Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 9:29 pmAccording to David Lewis, there's a spectrum of classes/sets of things defined in terms of their degree of naturalness, with perfectly natural classes/sets and totally unnatural ones being the poles. A class's/set's degree of naturalness is determined by the degree of objective resemblance or similarity between its members, with qualitative identity (indistinguishability) being the maximum degree.

Lewis' concept of naturalness doesn't exclude classes/sets of artificial (man-made) things from being more or less natural. For example, the class/set of tennis balls is very natural in Lewis' sense of the term, because its members are very similar, their similarity being a matter of objective fact.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 6:32 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 3:50 pm

Not in the least. But it is a way to perform a verbal Rorschach test on yourself; usually what you find is not truth but aberration of which this entire thread is a near facsimile.

Most so-called materialists aren’t really true to materialism. They do believe that they can see the real world outside the mind. They really do believe in minds. But I take them at their word. Reality is beyond their reach. They must speculate and dream. Words are all they have. And they are next to nothing.

I'm sure Nietzsche didn't feel that way. He didn't have his ass in the air like most philosophers farting useless theories and speculations.

Consul wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 8:58 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 6:32 pmDon’t forget that she calls herself a materialist (a silly non-philosophy)…

"Physical realism, or materialism, is the doctrine that the whole of what exists is constituted of matter and its local motions, not Aristotelian 'prime matter' but physical matter, and is hence 'physical' in the literal sense that all its constituents are among the subject matter of physics. Every entity—stone or man, idea or essence—is on this principle a vulnerable and effective denizen of the one continuum of action, and in the entire universe, including the knowing mind itself, there is nothing which could not be destroyed (or repaired) by a spatiotemporal redisposition of its components."
(pp. 212-3)

"As soon as physical realism is set forth with some degree of precision and polish, the same detractors who once charged it with being an odious grotesquerie are ready to charge it with being an obvious truism, having no intelligible alternative. On the contrary, the statement of materialism thus clarified not only means something; it means something distinctive, arresting, illuminating, a thesis so far from empty and obvious that, unfortunately, it has been expressly denied by a great majority of philosophers and philosophasters. It has seldom been wholly without adherents; it is the philosophy taken for granted by a good many educated men, including especially those engineers and scientists who have not been corrupted by mysticism or phenomenalism; but most of the populace of Christendom, and most metaphysicians dignified with livings, lay or ecclesiastical, have emphatically refused to admit that everything in the universe can be ruined or repaired by local rearrangement. They have believed in enormous amounts of nonphysical, nonspatial, and even nontemporal reality, beyond the corruption of moth and rust, either supplementing material reality or supplanting it: minds, soul, spirits, and ideas, transcendent ideals and eternal objects, numbers, principles, angels, and Pure Being."
(p. 224)

"The ideal aim of systematic knowledge is to disclose the fewest primitive elements into which the most diverse objects are analysable and the fewest primitive facts, singular and general, from which the behavior of things is deducible. Metaphysics is the most scientific of the sciences because it tries the hardest to explain every kind of fact by one simple principle or simple set of principles. It is the most empirical of sciences because, by the same token, a metaphysics is directly relevant to and confirmable or falsifiable by every item of every experience, whereas every other science is explicitly concerned with only a few select and abstract aspects of some experiences. Physical realism is the ideal metaphysics, the veritable paragon of philosophy, because its category of spatiotemporal pattern best permits analysis of diverse complexity to uniform and ordered simplicities, is most thoroughly numerable, and so most exactly and systematically calculable. Socratic purposes, Platonic ideals, Aristotelian qualities, Plotinian hierarchies—these are surds in comparison with a system of nature limned in patterns of actions in the ordered dimensions of a spatiotemporal hypersphere."
(p. 227)

"If the rivals of materialism have any advantage it must be because there are some residual phenomena which they can explain better. Now, most of the phenomena which the supernaturalist throws in the naturalist's teeth are such as the supernaturalist himself has never explained."
(p. 234)

"The candid student, in fine, cannot be blamed if he concludes that the only reason that physical realism seems vulnerable at all is that it explains so much more so much better than other philosophies that the imperfections of its explanations are noticeable. As solipsism gains undeserved credit by being so preposterous that its bare possibility looks like evidence in its favor, so materialism suffers by having so few difficulties that one difficulty more or less makes a difference. A blasé public does not expect idealisms and dualisms to explain anything. With innocent cynicism, we appreciate that these philosophies were designed for a different purpose and are doing all that can be expected in a logical way if they avoid contradicting themselves and the obvious facts of experience. The physical realist seems constantly riding for a fall because he is on the only horse really entered in the chase.

