More colloquially speaking... I was recently on a hike in a forest and suddenly out of nowhere I heard a thunderous crack off in the distance. It almost sounded like a gun at first, but then I...
Exemplary
More colloquially speaking... I was recently on a hike in a forest and suddenly out of nowhere I heard a thunderous crack off in the distance. It almost sounded like a gun at first, but then I heard the rushing of wind, more cracking and tumult, and a powerful thud. A tree had literally fallen in the forest, and I was around to hear the sound. The commotion was so mighty and jarring that I can't possibly imagine, had I been absent, this event would have been silent. It was just too impressive.
This is of course very interesting. As a person only vaguely versed in any of this material I always feel like I'm bringing a feather duster to a gun fight, but I suppose the author's tone...
This is of course very interesting. As a person only vaguely versed in any of this material I always feel like I'm bringing a feather duster to a gun fight, but I suppose the author's tone inspired me to respond.
For example, the author turns
“We cannot know about anything except through our perceptions, concepts, or other representations. Therefore, we can only know things as we perceive/conceive/represent them, not things as they are in themselves. But obviously things-as-we-represent-them depend upon observers. So everything we can know about, or even refer to, depends on observers. So all efforts to talk about mind-independent reality are nonsensical.”
into
(For any x) x cannot be represented without observers. Therefore, (for any x) x cannot exist without observers.
But that seems to be an incorrect rendition of that argument. Shouldn't it be something more like
X cannot be represented without observers, therefore it's pointless to contemplate X independent of it's observation, as that's impossible for us to do.
Even though it shouldn't surprise me anymore the fact that this was seemingly written by someone allowed to "teach" others is incredibly sad to me. Puerile dumpster fire aside, I think it is...
Even though it shouldn't surprise me anymore the fact that this was seemingly written by someone allowed to "teach" others is incredibly sad to me.
Puerile dumpster fire aside, I think it is readily apparent to any earnest, sound mind who's spent due time thinking on this subject that the only sensible epistemological position to hold is perspectivism.
I'm not into philosophy but I look at it from a survival perspective. Subjective knowledge can't exist without subjective existence. And one (the subject) can't survive if it doesn't account for...
I'm not into philosophy but I look at it from a survival perspective. Subjective knowledge can't exist without subjective existence. And one (the subject) can't survive if it doesn't account for the very real dangers of the objectives, the world around us. So I think both subject and object have validity as existing symbiotically. I just don't get the philosophical bickering about it; why not both? I looked up perspectivism but it's got too many big words that scare me and my attention span so I can only gather that there's maybe some correlation with my view.
Your intuition is astute and there is indeed something to what you wrote. I'd recommend reading up on the Apollonian and Dionysian, it's a good introduction as it provides a nice way of...
Your intuition is astute and there is indeed something to what you wrote. I'd recommend reading up on the Apollonian and Dionysian, it's a good introduction as it provides a nice way of conceptualizing this "symbiotic relationship" between "objectivity and subjectivity", "rationality and emotion", "order and chaos", "individuality and unity", etc.
Now, I'll try to demistify perspectivism for you.
To put it simply, the most objective, to the extent that the word can mean anything, thing you can do is to acknowledge that you can't ever be "absolutely" or "properly" so. To be objective in its traditional conception would mean being able to "see from everywhere", which would be equivalent with "seeing from nowhere", with "not seeing" at all!
There is no such thing as "non-perspectival objectivity", "external facts", "absolute truth" or "thing-in-itself": these all constitute a contradiction in terms.
When you say "thing" you implicitly say "thing as I perceive it", because that's all it is to you! Therefore, to say "thing as I perceive it" is redundant but still correct; to say "thing-in-itself" is to say "thing as I perceive it but not as I perceive it", a most absurd contradiction!
Even if it might seem reasonable to assert the existence of the "thing-in-itself", if you excercise reason you come to find that you can't talk about "things-in-themselves" in any determinate way, which includes asserting their existence in the first place.
All you can ever hope to do is to asymptotically approximate this superstitious ever-elusive notion of the "thing-in-itself" by comparing and contrasting perspectives (science is the name we give to this process): the more "eyes" there are to corroborate a "fact" the greater the degree of objectivity (remember, it can't be absolute) associated with it.
