SUO: Re: Im/material Ir/reverence
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
pat hayes wrote:
>
> Dear Jon
>
> > You are obviously having a bad day -- and believe me,
> > I know how bad such a day can be! -- and so I will
> > simply offer my commiserations and hope that you
> > find some consolation before the day is done.
>
> On the contrary, I am having a fine day.
> I just LOVE trashing ancient philosophers.
To trash a book that you have not read,
and have no intentions of ever reading?
I am guessing that you probably had the same stamps of teachers that I had.
They told me, quite authoritatively, that Aristotle and all of those guys were
"analytic" (in the bad sense), "dogmatic", and "a priori" (in the bad sense) thinkers,
that they were "authority-driven" (in the bad sense) "empiric" (in the bad sense)
philosophers, and of course I believed them all, they were so scientific sounding
in their trashing of the absurdities of the past -- there is a certain amount
of "sublime oedipal pleasure" (SOP) in that, I guess! -- right up until I got
around to making the "textual experiment" of reading 1 or 2 or 3 samples of
these actual texts themselves, and I discovered that my teachers had, well --
who can blame them? -- they were only following orders, only repeating what
they had been taught, probably had never personally read any more than a few
mutilated excerpts of these books that they so ardently knew they must burn.
> > As to reasons for reading Aristotle -- you miss my point, too --
> > even if it were nothing nearer to the "literal truth" than some
> > piece of mythology, that is to say, when read literally, as it
> > rarely makes sense to read it, or creative literature, or drama,
> > or fiction, not to mention some bits of science, too, and still,
> > as many literal-minded imaginations persist in reading all of it --
> > nay, even then it would be worth reading, if only to find written
> > down, in a brief spell, perhaps for the very first time, the very
> > things that we have believed all of our lives, without quite being
> > able to articulate them.
>
> You seem to have just contradicted yourself;
I am simply arguing the lower bound side of a two-or-three-pronged argument,
as to why it might be worth reading the work of an ancient thinker that you
otherwise can but uncritically and irreflectively seek to trash, even under
what I see as the most conservative assumptions about its scientific value,
given its undoubted, by me, although often denied and distorted, by some,
influence on what we today call "science".
I would have argued the upper bound on another occasion,
if ever we should have gotten the lower bound pinned down.
> unless, of course you believe that all the things you have
> believed all your life do not make sense when read literally.
I am getting the sense, now, that perhaps we draw the distinction
between "figurative" and "literal" meaning in a way that is askew
to each other. It may require a splitting of cases at this point.
There is a lot of psychological and political truth in Shakespeare,
for example, but you cannot read him literally, you have to interpret.
> This might be true, of course (particularly as your mental life seems
> to consist largely of puns and wordplay) in which case I can only offer
> a silent prayer for your system of beliefs and turn to more practical
> (and interesting) matters.
> > In short, the "concepts and distinctions" (CAD's) of these old folks
> > will effectively inform the "architectronic design" of your everyday
> > and your technical thinking about everything from particles to waves
> > to everything that is entangled in between, whether you wit it or no,
>
> It might, although I VERY much doubt it.
> I havnt ever come across a scrap of evidence which suggest that it does,
But you have assiduously avoided the possibility of "coming across"
any such evidence, and seem to have no intention of inquiring into
the matter. And what would you have done with the evidence if you
you did happen on it? Trash it? I wonder ...
Oh, I almost forgot. If you would prefer an argument from authority,
a scientific authority, of course, it is not just little old me, but
Bohr who said this about the notions of particles and waves, and the
conceptual frameworks from whence they came. I will suppose that he
most likely took the trouble to look into it. But I could be wrong.
He may have just been blowing smoke. That happens from time to time.
> and the history of science suggests that the thinking of the 'old folks'
> was almost always inadequate for every new idea which came along, and
> usually a positive hindrance.
"The" (unique) history of science? As writ by who, as writ to who?
Would you so blithely and so blindly accept "the" history written by
any other one-sided party to a dispute? I doubt it. Can you not see
the force of a "group identity myth, moderately entrenched" (GIMME),
that begs the question of every attempt to examine it critically?
As far as being a positivistic hindrance, the same remark can be made about
any paradigm, scientific or otherwise, in relation to its eventual successor.
> The idea of 'final cause' is a good example.
> (Just try reading Harvey on the circulation of the blood,
> to see how much of his valuable time was spent on trying
> to put the old folks right, for example.)
>
> > As for this troubled notion of a soul --
> > psyche is soul and soul is psyche,
> > and that is all you need to know,
> > and it is a word that still
> > breathes on our lips,
>
> Not on mine, my friend. I am quite sure
> that I don't have a soul or a psyche;
> and even if I did, I don't think
> I would want them in my ontology.
>
> Pat Hayes
Nor in your Psychology, I guess, Horatio.
But I'll bet that it's yet another case
of two people mincing words differently,
though I'll admit that I could be wrong.
But if I do take you at your word,
or the lack of one, I have to ask:
Now who is contradicting himself, Walt?
Even if they were real, whatever they
are, you would not want them in your
ontology? You are being rhetorical,
of course.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