tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post3238440564252605537..comments2024-03-15T23:30:38.471+11:00Comments on Lindsay's Lobes: A philosopher’s guide to reality.Lindsay Byrneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030132436987752741noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-79507066232377271422011-02-11T16:15:57.727+11:002011-02-11T16:15:57.727+11:00I believe that both Aristotle and Spinoza noted fo...I believe that both Aristotle and Spinoza noted four stages of realization.<br />Spinoza:<br />Substance --> Mode --> Attribute<br />and there's one other that I forget, but I think it comes before substance.<br />With Aristotle, it's:<br />Genus --> Accident<br />as the last two, and I don't remember the others.<br />Aristotle's terms make more sense to me, but I wonder how much of that is simply translation.<br /><br />Thanks for going through a bit of the Schopenhauer for me. I can see now why it would be said that I would like it.<br />I don't care for his use of the term "will" though. To my line of thinking, the will is necessarily secondary to the willer; it's the cart/horse hitch that disturbs me.<br /><br />Granted, I now consider you to be a man of incredible patience, having made it through Schopenhauer.<br />Perhaps if I had a bust of Schopenhauer on hand to throw the book at every once in awhile, I would have made better progress myself.Mercutiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13270898097330918764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-49990949401297489472011-02-10T23:09:51.997+11:002011-02-10T23:09:51.997+11:00Hi Mercutio,
Reference -Aristotle's terminol...Hi Mercutio, <br /><br />Reference -Aristotle's terminology, a specific instance of a thing is an "accident;" and since he was much more concerned with forms ("genus" I believe it was), and so never did really come back to "accidents" for the most part.<br /><br />Response: Yes- According to Aristotle matter in its purest sense has no characteristics as opposed to matter which takes on various forms. E.g. an acorn becomes an Oak. One state is always becoming another- the form is what it becomes. His teleological world view claims a purposeful universe of matter exists of all potentialities as a consequence of its form. <br /><br />Any potentiality for accidental form was something I think medieval philosophers gravitated towards rather that Aristotle although I believe he did mention it. <br /><br />Reference: Aristotle, even where he's a bit off. He does seem particularly elegant in his speech, and especially so compared to Spinoza, though I like Spinoza's form.<br /><br />Response: Spinoza said that GOD and nature were one and the same substance. So that everything in the universe according to Spinoza’s metaphysics is represented in the attributes of GOD or nature. <br /><br />Reference : Schopenhauer was really the only philosopher that I couldn't stand at all. In whatever it was I was reading, he made a questionable leap early on, and then returned to the point over and over to build on it. I found him to be irritating.<br />It's a shame; I'm told that I would really like Schopenhauer if I didn't find him too irritating to read.<br /><br />Response <br /><br />Schopenhauer invokes the idea of sufficient reason to link different categories of objects (material, mathematical, abstract or psychological forces etc ) to in turn to require different modes of reasoning ……..e.g. you cannot use logic to talk about abstract concepts. <br /><br />It is an extension of the categorization in Aristotle’s thinking. <br /><br />But building on Kant he postulates a different idea to declare individual objects (together with the forms of space and time) are sufficient in themselves to explain all human experience.<br /><br />In other words the individual objects dispersed through space and time all casually relate to one another. <br /><br />He believes that to come into contact with the universe is to come into contact with oneself. <br /><br />To understand Schopenhauer is to understand his idea of a foundationalistic ‘Will’ which is central to everything- the foundationalist being of all of our instinctual drives; the foundational being of everything. <br /><br />Schopenhauer's conception of the Will is of something that is separate to rationality. <br /><br />Schopenhauer considers every object in the word to metaphysically be double sided - so that the human body has an inner consciousness apart from the body itself. <br /><br />So that in an aggregation the world at large or universe it comprises of a “will’ and all its properties.( 2 sided ) <br /><br />You could say that Schopenhauer was a brilliant yet pessimistic German philosopher whose suggested the expression of a will’ would inevitably lead to suffering but one can gain respite could in aesthetic experiences. <br /><br />Those who read him may applaud his eagerness to combat idealism at the time in history but rally against his atheism. <br /><br />Reference: I feel a bit shy at this point at pronouncing categorical imperatives such as, "Form cannot exist independently of substance," (although that's really what I'm driving at, more or less) but I believe it might at some level, even though such a form-without-substance might well be beyond our capacity to readily utilize.<br /><br />Response; <br />The form of a proton light particle has no mass at rest but in motion (which is its constant state) it must have mass- which it has – but only to the extent necessary to have continual motion. Quantum mechanics is almost outside the human imagination! <br /><br />Best wisheslindsaylobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774918551798647046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-77860295964510965042011-02-09T07:46:28.853+11:002011-02-09T07:46:28.853+11:00Quite right.