If you have further questions or may be interested in further reading recommendations I'll be glad to help out.
Ok, I like to challenge ideas so here we go. Do most philosophers consider the universe logical? If so, I'm assuming all within it is logical since all within and of are derived from that logical...
Ok, I like to challenge ideas so here we go.
Do most philosophers consider the universe logical? If so, I'm assuming all within it is logical since all within and of are derived from that logical foundation, right? That means everything we do and say has a logical basis. So....
I'm a dog.
Prove me wrong. (Yes, I don't look, sound or act like one but I said I'm one. My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?) Maybe I'm getting into this because when people tell others that what they said is illogical, it just seems the wrong word.
Also because I think the world is logical. When someone does or says something I don't like, I think it's just that, I don't like it. Not because it doesn't have some sort of validity or logical foundation. I'm not sure there's much evolutionary selective pressure on those who can derive logic so well (the smarter ones) as there is more fundamental pressure to abide by the 'logical' universe's intent. In other words, if you're not smart and can just go with the universe's flow, then that can make up for lack of intelligence, which can be a negative in some cases or else less intelligent species wouldn't be selected against for some conditions.
Well that's pretty long-winded but when arguing with people I can't help but feel that they're right in their own way even if I disagree or can prove them wrong in some way. And I'm trying to divine here just why I feel that way because I'm sure there's a logical basis as to why I do since I'm supposedly living in a logical system.
Yes, logically that makes sense. I just lied and lying is presumably logical for survival purposes sometimes. So in a basic sense, I am being logical when I say I'm a dog if it's for purposes of...
Yes, logically that makes sense. I just lied and lying is presumably logical for survival purposes sometimes. So in a basic sense, I am being logical when I say I'm a dog if it's for purposes of survival.
Yeah, "logical" can mean different things. On a strictly philosophical sense it is often used for something that is cogent and logically sound. In usual discourse, it often means being coherent,...
Yeah, "logical" can mean different things. On a strictly philosophical sense it is often used for something that is cogent and logically sound. In usual discourse, it often means being coherent, favorable, or justified in a very ample and general sense.
Is such a thing as "logically sound" possible with humans? If we can't know if the universe is fundamentally logical then how can we know if we ourselves, derived from it, are logical? I'm sensing...
Is such a thing as "logically sound" possible with humans? If we can't know if the universe is fundamentally logical then how can we know if we ourselves, derived from it, are logical? I'm sensing the ghost of Godel. But yes, my real pet peeve is how people use that word, maybe I've been using it wrong myself.
Of course someone would answer with a video of a dog writing lol! @the_funky_buddha should have used, IDK, tigers? Nope, I'm sure there's a writing tigers out there. Maybe alligators? I'm sure no...
Of course someone would answer with a video of a dog writing lol!
@the_funky_buddha should have used, IDK, tigers? Nope, I'm sure there's a writing tigers out there. Maybe alligators? I'm sure no one ever made a video with an alligator writing. Right????
I suppose most western philosophers like to believe that. Plato's "form of the good", the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and other such ideas are manifestations of this disposition. But to stubbornly...
Do most philosophers consider the universe logical? If so, I'm assuming all within it is logical since all within and of are derived from that logical foundation, right? That means everything we do and say has a logical basis. So....
I suppose most western philosophers like to believe that. Plato's "form of the good", the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and other such ideas are manifestations of this disposition. But to stubbornly insist on there being a "'logical' universe's intent" is to cling on to the notion of "absolute truth" that I've just shown to be absurd.
To put it simply:
My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?
No.
Now, judging by your other responses it seems that, once more, your intuition is still trying to point you in the right direction.
Something being logical simply means that it's coherent and cohesive; a logical conclusion is one which follows from an initial premise in this manner. Logical doesn't mean "in accordance to some universal truth", it's merely a tool to organize thought and of our own invention. There are no "universal premises" that constitute some sort of metaphysical equipment with which you enter the world, only those which you yourself impose.
Well that's pretty long-winded but when arguing with people I can't help but feel that they're right in their own way even if I disagree or can prove them wrong in some way.
It's perfectly possible for various perspectives to be simultaneously valid. What's worth asking is how authentic they are as that's the only measure of (perspectival) truth we have ultimately.
