested.
So we have these immediate objects that are given to us in this "Here" and "Now" (I am using the terminology of the Miller translation) and we realize that what was once immediate now becomes mediate. If they were simply immediate, we would not be able to remember them, much less form anything of them; they could not be conceptualized. Give you an example: I write something on a piece of paper saying it is 3:15pm, and put the paper aside. I then, after some time, pick the paper back up and read it to myself. I have no understanding of it because I have no understanding of time (and by extension for Hegel, space). Thus, in the first chapter of the Phenomenology, we go from a "Here" and "Now" to a series of "Heres" and "Nows". We are basically presupposing the a priority of time and space as pure intuitions. They encompass the form of the objects of sense. Ta-da! First Chapter of the Roller-coaster known as the Phenomenology of Spirit reviewed. Whee! That was fun. If you want we can do the rest. Its a great ride. Takes about a month to finish.
We could even have a whole discussion if you are really interested. Its painful though. Hegel, well, he's a real charlatan. But I love the guy.
By the way, you still have yet to tell me what Bergson says of "pure intuitions". I have not read him yet (do not think I will either) so I am interested in what you have to say.
Premises
1. If our knowledge comes from experience and neither of us have experience "the universe", then we have no knowledge of it.
2. That of which we have no knowledge must be rendered into a form comparative to that of which we do have knowledge, which becomes a metaphor.
Conclusion
3. You can say X part of the universe, which has been experienced, is, but you cannot say the universe "is".
This is what you said correct? I want to make sure before we step any further.
It shows the sophistry of certain people who tout logic as the end all and be all of philosophical debate.
GoshisDead wrote:
It shows the sophistry of certain people who tout logic as the end all and be all of philosophical debate.
How does quoting out of context (I imagine that is what you mean by "decontextualized quotes") do that? By the way, who does that? And what does it mean? Have you an example of touting logic as etc.? It sound just a wee bit exaggerated to me. Doesn't it to you?
kennethamy wrote:
GoshisDead wrote:
It shows the sophistry of certain people who tout logic as the end all and be all of philosophical debate.
How does quoting out of context (I imagine that is what you mean by "decontextualized quotes") do that? By the way, who does that? And what does it mean? Have you an example of touting logic as etc.? It sound just a wee bit exaggerated to me. Doesn't it to you?
Quoting out of context with the expectation of that quote meaning something significant is common rhetorical ploy. For those who want appeal to authority without backing up what they are saying with anything real. One of the problems with it is that like the Kant quote which was bandied about, it can be used to seemingly back up several arguments even when those arguments are in opposition. It ends up being a false comparison, as the quote does often back up a tangential part of the argument but not the actual argument. When people take teaching and presentation courses they are often taught, to get attention, quote, to teach, quote after laying a groundwork of context in which the quote and its context apply directly to the matter being taught.
The appeal to authority bound in the quote is bound in the name attributed to the quote. This is the oldest sophist ploy in the book. Hitch my wagon to the star. I am therefore free to shoot out shoddy arguments and cut people down because I have (authority) on my side.
Since you asked; you and your oft quoted, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ~ Wittgenstein is a prime example.
However, its a trend several people are doing. they are welcome to do it. I just find it annoying and disingenuous for people who repeatedly pride themselves on their logical arguments. Presenting the Wittgenstein quote as "if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up" doesn't make it any less rude or any more logical than if you said, "if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up". It simply thinly disguises the cut down and attaches a respected name to it.
Finally, no it doesn't sound exaggerated or I wouldn't have written it in an undramatic way.
GoshisDead wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
GoshisDead wrote:
It shows the sophistry of certain people who tout logic as the end all and be all of philosophical debate.
How does quoting out of context (I imagine that is what you mean by "decontextualized quotes") do that? By the way, who does that? And what does it mean? Have you an example of touting logic as etc.? It sound just a wee bit exaggerated to me. Doesn't it to you?
Quoting out of context with the expectation of that quote meaning something significant is common rhetorical ploy. For those who want appeal to authority without backing up what they are saying with anything real. One of the problems with it is that like the Kant quote which was bandied about, it can be used to seemingly back up several arguments even when those arguments are in opposition. It ends up being a false comparison, as the quote does often back up a tangential part of the argument but not the actual argument. When people take teaching and presentation courses they are often taught, to get attention, quote, to teach, quote after laying a groundwork of context in which the quote and its context apply directly to the matter being taught.
The appeal to authority bound in the quote is bound in the name attributed to the quote. This is the oldest sophist ploy in the book. Hitch my wagon to the star. I am therefore free to shoot out shoddy arguments and cut people down because I have (authority) on my side.
Since you asked; you and your oft quoted, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ~ Wittgenstein is a prime example.
However, its a trend several people are doing. they are welcome to do it. I just find it annoying and disingenuous for people who repeatedly pride themselves on their logical arguments. Presenting the Wittgenstein quote as "if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up" doesn't make it any less rude or any more logical than if you said, "if you don't know what you are talking about, shut up". It simply thinly disguises the cut down and attaches a respected name to it.
Finally, no it doesn't sound exaggerated or I wouldn't have written it in an undramatic way.
You confuse (as many do) citing a source, or simply quoting someone in order make your point more neatly than you think you yourself can, with arguing from authority. When I say something like, "As so-and-so said...." I need not be saying something like, "It is true, and it is true because so-and-so said it". now, that would be arguing from authority. But if I say, for instance, "As Aristotle said, one swallow does not make a summer" I am not saying that one swallow does not make a summer, and I have Aristotle's authority as evidence for that. You have been in academia too long. You think that whenever there is a citation there is evidence. It is not true.
I have come to see reality as meaningless and therefore a wonderful playground for all imaginable thought.
Have you come to this conclusion that there is no meaning in the universe?
Why or why not?
If we are in the realm of contemplative speculation is there such a thing as an offensive absurdity? Feel free to expound on that last post. I wouldn't mind seeing where it goes. It may even be that the logic police aren't patrolling right now.