In Aristotle's terminology, a spe...Quite right.<br />In Aristotle's terminology, a specific instance of a thing is an "accident;" and since he was much more concerned with forms ("genus" I believe it was), and so never did really come back to "accidents" for the most part.<br /><br />I really Aristotle, even where he's a bit off. He does seem particularly elegant in his speech, and especially so compared to Spinoza, though I like Spinoza's form.<br /><br />Schopenhauer was really the only philosopher that I couldn't stand at all. In whatever it was I was reading, he made a questionable leap early on, and then returned to the point over and over to build on it. I found him to be irritating.<br />It's a shame, really; because I'm told that I would really like Schopenhauer if I didn't find him too irritating to read.<br /><br />I feel a bit shy at this point at pronouncing categorical imperatives such as, "Form cannot exist independently of substance," (although that's really what I'm driving at, more or less) but I believe it might at some level, even though such a form-without-substance might well be beyond our capacity to readily utilize.Mercutiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13270898097330918764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-35550891280600270962011-02-08T18:20:13.876+11:002011-02-08T18:20:13.876+11:00Hi Mercutio,
Thanks for your visit and thoughtfu...Hi Mercutio, <br />Thanks for your visit and thoughtful comment. <br /><br />Metaphysics under the Aristolean influence talked about things considered eternal and which were outside the then known physical sciences. <br /><br />Hence Aristotle’s students were all assumed by Aristotle to have already studied physics before coming to study metaphysics which simply means ‘after the physics”. <br /><br />That is the original meaning whereas and I have gravitated to a more modern day terminology. <br /><br />However under Aristotle’s metaphysics substance is that which exists in its own right. A hand or arm or part thereof severed from the body does not exist in its own right; therefore it is not a substance. <br /><br />It is the function of the hand (when it was hand or a partial hand) that determines it as a substance under his metaphysics.<br />The partial nature of it is not important. <br /><br />Note that Aristotle is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ....That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.<br /><br />I hope what I have said now explains this point more clearly as indicated above. <br /> <br />Hence to ask a question what is a rock according to Aristotle is to ask a meaningless question ! - since he wants to know what it's essence ? is or what it is used for ? to denote its primary substance. <br /><br />To refer to a rock as such would be to refer to the physics you study before you study the science of metaphysics. <br /><br />But a rock fashioned into a tool or object or used to make something else has a substance. <br /><br />Aristotle wants to know what is its use? or what is it in essence ? to denote its primary substance.<br /><br />Of course, there are numerous flaws in his philosophy as indicated by the subsequent philopshers included in my post.<br /><br />But his thinking is very elegant for 2300 years ago dont you think ? <br /><br />You can gain a comprehensive view of what he meant and the subsequent philosophy from the references to Stanford University which are very well set out. <br /><br />I make reference to the famous botanist Linnaeus (1707-1778) who rejected the Aristotelian metaphysics which defined plants as substance with properties. <br /><br />Instead he proposed their being was based upon the provision of nutrition and in the propagation of their species. Thus the interconnectivity of all living things was beginning to take root- if you will excuse my pun! <br /><br />The idea that being is explained by listing the substance and interactions of those substances and their characteristics was refuted by Heidegger. <br /><br /><br />He suggested an alternative approach to introduce the idea of substance, equipment and being as defined in what it is to be human with intelligent interaction. <br /><br />But whatever philosophers you refer there will always be a flaw of one kind or another. <br /><br /><br />Today philosophers talk about mental and physical things, whereas Descartes said there are mental substances and physical substances- the mental defined by the essence of consciousness as distinct to the physical things in the world. <br /><br />Best wisheslindsaylobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774918551798647046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-20476907303243094712011-02-08T10:29:58.181+11:002011-02-08T10:29:58.181+11:00One of the things that I've noticed in reading...One of the things that I've noticed in reading various philosophers is that very few of them make distinctions for the non-ordinary.<br />For example, a hand missing one finger is still a hand. Were the hand missing two fingers, it would still be a hand; and the same with the thumb. Even with all the fingers and thumb removed, the portion which remains is a hand.<br />But clearly, this is not the ordinary state of a hand.<br />Even in the earliest days of enquiry, it was widely acknowledged that being existed apart from substance. Aristotle wrote of the soul, ascribing to it many of the functions that Descartes assigned to intellect.<br />And still, at this point in the investigation of the matter (pardon the pun), I can throw a rock, but I can't change its mind.<br />It could well be that such arguments simply do not appeal to the lion's share of substance to be had.Mercutiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13270898097330918764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-62797124620339595212011-02-07T11:33:07.307+11:002011-02-07T11:33:07.307+11:00Hi Susan,