W(sh)ouldn't you say 'probably not'? Because even though objectivism is debunked to a degree, it seems to me that you're still reliant upon it before you can entirely confirm anything, ala,...
My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?
No.
W(sh)ouldn't you say 'probably not'? Because even though objectivism is debunked to a degree, it seems to me that you're still reliant upon it before you can entirely confirm anything, ala, Incompleteness Theorem. If knowledge is built from a foundation of axioms and those axioms are incomplete, you can't 100% confirm anything, a problem Godel worked on which coincided with his mental illness or some say drove him to it. So in a way, logic (built on some amount of objectivity) has to be used to validate subjectivity, paradoxically.
I'm not sure I'm smart enough for philosophy but what little I know is why I appreciate, what I've gathered on the surface, eastern philosophy. It's not afraid to admit these paradoxes or mutually complementary opposing ideas as you seem to admit also.
Don't you think though that philosophy, another reason I usually don't bother with it yet here I am, is tarnished by the subjectivity of the mind and individual experience so it's biased towards subjectivity? And it seems to be mostly about a systemic policing of what and who are valid or not and you get extra bonus points for verbosity especially if it's inline with the herd. In other words I've seen philosophy justify many opposing arguments so much that it just seems watered down.
I'm not sure what you'd call my interpretation, a physicalist maybe? But I do admit that philosophy is biased by subjectivity in that if the subject doesn't survive or those which host it, its philosophy won't either. So it has to have either some evolutionary benefit to gain ground or at least none in that it doesn't detriment its survival. I mean some ideas or philosophies that are evolutionarily degenerate to the host seem to survive but to a far lesser degree than those which help or at least don't hinder survival of the host.
In the words of Mike Tyson 'everybody got a plan til they get punched in da face', add the lisp for comical effect if you like. You could make an entire philosophical essay about just that elegant line. You can host a very refined plan but it means nothing if the host doesn't survive. That I feel is philosophy's pitfall.
You're welcome to defend philosophy but I just feel it has too many flaws to interest me too much. Unless you could call my approach a philosophical one which, you got me then, but I feel 'formal' philosophy would laugh off the physicalist approach, whatever you'd call mine, because it partly de-legitimizes philosophy, again, showing the natural selection bias that what hinders tends to not be hosted, it is still a slave to the physicalist forces.
And I'm sure what I've said is or has been taken into account in philosophy and argued against. Doesn't materialist philosophy kind of cover it? But my perspective isn't uncommon among blue collar types, even if they don't argue it to such degree, but many will call philosophers 'bullshit artists', which I think is kind of harsh but I see it also a valid perspective even if unrefined.
You're right, we can never say "yes" or "no" in an absolute sense... and that's the whole point! There is no absolute sense to be talked about, you'll never "validate" anything in this traditional...
My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?
No.
W(sh)ouldn't you say 'probably not'? Because even though objectivism is debunked to a degree, it seems to me that you're still reliant upon it before you can entirely confirm anything, ala, Incompleteness Theorem. If knowledge is built from a foundation of axioms and those axioms are incomplete, you can't 100% confirm anything, a problem Godel worked on which coincided with his mental illness or some say drove him to it. So in a way, logic (built on some amount of objectivity) has to be used to validate subjectivity, paradoxically.
You're right, we can never say "yes" or "no" in an absolute sense... and that's the whole point! There is no absolute sense to be talked about, you'll never "validate" anything in this traditional sense with pretensions of epistemological certainty. Never.
That "no" is a perspectival truth, and the only mature thing to say on the matter in the end (if we're earnest, which most people don't ever find strenght to be).
Don't you think though that philosophy, another reason I usually don't bother with it yet here I am, is tarnished by the subjectivity of the mind and individual experience so it's biased towards subjectivity?
You say "biased" as though it were a bad or incorrect thing, but it's just what it is and precisely what we're accounting for in perspectivism.
I'm not sure what you'd call my interpretation, a physicalist maybe? But I do admit that philosophy is biased by subjectivity in that if the subject doesn't survive or those which host it, its philosophy won't either. So it has to have either some evolutionary benefit to gain ground or at least none in that it doesn't detriment its survival. I mean some ideas or philosophies that are evolutionarily degenerate to the host seem to survive but to a far lesser degree than those which help or at least don't hinder survival of the host.
