Monday, November 26, 2007
Re: Thoughts
My entry regarding faith and the transcendent was quite accurate, I just didnt know there was a name for it: ontotheology.
Relative and Objective
I realize that the last two posts contain postions for both relativity and objectivity. This is not inconsistent. Let me see if I can work this through...
There are two different types of objectivity needed by human beings. Concepts (like ethics) for which we need an objective foundation are relative to all of humanity. As stated before, it is actually this relativity that provides objectivity. The second type of objectivity relates to the 'physical world' and not to ideas or concepts. This objectivity creates for mankind assurance that you and I will both experience a 'dog' as a dog even if those experiences vary somewhat. There is some amount of overlap in the types of objectivity but my train of thought has been lost so I will have to elaborate on that at another time.
There are two different types of objectivity needed by human beings. Concepts (like ethics) for which we need an objective foundation are relative to all of humanity. As stated before, it is actually this relativity that provides objectivity. The second type of objectivity relates to the 'physical world' and not to ideas or concepts. This objectivity creates for mankind assurance that you and I will both experience a 'dog' as a dog even if those experiences vary somewhat. There is some amount of overlap in the types of objectivity but my train of thought has been lost so I will have to elaborate on that at another time.
Coming around...
I think that I can remove the ? after Heidegger's name in my earlier lists...the following is somewhat disjointed and stems from recent classes about Heidegger.
The question is whether or not, behind our philosophical baggage, that which we have now is only one of many possibilities or whether it is the only possibile manifestation of that which is human essence. Were there no Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, or the Holy Trinity (of philosophy) would we still be where we are now? Could we have had a new framework encompassing that which we consider within our current framework to be transcendent? Would some of what we now consider empirical or given be denoted as transcendent in another framework? Were there no Thales would another man have started us down the same path? Is it even possible to have gone down another path, assuming of course that other paths 'exist' or, more precisely, that there even exists the possibility of other modes of thinking regardless of actuality. If it is human 'essence' that has brought us to where we are now then how could we have become anything other? What does this say of 'essence'?
...Is there only one human 'essence'? The word essence seems to carry a connotation of singularity yet our fundamental inclination either for or against the transcendent certainly negates this idea of singularity. We have a philosophical dualism that continues to rear its ugly head again and again: Plato/Aristotle, rationalism/empiricism, idealism/pragmatism, analytic/continental. What about the Eastern/Western distinction? Is this not evidence of the dualistic nature of humanity? ...Perhaps even the word dualistic is to confining. With all of philosophy's 'progress' we return again and again to Plato and Aristotle. Surely, if we were able to relate to the world in another way sometime in the last 2500 years somebody would have found it. Again, must we think the way we do? Even if we were able to 'get behind' the pre-socratics would we not even be able to think diferently?
In some strange way I feel like I am ok with Heidegger. It "resonates" and as usual this is creating an interesting personal paradox which makes me feel a little ill.
As for dualism...maybe it is all just two 'paths' to the same goal, two sides of the same coin and our categorical nature separtes things into opposites when the distinction does not realy exsist.
Also realting to Heidegger but in different way:
If we are interconnected to, interdependent with, the world then there is no hard and fast division between appearance and reality. Reality will not 'presence' itself in a dramatically different fashion from what it is 'in itself'. If there are universal constraints that make the experience of one 'thing' close to the 'same' for all those who experience it. We can say that there is objectivity 'in the world'...
(P.S. I like scare quotes)
The question is whether or not, behind our philosophical baggage, that which we have now is only one of many possibilities or whether it is the only possibile manifestation of that which is human essence. Were there no Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, or the Holy Trinity (of philosophy) would we still be where we are now? Could we have had a new framework encompassing that which we consider within our current framework to be transcendent? Would some of what we now consider empirical or given be denoted as transcendent in another framework? Were there no Thales would another man have started us down the same path? Is it even possible to have gone down another path, assuming of course that other paths 'exist' or, more precisely, that there even exists the possibility of other modes of thinking regardless of actuality. If it is human 'essence' that has brought us to where we are now then how could we have become anything other? What does this say of 'essence'?
...Is there only one human 'essence'? The word essence seems to carry a connotation of singularity yet our fundamental inclination either for or against the transcendent certainly negates this idea of singularity. We have a philosophical dualism that continues to rear its ugly head again and again: Plato/Aristotle, rationalism/empiricism, idealism/pragmatism, analytic/continental. What about the Eastern/Western distinction? Is this not evidence of the dualistic nature of humanity? ...Perhaps even the word dualistic is to confining. With all of philosophy's 'progress' we return again and again to Plato and Aristotle. Surely, if we were able to relate to the world in another way sometime in the last 2500 years somebody would have found it. Again, must we think the way we do? Even if we were able to 'get behind' the pre-socratics would we not even be able to think diferently?
