Page 87 of 124

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 1:01 am
by Consul
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 12:49 amBare particulars and always remain bare. If they are connected to a universal form by some kind of nexus, they remain bare because relations, connectors, exist external to what they connect. This is the doctrine of external relations.
So, in your sense of the term, particulars aren't bare in the sense of being propertyless, but in the sense of not having their properties as parts (components/constituents). Their relation is a matter of external "adherence" rather than "inherence". Right?

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 1:04 am
by Consul
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 12:50 am
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 12:41 am Well, the existence of subjective sensations is rationally indubitable.
As for visual perception, there's a distinction between objective, physical colors "out there" and subjective, phenomenal colors "in here", the latter of which are visual sensations. Phenomenal bluenesses are blue-sensations, which are experienced but not seen. As adverbialists would say, for a blue-sensation of yours to exist/occur is for you to sense bluely; and your sensing bluely is an event in your mind/brain.
We have a BIG difference of opinion on this matter.
So-called physical colors are just physical quantities of some kind or other such as wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
Colors properly so called exist only as subjective visual sensations (sense-impressions, sense-qualities).

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 1:17 am
by GaryLouisSmith
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:01 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 12:49 amBare particulars and always remain bare. If they are connected to a universal form by some kind of nexus, they remain bare because relations, connectors, exist external to what they connect. This is the doctrine of external relations.
So, in your sense of the term, particulars aren't bare in the sense of being propertyless, but in the sense of not having their properties as parts (components/constituents). Their relation is a matter of external "adherence" rather than "inherence". Right?
Right

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 1:20 am
by GaryLouisSmith
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:04 am
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 12:50 am We have a BIG difference of opinion on this matter.
So-called physical colors are just physical quantities of some kind or other such as wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
Colors properly so called exist only as subjective visual sensations (sense-impressions, sense-qualities).
I sent this to you sometime in the past and you roundly rejected the idea. You might like to read it again to get a hint at where I stand on the matter. You can reject it even more vehemently this time is you want.

John Passmore, in his book A Hundred Years of Philosophy, wrote:
"The first, in England, to formulate the characteristic doctrines of the New Realism was T.P. Nunn. Best known as an educationalist, Nunn wrote little on philosophy, but that little had an influence out of all proportion to its modest dimensions. In particular, his contribution to a symposium on ‘Are Secondary Qualities Independent of Perception?” was widely studied both in England where, as we have already noted, it struck Bertrand Russell’s roving fancy, and in the United States. Nunn there sustained two theses: (1) that both primary and the secondary qualities of bodies are really in them, whether they are perceived or not: (2) that qualities exist as they are perceived.
Much of his argument is polemical in form, with Stout’s earlier articles as its chief target. Stout had thought he could begin by presuming that there are at least some elements in our experience which exist only in being perceived – he instanced pain. But Nunn objects that pain, precisely in the manner of a material object, presents difficulties to us, raises obstacles in our path, is, in short, something we must reckon with. ‘Pain,’ he therefore concludes, ‘is something outside my mind, with which my mind may come into various relations.’ A refusal to admit that anything we experience depends for its existence upon the fact that it is experienced was to be the most characteristic feature of the New Realism.

The secondary qualities, Stout had also said, exist only as objects of experience. If we look at a buttercup in a variety of lights we see different shades of colour, without having any reason to believe that the buttercup itself has altered; if a number of observers plunge their hands into a bowl of water, they will report very different degrees of warmth, even although nothing has happened which could affect the water’s temperature. Such facts demonstrate, Stout thought, that secondary qualities exist only as 'sensa' – objects of our perception; they are not actual properties of physical objects.

Nunn’s reply is uncompromising. The contrast between ‘sensa’ and ‘actual properties’ is, he argues, an untenable one. All the shades of colour which the buttercup presents to an observer are actual properties of the buttercup; and all the hotnesses of the water are properties of the water. The plain man and the scientist ascribe a standard temperature and a standard colour to a thing and limit it to a certain region of space, because its complexity would otherwise defeat them. The fact remains, Nunn argues, that a thing has not one hotness, for example, but many, and that these hotnesses are not in a limited region of space but in various places around about the standard object. A thing is hotter an inch away than a foot away and hotter on a cold hand than on a warm one, just as it is a paler yellow in one light than it is in another light. To imagine otherwise is to confuse between the arbitrary ‘thing’ of everyday life and the ‘thing’ as experience shows it of be.