You're touching upon something important here. Philosophy is inherently pragmatic: "properly" objective, and therefore indifferent, beings would have no need for such a thing. Westerners in general may like to believe that philosophy is all about being objective, but that's just because they see objectivity as their savior. Now, objectivity is useful and indeed valuable in its own right, but it doesn't account for the entirety of what we are, its merely a tool to advance ourselves in the world and assert our will. Moreover, the result of a stubborn, all-consuming desire for objectivity is nihilism... which is not exactly conducive to health and survival; it seems kind of out there but an unhealthy, unauthentic philosophy will kill you.
In the words of Mike Tyson 'everybody got a plan til they get punched in da face', add the lisp for comical effect if you like. You could make an entire philosophical essay about just that elegant line. You can host a very refined plan but it means nothing if the host doesn't survive. That I feel is philosophy's pitfall.
Of the vulgar, traditional conception(s) of it, yes!
Unless you could call my approach a philosophical one which, you got me then
Yes. ;)
but I feel 'formal' philosophy would laugh off the physicalist approach, whatever you'd call mine, because it partly de-legitimizes philosophy
Who cares what dogmatics think! They don't even like themselves.
And I'm sure what I've said is or has been taken into account in philosophy and argued against.
May I interest you in some Nietzsche?
But my perspective isn't uncommon among blue collar types, even if they don't argue it to such degree, but many will call philosophers 'bullshit artists'
Most "philosophers" are just such sophists, nothing interesting about them.
which I think is kind of harsh but I see it also a valid perspective even if unrefined.
Let us not be afraid of being harsh with ourselves.
I'm not sure I'm smart enough. I had to hit up wiki just to understand a few words you said. And as you know, philosophy goes deep, you can't just read a sentence in wiki about it to understand...
May I interest you in some Nietzsche?
I'm not sure I'm smart enough. I had to hit up wiki just to understand a few words you said. And as you know, philosophy goes deep, you can't just read a sentence in wiki about it to understand it. I'm not sure I have the time, the will and intellect to read Nietzsche but I've heard quotes without much context; he seems interesting. This music video comes to mind although it's just his seeming anti-christian quotes, I don't think he was entirely atheist though was he? Not sure, he seemed a complex and contrary man from what I know.
nihilism
That's one I had in mind and one I'm weak against. I don't think I was being fair though and I do think it has some sort of benefit to its host. With nihilism comes a certain freedom and as Kurt Cobain once mentioned the 'comfort of being sad', there's a certain comfort that comes with it. Ideological nihilism seems fairly benign, one has less ideological motive, not necessarily less emotional motive. Not that motive is always a good thing. With bad ideologies come bad motives.
Of the vulgar, traditional conception(s) of it, yes!
I guess I am that. I'm blue collar and at this level, the vulgarness of that kind of life, the cold morning weather, working out in the heat and the sun, banging boards and boards banging us, that vulgarity starts to inhabit the hosts. I hate it and hate being this way and being around vulgar people but I was too ADD for college, no other options. But it brings to mind environmental determinism in archeology, the notion that environment affects the culture and evolution of humanity as much as we affect it.
You say "biased" as though it were a bad or incorrect thing, but it's just what it is and precisely what we're accounting for in perspectivism.
And of course in true ADD fashion I reply from bottom to top. I guess that shows my own bias, in that I think I'm looking more through the eyes of science by wanting as much objectivity as possible. Do you feel truth brings reward? In that regard I feel science brings both more truth and reward in survival of humanity.
Philosophy is inherently pragmatic
I just learned pragmatic has a real philosophical definition. Well that's enough book-learning for today. I'd rather retire into nihilism for the night and let my mind waste away listening to music. I tend to ruminate way too much and philosophy doesn't help. As Nietzsche apparently said, 'without music, life would be a mistake'.
As you may be able to tell by now he was a guy who (like myself, if I may humbly remark) liked to torpedo things to the ground and build them back up better. So, in a reformed and more authentic...
I don't think he was entirely atheist though was he? Not sure, he seemed a complex and contrary man from what I know.