In some strange way I feel like I am ok with Heidegger. It "resonates" and as usual this is creating an interesting personal paradox which makes me feel a little ill.
As for dualism...maybe it is all just two 'paths' to the same goal, two sides of the same coin and our categorical nature separtes things into opposites when the distinction does not realy exsist.
Also realting to Heidegger but in different way:
If we are interconnected to, interdependent with, the world then there is no hard and fast division between appearance and reality. Reality will not 'presence' itself in a dramatically different fashion from what it is 'in itself'. If there are universal constraints that make the experience of one 'thing' close to the 'same' for all those who experience it. We can say that there is objectivity 'in the world'...
(P.S. I like scare quotes)
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Ethics
My most recent epiphany is thus:
We can trace one of the fundamental screw ups in philosophy back to Plato (and yes, I do enjoy that). Plato's serach for an 'objective' foundation for Socratic ethics has left us a nightmare of a legacy. I do not consider myself an ethical relativist yet I have decided that the absolute relativity of ethics is precisely that which makes ethics objective. We do not need Plato's perfect objective forms to bring us back from the brink of barbarism. What we need is cultural and intellectual globalization.
I am now wondering what it is I still need the transcendent for?
We can trace one of the fundamental screw ups in philosophy back to Plato (and yes, I do enjoy that). Plato's serach for an 'objective' foundation for Socratic ethics has left us a nightmare of a legacy. I do not consider myself an ethical relativist yet I have decided that the absolute relativity of ethics is precisely that which makes ethics objective. We do not need Plato's perfect objective forms to bring us back from the brink of barbarism. What we need is cultural and intellectual globalization.
I am now wondering what it is I still need the transcendent for?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Thoughts
I think that I may be very interested in the stuff going on at the Metaphysics Research Lab (see link on the right).
I have also started a list of the the philosophers which I think that I like:
Heraclitus
Nietzsche
Wittgenstein
(and therefore I should probably familiarize myself with Schopenhauer)
Clifford
Heidegger?
Sartre
Also, on another note, I have been thinking of my aversion to faith. The problem with 20th century philosophy is that while I consider myself more of an empiricist than a rationalist I would not consider myself particularly amicable toward analytic philosophy. This means that in some way I am still holding on to the transcendent and, depending on the system one wants to use to look at the world, 'reason' does not seem to be able to bridge the gap between the world and the transcendent and is something one must reach through faith. This leaves me feeling somewhat sick. I wonder if my resistence to faith is simply because of the common meaning attached to the word or, is it faith itself and, that I think there must be some sort of reasoned and justified way of getting to metaphysical structures.
I have also started a list of the the philosophers which I think that I like:
Heraclitus
Nietzsche
Wittgenstein
(and therefore I should probably familiarize myself with Schopenhauer)
Clifford
Heidegger?
Sartre
Also, on another note, I have been thinking of my aversion to faith. The problem with 20th century philosophy is that while I consider myself more of an empiricist than a rationalist I would not consider myself particularly amicable toward analytic philosophy. This means that in some way I am still holding on to the transcendent and, depending on the system one wants to use to look at the world, 'reason' does not seem to be able to bridge the gap between the world and the transcendent and is something one must reach through faith. This leaves me feeling somewhat sick. I wonder if my resistence to faith is simply because of the common meaning attached to the word or, is it faith itself and, that I think there must be some sort of reasoned and justified way of getting to metaphysical structures.
The problem of philosophy...
The Problem of philosophy (abbreviated, somewhat recovered, version one) is the inability to critically analyze ones own ideas, sources, relations, presuppositions, goals, etc., no matter the orientation of the philosopher. This is precisely why philosophers are able to find so many holes in each others theories or systems and is also the reason why philosophy always seems to regress rather than to progress. However, it is precisely this activity that is the most fruitful despite that on the surface it seems interminable.
That said, I have now decided that THE problem of philosophy is thus: the human mind. This is not the mind-body problem but the problem of the mind 'in itself', the problem of understanding our own understanding and whether or not the way in which we understand 'the world' (presupposing that we have decided how it is that we do understand the world) is an appropriate way to try to understand the mind (that which is not tangible).
That said, I have now decided that THE problem of philosophy is thus: the human mind. This is not the mind-body problem but the problem of the mind 'in itself', the problem of understanding our own understanding and whether or not the way in which we understand 'the world' (presupposing that we have decided how it is that we do understand the world) is an appropriate way to try to understand the mind (that which is not tangible).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