In Nunn’s theory of perception, then, the ordinary conception of a material thing is revolutionized; that is the price he has to pay for his Realism. A ‘thing’, now, is a collection of appearances, even if every appearance is independent of the mind before which it appears."

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 5:17 am
by Belindi
Regarding universals (according to a commentator on Russell)Consul quoted:
However, qualities as immanent universals are different from qualities understood as scattered individuals. On the latter view we have one particular, which has parts wherever we find the quality in question. But on the former view, there is one universal which is wholly present wherever we find the quality in question.
I'm having trouble understanding the above.

If red is an immanent universal how is it possible that it's mind dependent; e.g. colour blind people cannot see it : red looks redder when it's contrasted with green in close proximity.

Red does not have to be conceived as an abstract perfect form of red to be perceived as immanent universal. But a right angled triangle can't be perceived unless the person doing the measuring conceives of a perfect abstract form of it.

Comparing the two universals 'red' and 'right angled triangle' whereas any specific perception of red relates to other perceptions of red, perception of a right angled triangle relates only to the perfect abstract form.

The perfect mathematical form of the right angled triangle resembles the song of Keats's Nightingale. The latter is portrayed as a perfect form of transient beauty wherever and whenever it manifests. The right angled triangle similarly exists in a perfect state. Keats's Nightingale and the right angled triangle don't transcend nature but do transcend relativity.

'Red, 'tall', 'soft', 'diluted', 'fair', and ' moral' to give a few examples are all relative and natural universals. My point is there is separate class of universals that , within the natural order of things, are typified by an absolute paradigm case.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 8:17 am
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 5:17 am
a right angled triangle relates only to the perfect abstract form.
What kind of a right angled triangle are you talking about? One in three dimensional space. How about one in 4, 5 or 12 dimensional space? In Euclidean space? Or non-Euclidean space? Maybe in 10 dimensional Riemanian space? In perspective drawing what looks like a right angle actually isn't. How about a right angled triangle in set-theoretical terms with no mention of space at all? How about a dictionary definition; Is that what you mean? There are so many right angled triangles most of which are totally unimaginable by the human mind.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 10:32 am
by Belindi
What one would you choose, Gary?

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 11:41 am
by Felix
In Nunn’s theory of perception, then, the ordinary conception of a material thing is revolutionized; that is the price he has to pay for his Realism. A ‘thing’, now, is a collection of appearances, even if every appearance is independent of the mind before which it appears.
If nonsense can be "revolutionary," than that certainly qualifies.... There are more or less objectively accurate descriptions of things and events, e.g., water may be subjectively deemed to be lukewarm or hot by different observers, if you want a more accurate reading of its temperature, use a thermometer.

Color is a little different because although a particular color hue will have a specific wavelength, it will be perceived differently by different people depending on their physical eyesight. Under the same viewing conditions, six people may agree that a thing is blue colored but not agree on the shade of blue, or in the case of the person who is color bind or has hyper-acute color perception, a.k.a., tetrachromacy, that it is blue at all.
The plain man and the scientist ascribe a standard temperature and a standard colour to a thing and limit it to a certain region of space, because its complexity would otherwise defeat them.
Well, Duh!, if one judges the appearance of something by a single aspect such as its location in space, perceptions of it will vary. For the most thorough and accurate description, we must consider the physical location of the thing, when and by whom or what it was perceived, etc. This guy was an educator? That's scary!

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm
by Consul
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:20 amI sent this to you sometime in the past and you roundly rejected the idea. You might like to read it again to get a hint at where I stand on the matter. You can reject it even more vehemently this time is you want.

John Passmore, in his book A Hundred Years of Philosophy, wrote:
"The first, in England, to formulate the characteristic doctrines of the New Realism was T.P. Nunn. …But Nunn objects that pain, precisely in the manner of a material object, presents difficulties to us, raises obstacles in our path, is, in short, something we must reckon with. ‘Pain,’ he therefore concludes, ‘is something outside my mind, with which my mind may come into various relations.’…"
Nunn's objectivist view of pain and all the other secondary or phenomenal qualities is absurd and incompatible with the scientific image of the world.

But "we know that people can get used to the most crazy philosophical sayings imaginable." (David Lewis)

For instance, here's Peter Forrest—an uncrazy philosopher, whose nontheistic work I appreciate very much—denying what I regard as a self-evident necessary truth: that where there is an appearing/appearance, there is something/somebody appeared to.

