1
   

What we sense and what we percieve.

 
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 03:26 pm
Thalion wrote:
Hegel's Notion is the synthesis of Being and Essence, without being concretely real; it lacks physical existence. It's similar to Plato's conception of the Ideal form and is a universal (Aristotle - although Hegel also uses the word) in that it is the inparticular thing. The Notion of a house is the essence of a house as it exists (being) but does not physically exist; it is only the notion of a house. It might sound contradictary to speak of something involving existence in its concept but not existing, but it is the concept of existence and not the actuality of existing.

I don't know about Galileo, but you very well may be right. Where did he refer to this? Descartes was an early phenomenologist that is similar to Hegel in this respect, although it must be noted that Hegel differed from Descartes in some respects. He believed that things exist as ideas (Notions) beyond what is observed (which Descartes did - his conception of a triangle) as well as physically in Nature (Descartes suggests that there is something other than myself b\c I do not call observations to mind willingly.) Descartes believed in Hegel's nature, but doubted observations from nature. Hegel believed observations to be the synthesis of the Notion in Nature (matter is observed - as I said, matter is notional) which makes both the Notion (Descartes's pure idea) and Nature (Descartes's other - maybe God, maybe an evil spirit, etc.) both valid, and our observations are the synthesis of both. Therefore, we never directly observe nature because our observations of nature are also notional (universal/conceptual.) Descartes doubted that what we observe is real, although Hegel showed that what we observe is inherently rational b\c we observe it as a notion that we understand, and what is real and what is rational are the same thing if rational concepts and realistic nature are synthesized in our observations.

I hope that made sense. I'm sorry for all the parenthesis, but I'm trying to compare the two to make the relation clearer.

I was absolutely stunned when I got to the part in the Phenomenology when he proved that matter is not "existant" outside of observation and that the observation of matter is reduced to probablities (wave theory!) if one believes that matter does in fact exist physically rather than notionally. It took over another hundred years for Bohr, Schrodinger, Wheeler (et al) to determine this from science.


Oh my god.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 04:32 pm
Thanks for the post Thailon - I have you now.

I am not sure the sourcework for Galileo - I teach philosophy and fall VERY short on the post Moderns - but I read it here:

The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science
by E. A. Burtt

ISBN: 0486425517

Page 78

TTF
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 04:42 pm
Ok, thanks. I'll take a look for it next time I'm around a library. Hegel might actually be a Romantic. Born 1770 if I remember right... I should know this. Phenomenology was 1807. Not a post-modern, but I get your point. Didn't realize you're a philosophy teacher. I'm trying to teach myself as much philosophy as I can now since I don't plan to major in it at college (physics!). Don't know a whole lot of classical philosophy myself. Glad to see that I could actually explain that though.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 08:24 pm
You did extremely well to my poorly trained eye. IF I followed you - you should guest lecture in my class. Wink

TTF
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2005 11:42 pm
Wait, isn't that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics?

If it is, then I think it's saying that an object such as a cube, with different picture on each face, is all at the same place, meaning that all the pictures are at the same place, until an observer sees it.

This is like the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, although Schrodinger was only attempting to show that quantum mechanics is incomplete.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 03:05 pm
I said that in my last paragraph.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 04:24 pm
But there are more than one interpretation. I don't think all physicists agree on Copenhagen's interpretation.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 05:07 pm
True. I've basically come to accept the Copenhagen so it always seems like the default interpretation to me and I forget to specify. You're right though - it is.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 07:31 pm
Everything there is to see is beatific, glorious. Everything: beauty, ugliness, birth, death. What we actually perceive is that which keeps us moving. This ensures that we won't become immobilized and stop giving and receiving sperm.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2005 09:57 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
We are matter observing matter.


(Or) ... We are the Universe observing itself.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 04:17 am
Yes, we are extensions of mother earth. Not separate.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 04:34 am
Cyracuz"

Quote:
Yes, we are extensions of mother earth. Not separate.


When we think we are extensions of mother earth we are already separate from it.
0 Replies
 
chris2a
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 04:44 am
val wrote:
When we think we are extensions of mother earth we are already separate from it.


I don't think self awareness separates us from whence we came and to which we shall return.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:08 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
We are matter observing matter.


(Or) ... We are the Universe observing itself.


We are the universe engaged in the struggle to observe itself. The eye trying to see itself. This is why we are tongue-tied ignoramuses, even the greatest philosophers among us. But we keep trying, don't we.

One of the tools in the toolbox is religion. Fairy tales and metaphor are ways of approaching the mystery. Not the way I've chosen for myself, but I understand what motivates the (honest) followers of that path.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:38 am
AllThisBeauty wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
We are matter observing matter.


(Or) ... We are the Universe observing itself.


We are the universe engaged in the struggle to observe itself.


I don't want to split hairs or anything, but for me at least, it's more of a pleasure than a struggle.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:43 am
Can we agree on "glorious struggle"?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 10:25 am
AllThisBeauty wrote:
Can we agree on "glorious struggle"?


To each his own.

When looking at your avatar in combination with your screen-name, "Glorious Struggle" is what comes to mind. It appears we see the world as we are.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 12:35 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
your screen-name...


Larry Kramer, author and playwright, was once asked what it was he would miss the most if he died. His answer: "All this beauty."
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 01:41 pm
Quote:
We are the universe engaged in the struggle to observe itself. The eye trying to see itself. This is why we are tongue-tied ignoramuses, even the greatest philosophers among us. But we keep trying, don't we.


Beautiful. I agree with you, except that it's not always a struggle, it's a journey.
0 Replies
 
Thalion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 02:55 pm
When matter observes an other it observes itself because the otherness of this matter presupposes itself. We are our observations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 08:04:56