As you may be able to tell by now he was a guy who (like myself, if I may humbly remark) liked to torpedo things to the ground and build them back up better. So, in a reformed and more authentic conception of "spirituality", he was very much spiritual.
nihilism
That's one I had in mind and one I'm weak against. I don't think I was being fair though and I do think it has some sort of benefit to its host. With nihilism comes a certain freedom and as Kurt Cobain once mentioned the 'comfort of being sad', there's a certain comfort that comes with it. Ideological nihilism seems fairly benign, one has less ideological motive, not necessarily less emotional motive. Not that motive is always a good thing. With bad ideologies come bad motives.
I mean, sure, nihilism can be comforting and freeing in the same way that death is, for it is death. And sometimes we have to capitulate to death to have any chace to fight against it. Sometimes we have to die to earn the right to live.
I guess I am that. I'm blue collar and at this level, the vulgarness of that kind of life, the cold morning weather, working out in the heat and the sun, banging boards and boards banging us, that vulgarity starts to inhabit the hosts. I hate it and hate being this way and being around vulgar people but I was too ADD for college, no other options. But it brings to mind environmental determinism in archeology, the notion that environment affects the culture and evolution of humanity as much as we affect it.
I understand the self-doubt and the difficulty in approaching these things. However, I think the fact that you're even here talking with me about this has to count for something. Don't you? You may have done more in the course of this conversation than most people, even "philosophers", do in their entire lifetime (grandiose as that may sound, hehe). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you feel truth brings reward? In that regard I feel science brings both more truth and reward in survival of humanity.
I wouldn't say it brings more truth but it can definitely bring more clarity, which is useful in guiding ourselves in the world and finding our own (perspectival) truth.
I'd rather retire into nihilism for the night and let my mind waste away listening to music. I tend to ruminate way too much and philosophy doesn't help. As Nietzsche apparently said, 'without music, life would be a mistake'.
I understand. The only advice I can give you is to try and fight for a fate that you can love, that's really all it takes. All in all, I wish you well my friend.
I love posts like this, because it misses the entire point of philosophy so wildly you are left wondering whether the person who wrote it has any qualifications, only to find out they are in fact...
I love posts like this, because it misses the entire point of philosophy so wildly you are left wondering whether the person who wrote it has any qualifications, only to find out they are in fact a professor working in the field.
I wonder if the author has ever considered why someone might come up with a framework like this in the first place - what were they trying to shed light on? I'm no philosophy professor, but I would imagine the whole point of creating this framework was to look deeper into the subjective experience and what the implications of that are, with respect to the world. By taking an extreme stance of "nothing exists absent perception" we can see where that line of thinking brings us and how it can better explain some human behavior, concepts, thoughts, etc. better and where the explanation might fall short.
To take this as a statement of fact about the world, as if this framework must be universally true and to ignore what it tells us about perception just to disprove it's existence makes me wonder if it does happen to explain something the author has a heavy bias towards/against in a way that they are uncomfortable with. Or perhaps they only like the world to exist in neat perfect boxes and whenever those boxes don't line up with their expectations they feel the need to disprove the boxes to show off their mental prowess or perhaps to make themselves feel better about their mental framework.
I don't know the author, and also don't know what are his inner beliefs and intentions. However, in his next article, he utilizes some of what he exposed here to criticize logical positivism.
I don't know the author, and also don't know what are his inner beliefs and intentions. However, in his next article, he utilizes some of what he exposed here to criticize logical positivism.
More colloquially speaking... I was recently on a hike in a forest and suddenly out of nowhere I heard a thunderous crack off in the distance. It almost sounded like a gun at first, but then I heard the rushing of wind, more cracking and tumult, and a powerful thud. A tree had literally fallen in the forest, and I was around to hear the sound. The commotion was so mighty and jarring that I can't possibly imagine, had I been absent, this event would have been silent. It was just too impressive.
This is of course very interesting. As a person only vaguely versed in any of this material I always feel like I'm bringing a feather duster to a gun fight, but I suppose the author's tone inspired me to respond.
For example, the author turns
into
But that seems to be an incorrect rendition of that argument. Shouldn't it be something more like
Even though it shouldn't surprise me anymore the fact that this was seemingly written by someone allowed to "teach" others is incredibly sad to me.
Puerile dumpster fire aside, I think it is readily apparent to any earnest, sound mind who's spent due time thinking on this subject that the only sensible epistemological position to hold is perspectivism.