"It is assumed that nothing can appear without appearing to something. My response to this is that we can mistake a non-relational attribute for a relational one, and that there could be a property of appearing without any need for something that is appeared to."
(p. 57)

"Common sense would tell us that there can be nothing that appears without it appearing to something, a self. I myself see no reason to follow common sense in this regard, being quite happy to say that we mistake a non-relational property of appearing for a relational one."
(p. 67)

(Forrest, Peter. Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.)

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 2:34 pm
by Consul
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:20 amI sent this to you sometime in the past and you roundly rejected the idea. You might like to read it again to get a hint at where I stand on the matter. You can reject it even more vehemently this time is you want.

John Passmore, in his book A Hundred Years of Philosophy, wrote:
"The first, in England, to formulate the characteristic doctrines of the New Realism was T.P. Nunn. …All the shades of colour which the buttercup presents to an observer are actual properties of the buttercup; and all the hotnesses of the water are properties of the water. The plain man and the scientist ascribe a standard temperature and a standard colour to a thing and limit it to a certain region of space, because its complexity would otherwise defeat them.…
It seems to us that colors are out there on the surfaces of things/stuffs or in transparent things/stuff, but that's an illusory projection concocted by our brains.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 5:44 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 2:28 pm

John Passmore, in his book A Hundred Years of Philosophy, wrote:
"The first, in England, to formulate the characteristic doctrines of the New Realism was T.P. Nunn. …But Nunn objects that pain, precisely in the manner of a material object, presents difficulties to us, raises obstacles in our path, is, in short, something we must reckon with. ‘Pain,’ he therefore concludes, ‘is something outside my mind, with which my mind may come into various relations.’…"
Nunn's objectivist view of pain and all the other secondary or phenomenal qualities is absurd and incompatible with the scientific image of the world.


[/quote]

I think you will agree that at Cambridge about a hundred and twenty years ago G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell rebelled against Idealism as a philosophy. The Realism they came up with was more or less like the "absurd" philosophy of T. P. Nunn. How do you account for the fact that such bright guys could take up with such a ridiculous idea? Or did they?

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 5:48 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Felix wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 11:41 am
In Nunn’s theory of perception, then, the ordinary conception of a material thing is revolutionized; that is the price he has to pay for his Realism. A ‘thing’, now, is a collection of appearances, even if every appearance is independent of the mind before which it appears.
If nonsense can be "revolutionary," than that certainly qualifies....

. This guy was an educator? That's scary!
How do you account for the fact that Nunn's philosophy was more or less adopted at Cambridge by Moore and Russell a little over a hundred years ago. Were those two just a couple of looneys? Was the New Realism a joke on mankind? What about philosophy?

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 5:59 pm
by Consul
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:17 am
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:01 amSo, in your sense of the term, particulars aren't bare in the sense of being propertyless, but in the sense of not having their properties as parts (components/constituents). Their relation is a matter of external "adherence" rather than "inherence". Right?
Right
"According to Constituent Ontology, properties are literally parts of substances they characterize. According to Relational Ontology, in contrast, properties are separate things, extrinsically related to their instances."
(p. 171)

"So we assume that there are properties that ground character and begin with a question. Are properties constituents of substances? This question results in a bifurcation of theories of substance into Relational and Constituent Ontologies:

9.1A Relational Ontology. Instantiation is a fundamental relation between substances and properties, and instantiation is not a case of the part-whole relation.

9.1T ConstituentOntology. When a substance instantiates a property, the instantiation relation between the two consists in the fact that the property is a part of the substance.

The first thing to notice about the two approaches is that Constituent Ontology has a significant advantage in terms of qualitative simplicity over Relational Ontology. Relational Ontologists must posit a special relation of instantiation holding between substances and properties in addition to the part-whole or parthood relation. Constituent Ontologists, in contrast, can make do with just one relation, parthood. For Constituent Ontologists, instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood. For a substance to have a property is for it to have the property as a part. Relational Ontologists must argue that instantiation is irreducible and primitive."

(pp. 175-6)

(Koons, Robert C., and Timothy H. Pickavance. The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.)

First of all, I'm not very happy about the label "relational ontology", because relational ontology is easily mistaken for the ontology of relations, which it is not.

The bundle theory of things (objects/substances) represents the constituent ontology, since according to it properties (tropes) are literally parts of things that are nothing over and above property bundles. In the bundle theory "instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood."
But there is also a substance-trope ontology which is a constituent ontology too, regarding properties (tropes) as parts of their bearers. But therein it is not the case that "instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood", because things are not reducible to bundles of properties (tropes).