Thanks for your comments and interest ...Hi Susan, <br />Thanks for your comments and interest to include the poet Stevens whose lovely poetry simply overflows with wonderful imaginative ideas. <br />I don’t know a great deal about his philosophy except I gather imagination was central to his idea as to how we interpret reality although he readily acknowledged a direct knowledge of reality is not possible. <br />Hence from my limited understanding of his works I gather he suggests an existential tension between what we imagine (inclusive of all unconscious and conscious perceptions to form our world view) and the reality of an ever changing world washing over us. <br />However, he contends we can find a temporal peaceful home once the imaginative drives are relaxed sufficiently to accept ‘what is’ which I guess is similar to the idea of a constant state of becoming. <br />Best wisheslindsaylobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774918551798647046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-82758396234062497982011-02-07T07:00:54.725+11:002011-02-07T07:00:54.725+11:00This is a fascinating and well-executed essay, Lin...This is a fascinating and well-executed essay, Lindsay. Having read a number of the philosophers you've referred to as well as my general interest in comparative religion over the years I've also had a couple of thoughts. The self both exists (has ‘being’) and doesn’t exist (we can't ‘grasp’ it – thus it has ‘no-being’). All we can do is search for the essence of the self – which is ‘becoming’ (inherent in the couplet being/non-being that we find at the heart of the self). I thought it was very nicely put by Wallace Stevens:<br /><br />“It is in that thought that we collect ourselves,
<br />Out of all the indifferences, into one thing:<br />Within a single thing, a single shawl<br />
Wrapped tightly round us, since we are poor, a warmth,
<br />A light, a power, the miraculous influence.<br />Here, now, we forget each other and ourselves.
<br />We feel the obscurity of an order, a whole,
<br />A knowledge, that which arranged the rendezvous.<br /><br />Within its vital boundary, in the mind.”<br /><br />Best wishes as always.susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747450215034568033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-10897160671811406622011-01-31T22:56:14.706+11:002011-01-31T22:56:14.706+11:00Hi Laura,
Thanks for your comments. I think we ...Hi Laura, <br />Thanks for your comments. I think we are all philosophers whether we acknowledge it or not and naturally we will have affinity reading about those holding similar views or values akin to our own. But in studying philosophy I think one engages in examining a logical way of thinking more than anything else - to discover the truth as it relates to the particulate perspective of that philosophy. <br /><br />That may challenge us to think about that perspective. <br /><br />Talking about youth I thought you may be interested to know (if you don’t already) that in Albert Nietzsche’s formative years he expressed his deeply religious views in this poem: <br /><br />Deeply inscribed upon them glows<br />the words: To the Unknown God.<br />I am his, although up till this hour<br />I've remained in the company of sinners:<br />I am his—and I feel the noosed ropes<br />That pull me down in the struggle<br />And, should I flee,<br />Still force me into his service<br />I want to know you, unknown one,<br />You who have reached deep within my soul,<br />Wandering through my life like a storm,<br />You incomprehensible one, akin to me!<br />I want to know you, even serve you.<br />—Translation © The Nietzsche Channel. In: Friedrich Nietzsche in Words and Pictures.. Nietzsche's School Years and Military Service: 1858-68 <br /><br />Best wisheslindsaylobehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774918551798647046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9716997.post-51998001890559083472011-01-31T19:54:38.273+11:002011-01-31T19:54:38.273+11:00I'm not familiar enough with the scope of phil...I'm not familiar enough with the scope of philosophy to make any major comments on the wonderful comprehensive outline you have provided. My personal experience is what I have also noticed in my own children. I think that maybe we have a fairly solid view of things by the time we are teenagers. It's not so much that philosophers tell us what we should think, but rather that certain philosophers resonate with what it is we already think? <br /><br />My son and I were discussing this last night. We tend to borrow the thoughts of others in order to better portray our own. If a shift in our thinking occurs, it is merely the undoing of something that had been implanted by our education, not necessarily something we had thought ourselves.<br /><br />The truth is the truth is the truth and we all tap into it - not just the great philosophers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com