I'm not into philosophy but I look at it from a survival perspective. Subjective knowledge can't exist without subjective existence. And one (the subject) can't survive if it doesn't account for the very real dangers of the objectives, the world around us. So I think both subject and object have validity as existing symbiotically. I just don't get the philosophical bickering about it; why not both? I looked up perspectivism but it's got too many big words that scare me and my attention span so I can only gather that there's maybe some correlation with my view.
Your intuition is astute and there is indeed something to what you wrote. I'd recommend reading up on the Apollonian and Dionysian, it's a good introduction as it provides a nice way of conceptualizing this "symbiotic relationship" between "objectivity and subjectivity", "rationality and emotion", "order and chaos", "individuality and unity", etc.
Now, I'll try to demistify perspectivism for you.
To put it simply, the most objective, to the extent that the word can mean anything, thing you can do is to acknowledge that you can't ever be "absolutely" or "properly" so. To be objective in its traditional conception would mean being able to "see from everywhere", which would be equivalent with "seeing from nowhere", with "not seeing" at all!
There is no such thing as "non-perspectival objectivity", "external facts", "absolute truth" or "thing-in-itself": these all constitute a contradiction in terms.
When you say "thing" you implicitly say "thing as I perceive it", because that's all it is to you! Therefore, to say "thing as I perceive it" is redundant but still correct; to say "thing-in-itself" is to say "thing as I perceive it but not as I perceive it", a most absurd contradiction!
Even if it might seem reasonable to assert the existence of the "thing-in-itself", if you excercise reason you come to find that you can't talk about "things-in-themselves" in any determinate way, which includes asserting their existence in the first place.
All you can ever hope to do is to asymptotically approximate this superstitious ever-elusive notion of the "thing-in-itself" by comparing and contrasting perspectives (science is the name we give to this process): the more "eyes" there are to corroborate a "fact" the greater the degree of objectivity (remember, it can't be absolute) associated with it.
If you have further questions or may be interested in further reading recommendations I'll be glad to help out.
Ok, I like to challenge ideas so here we go.
Do most philosophers consider the universe logical? If so, I'm assuming all within it is logical since all within and of are derived from that logical foundation, right? That means everything we do and say has a logical basis. So....
I'm a dog.
Prove me wrong. (Yes, I don't look, sound or act like one but I said I'm one. My statement is still derived from some sort of logical foundation somewhere written in the laws of the universe, right?) Maybe I'm getting into this because when people tell others that what they said is illogical, it just seems the wrong word.
Also because I think the world is logical. When someone does or says something I don't like, I think it's just that, I don't like it. Not because it doesn't have some sort of validity or logical foundation. I'm not sure there's much evolutionary selective pressure on those who can derive logic so well (the smarter ones) as there is more fundamental pressure to abide by the 'logical' universe's intent. In other words, if you're not smart and can just go with the universe's flow, then that can make up for lack of intelligence, which can be a negative in some cases or else less intelligent species wouldn't be selected against for some conditions.
Well that's pretty long-winded but when arguing with people I can't help but feel that they're right in their own way even if I disagree or can prove them wrong in some way. And I'm trying to divine here just why I feel that way because I'm sure there's a logical basis as to why I do since I'm supposedly living in a logical system.
I don't know about your other inquiries, but regarding you being a dog, a simple syllogism will suffice?
Yes, logically that makes sense. I just lied and lying is presumably logical for survival purposes sometimes. So in a basic sense, I am being logical when I say I'm a dog if it's for purposes of survival.
Yeah, "logical" can mean different things. On a strictly philosophical sense it is often used for something that is cogent and logically sound. In usual discourse, it often means being coherent, favorable, or justified in a very ample and general sense.
Is such a thing as "logically sound" possible with humans? If we can't know if the universe is fundamentally logical then how can we know if we ourselves, derived from it, are logical? I'm sensing the ghost of Godel. But yes, my real pet peeve is how people use that word, maybe I've been using it wrong myself.
IDK dude, not a philosopher, I just share the links :P
Your major premise has at least one counterexample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GkytPLflGM
Of course someone would answer with a video of a dog writing lol!
@the_funky_buddha should have used, IDK, tigers? Nope, I'm sure there's a writing tigers out there. Maybe alligators? I'm sure no one ever made a video with an alligator writing. Right????
Wow. Then I may just be a dog. More existential fallout ensues.