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 6:01 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Belindi wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 10:32 am What one would you choose, Gary?
I wouldn't choose. Redness and right-angle-triangularity are both generic forms. Generic forms or generic universals have to be distinguished from a species "under" the generic. All the different species, shades, hues etc. of red are still red. The specific type and the generic. Redness as such is generic, not specific. Likewise right-angle-triangularity is generic and all those specific types I wrote about above "fall under" it. Generic universals exist and they are different from or other that the species. The universal Bear exists but there are many different species of bear. There is a hierarchy of universals up to the most universal. For example, above Red there is the universal form of Color. In another thread about realism vs. nominalism on this forum which you may remember, I posted this -

In the arduous schools of the Middle Ages, everyone invokes Aristotle, master of human reason; but the nominalists are Aristotle, the realists, Plato. George Henry Lewes has opined that the only medieval debate of some philosophical value is between nominalism and realism; the opinion is somewhat rash, but it underscores the importance of this tenacious controversy, provoked, at the beginning of the ninth century, by a sentence from Porphyry, translated and commented upon by Boethius; sustained, toward the end of the eleventh, by Anselm and Roscelin; and revived by William of Occam in the fourteenth.

As one would suppose, the intermediate positions and nuances multiplied ad infinitum over those many years; yet it can be stated that, for realism, universals (Plato would call them ideas, forms; we would call them abstract concepts) were the essential; for nominalism, individuals. The history of philosophy is not a useless museum of distractions and wordplay; the two hypotheses correspond, in all likelihood, to two ways of intuiting reality. Maurice de Wulf writes: "Ultra-realism garnered the first adherents. The chronicler Heriman (eleventh century) gives the name 'antiqui doctores' to those who teach dialectics in re; Abelard speaks of it as an 'antique doctrine' , and until the end of the twelfth century; the name moderni is applied to its adversaries." A hypothesis that is now inconceivable seemed obvious in the ninth century, and lasted in some form into the fourteenth. Nominalism, once the novelty of a few, today encompasses everyone; its victory is so vast and fundamental that its name is useless, no one declares himself a nominalist because no one is anything else. Let us try to understand, nevertheless, that for the men of the Middle Ages the fundamental thing was not men but humanity, not individuals but the species, not the species but the genus, not the genera but God. From such concepts (whose clearest manifestation is perhaps the quadruple system of Erigena) allegorical literature, as I understand it, derived. Allegory is a fable of abstractions, as the novel is a fable of individuals. The abstractions are personified; there is something of the novel in every allegory. The individuals that novelists present aspire to be generic; there is an element of allegory in novel.

Re: Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

Posted: September 2nd, 2019, 6:07 pm
by GaryLouisSmith
Consul wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 5:59 pm
GaryLouisSmith wrote: September 2nd, 2019, 1:17 amRight
"According to Constituent Ontology, properties are literally parts of substances they characterize. According to Relational Ontology, in contrast, properties are separate things, extrinsically related to their instances."
(p. 171)

"So we assume that there are properties that ground character and begin with a question. Are properties constituents of substances? This question results in a bifurcation of theories of substance into Relational and Constituent Ontologies:

9.1A Relational Ontology. Instantiation is a fundamental relation between substances and properties, and instantiation is not a case of the part-whole relation.

9.1T ConstituentOntology. When a substance instantiates a property, the instantiation relation between the two consists in the fact that the property is a part of the substance.

The first thing to notice about the two approaches is that Constituent Ontology has a significant advantage in terms of qualitative simplicity over Relational Ontology. Relational Ontologists must posit a special relation of instantiation holding between substances and properties in addition to the part-whole or parthood relation. Constituent Ontologists, in contrast, can make do with just one relation, parthood. For Constituent Ontologists, instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood. For a substance to have a property is for it to have the property as a part. Relational Ontologists must argue that instantiation is irreducible and primitive."

(pp. 175-6)

(Koons, Robert C., and Timothy H. Pickavance. The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.)

First of all, I'm not very happy about the label "relational ontology", because relational ontology is easily mistaken for the ontology of relations, which it is not.

The bundle theory of things (objects/substances) represents the constituent ontology, since according to it properties (tropes) are literally parts of things that are nothing over and above property bundles. In the bundle theory "instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood."
But there is also a substance-trope ontology which is a constituent ontology too, regarding properties (tropes) as parts of their bearers. But therein it is not the case that "instantiation can be defined in terms of parthood", because things are not reducible to bundles of properties (tropes).
You seem to be writing down your thoughts about the matter as they come to you. Do you see any fatal flaws in the "relation ontology" other than its complexity?