I suppose most western philosophers like to believe that. Plato's "form of the good", the Kantian "thing-in-itself" and other such ideas are manifestations of this disposition. But to stubbornly insist on there being a "'logical' universe's intent" is to cling on to the notion of "absolute truth" that I've just shown to be absurd.
To put it simply:
No.
Now, judging by your other responses it seems that, once more, your intuition is still trying to point you in the right direction.
Something being logical simply means that it's coherent and cohesive; a logical conclusion is one which follows from an initial premise in this manner. Logical doesn't mean "in accordance to some universal truth", it's merely a tool to organize thought and of our own invention. There are no "universal premises" that constitute some sort of metaphysical equipment with which you enter the world, only those which you yourself impose.
It's perfectly possible for various perspectives to be simultaneously valid. What's worth asking is how authentic they are as that's the only measure of (perspectival) truth we have ultimately.
W(sh)ouldn't you say 'probably not'? Because even though objectivism is debunked to a degree, it seems to me that you're still reliant upon it before you can entirely confirm anything, ala, Incompleteness Theorem. If knowledge is built from a foundation of axioms and those axioms are incomplete, you can't 100% confirm anything, a problem Godel worked on which coincided with his mental illness or some say drove him to it. So in a way, logic (built on some amount of objectivity) has to be used to validate subjectivity, paradoxically.
I'm not sure I'm smart enough for philosophy but what little I know is why I appreciate, what I've gathered on the surface, eastern philosophy. It's not afraid to admit these paradoxes or mutually complementary opposing ideas as you seem to admit also.
Don't you think though that philosophy, another reason I usually don't bother with it yet here I am, is tarnished by the subjectivity of the mind and individual experience so it's biased towards subjectivity? And it seems to be mostly about a systemic policing of what and who are valid or not and you get extra bonus points for verbosity especially if it's inline with the herd. In other words I've seen philosophy justify many opposing arguments so much that it just seems watered down.
I'm not sure what you'd call my interpretation, a physicalist maybe? But I do admit that philosophy is biased by subjectivity in that if the subject doesn't survive or those which host it, its philosophy won't either. So it has to have either some evolutionary benefit to gain ground or at least none in that it doesn't detriment its survival. I mean some ideas or philosophies that are evolutionarily degenerate to the host seem to survive but to a far lesser degree than those which help or at least don't hinder survival of the host.
In the words of Mike Tyson 'everybody got a plan til they get punched in da face', add the lisp for comical effect if you like. You could make an entire philosophical essay about just that elegant line. You can host a very refined plan but it means nothing if the host doesn't survive. That I feel is philosophy's pitfall.
You're welcome to defend philosophy but I just feel it has too many flaws to interest me too much. Unless you could call my approach a philosophical one which, you got me then, but I feel 'formal' philosophy would laugh off the physicalist approach, whatever you'd call mine, because it partly de-legitimizes philosophy, again, showing the natural selection bias that what hinders tends to not be hosted, it is still a slave to the physicalist forces.
And I'm sure what I've said is or has been taken into account in philosophy and argued against. Doesn't materialist philosophy kind of cover it? But my perspective isn't uncommon among blue collar types, even if they don't argue it to such degree, but many will call philosophers 'bullshit artists', which I think is kind of harsh but I see it also a valid perspective even if unrefined.
You're right, we can never say "yes" or "no" in an absolute sense... and that's the whole point! There is no absolute sense to be talked about, you'll never "validate" anything in this traditional sense with pretensions of epistemological certainty. Never.
That "no" is a perspectival truth, and the only mature thing to say on the matter in the end (if we're earnest, which most people don't ever find strenght to be).
You say "biased" as though it were a bad or incorrect thing, but it's just what it is and precisely what we're accounting for in perspectivism.
You're touching upon something important here. Philosophy is inherently pragmatic: "properly" objective, and therefore indifferent, beings would have no need for such a thing. Westerners in general may like to believe that philosophy is all about being objective, but that's just because they see objectivity as their savior. Now, objectivity is useful and indeed valuable in its own right, but it doesn't account for the entirety of what we are, its merely a tool to advance ourselves in the world and assert our will. Moreover, the result of a stubborn, all-consuming desire for objectivity is nihilism... which is not exactly conducive to health and survival; it seems kind of out there but an unhealthy, unauthentic philosophy will kill you.
Of the vulgar, traditional conception(s) of it, yes!
Yes. ;)
Who cares what dogmatics think! They don't even like themselves.
May I interest you in some Nietzsche?
Most "philosophers" are just such sophists, nothing interesting about them.
Let us not be afraid of being harsh with ourselves.
I'm not sure I'm smart enough. I had to hit up wiki just to understand a few words you said. And as you know, philosophy goes deep, you can't just read a sentence in wiki about it to understand it. I'm not sure I have the time, the will and intellect to read Nietzsche but I've heard quotes without much context; he seems interesting. This music video comes to mind although it's just his seeming anti-christian quotes, I don't think he was entirely atheist though was he? Not sure, he seemed a complex and contrary man from what I know.
That's one I had in mind and one I'm weak against. I don't think I was being fair though and I do think it has some sort of benefit to its host. With nihilism comes a certain freedom and as Kurt Cobain once mentioned the 'comfort of being sad', there's a certain comfort that comes with it. Ideological nihilism seems fairly benign, one has less ideological motive, not necessarily less emotional motive. Not that motive is always a good thing. With bad ideologies come bad motives.
I guess I am that. I'm blue collar and at this level, the vulgarness of that kind of life, the cold morning weather, working out in the heat and the sun, banging boards and boards banging us, that vulgarity starts to inhabit the hosts. I hate it and hate being this way and being around vulgar people but I was too ADD for college, no other options. But it brings to mind environmental determinism in archeology, the notion that environment affects the culture and evolution of humanity as much as we affect it.
And of course in true ADD fashion I reply from bottom to top. I guess that shows my own bias, in that I think I'm looking more through the eyes of science by wanting as much objectivity as possible. Do you feel truth brings reward? In that regard I feel science brings both more truth and reward in survival of humanity.
I just learned pragmatic has a real philosophical definition. Well that's enough book-learning for today. I'd rather retire into nihilism for the night and let my mind waste away listening to music. I tend to ruminate way too much and philosophy doesn't help. As Nietzsche apparently said, 'without music, life would be a mistake'.
As you may be able to tell by now he was a guy who (like myself, if I may humbly remark) liked to torpedo things to the ground and build them back up better. So, in a reformed and more authentic conception of "spirituality", he was very much spiritual.
I mean, sure, nihilism can be comforting and freeing in the same way that death is, for it is death. And sometimes we have to capitulate to death to have any chace to fight against it. Sometimes we have to die to earn the right to live.
I understand the self-doubt and the difficulty in approaching these things. However, I think the fact that you're even here talking with me about this has to count for something. Don't you? You may have done more in the course of this conversation than most people, even "philosophers", do in their entire lifetime (grandiose as that may sound, hehe). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wouldn't say it brings more truth but it can definitely bring more clarity, which is useful in guiding ourselves in the world and finding our own (perspectival) truth.
I understand. The only advice I can give you is to try and fight for a fate that you can love, that's really all it takes. All in all, I wish you well my friend.
Likewise. It was an interesting conversation.
I love posts like this, because it misses the entire point of philosophy so wildly you are left wondering whether the person who wrote it has any qualifications, only to find out they are in fact a professor working in the field.
I wonder if the author has ever considered why someone might come up with a framework like this in the first place - what were they trying to shed light on? I'm no philosophy professor, but I would imagine the whole point of creating this framework was to look deeper into the subjective experience and what the implications of that are, with respect to the world. By taking an extreme stance of "nothing exists absent perception" we can see where that line of thinking brings us and how it can better explain some human behavior, concepts, thoughts, etc. better and where the explanation might fall short.
To take this as a statement of fact about the world, as if this framework must be universally true and to ignore what it tells us about perception just to disprove it's existence makes me wonder if it does happen to explain something the author has a heavy bias towards/against in a way that they are uncomfortable with. Or perhaps they only like the world to exist in neat perfect boxes and whenever those boxes don't line up with their expectations they feel the need to disprove the boxes to show off their mental prowess or perhaps to make themselves feel better about their mental framework.
I don't know the author, and also don't know what are his inner beliefs and intentions. However, in his next article, he utilizes some of what he exposed here to criticize logical positivism.