It is most excellent testimony to the high confirmedness of physical realism that so many of its competitors renounce confirmation as a criterion. It is a tribute to its power of explaining the appearances that its competitors call it a philosophy of appearances (for we have seen that it is not a philosophy of appearances in any other sense), and that the persons who hate it are preeminently the persons who hate understanding, the mystery lovers. It is a tribute to the scientific advantage of materialism that the application of scientific method in philosophy is so often decried as a begging of the question in its favor and that materialism is called a presupposition of scientific method or scientific method is alleged to be limited to material reality. The logic of science has in sooth no presuppositions and no limitations. It is analytic and a priori, like 'Eggs are eggs', and inexorably germane to any possible world, monistic or dualistic, theistic or atheistic, chaos or cosmos. The hand-in-glove conformity of physical realism and scientific method is no logically preestablished harmony but the empirical fit of a beautifully concordant hypothesis with the facts.

Physical realism is not a foregone conclusion, but it is so lucid and probable that to defend it is, in this day, to defend integrity and understanding. To be loyal to it is to be loyal to philosophy, as to be loyal to philosophy is to be loyal to knowledge and to life. Materialism has often been patronized as a naive and childish philosophy, and this judgment of it is less unjust than most. Materialism is the philosophy of the preschool child as of a pre-Socratic and pre-Sophistic culture. It is the philosophy of limpid minds concerned only to know what most likely is actually the case, not yet distraught by the desire to turn ideation to the uses of compensation, obfuscation, or denial.

For us in America today the contrast between the high-hearted metaphysics of naturalism and all the fine evasions of obscurantism and agnosticism may be literally of epochal importance. The culture of America, by reason of its unique provenance, may choose either to be old or to be young, to be Alexandrian or to be Milesian. Whether we are thus at the end of a career or the beginning or one will in large part depend upon whether our citizens in this century learn their lessons from mystic evangels who would purge us of scientific understanding, from resigned sophisticates who set up languages and toy with thoughts of future possible sensations, or from philosophers who explore the nature of things."
(pp. 237-8)

(Williams, Donald Cary. "Naturalism and the Nature of Things." 1944. In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 212-238. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966.)

For Kant the great divide was between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal. Man cannot see into the Noumena, the Really Real. He can only gaze on the Phenomena that surround it. Donald Cary Williams, though, has done the impossible; he has pierced through the phenomenal layers and gazed full face on the Truth of what we are. He has lifted the veil of Isis. He sees. And through his eyes, we too now see. Light upon Light. Truth from Truth. This Magus has given us the Salvific Vision (It ain’t much really).

Everything that is, is an aggregation of space-time quanta (or whatever). They come together, fall apart and then regroup. That’s it. Or rather, That is It. It’s rather close to nihilism, but oh well. The Light is so Bright. It is blinding. I bend my knee. And I will give him the honor he deserves – until I come apart. Then maybe someone will put me back together and I can do it again. I’ve had a lot of practice being down on my knees. I swallow. The Holy Eucharist. The naked truth. It's really something. To behold. And to hold. Never mind.

I hope I have been faithful to the style and mood that Donald Cary Williams set in his piece. Yours truly, Gary Smith, Philosophasster.

Consul: A class's/set's degree of naturalness is determined by the degree of objective resemblance or similarity between its members, with qualitative identity (indistinguishability) being the maximum degree.For example, the class/set of electrons is perfectly natural because all electrons are qualitatively identical, all of them being perfect duplicates of one another.

The electron is a theoretical concept, not a natural object.

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

You seem to think that if you think calmly and rationally with all your best sensibilities that you can give a fairly decent account of the world. I say you can't. Every attempt you make will be even more glaringly wrong. Words will fail you. Then what will you do. I say that if you go into your room, forget the world and let words play any which way they want, that you will then find yourself writing Truth.

Yes, if you know yourself and your environment you are closer to reality than someone who reacts to their environment. I have tried what you recommend. It's a good method to begin to create something. The finished creation is usually polished up and edited so that it meets public standards of excellence in form and meaning. I'm not referring to whether or not a publisher will pay you; I'm referring to the value of sheer communication with target audiences. Jesus was good at this as we are told. He invented parables suited to his audience and we might suppose he told them well.

'Truth' is not got from your emotional reactions devoid of rational thought. Nor can you get 'Truth' from all the learning in the world and your acute judgement. You might find your own truth although I doubt it as you are not some eternal essence that can get truth added on to it. Whether or not there be 'Truth' is a matter of faith not altered consciousness. 'Truth' is aspiration not fact.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 4:02 am
I'm referring to the value of sheer communication with target audiences. Jesus was good at this as we are told. He invented parables suited to his audience and we might suppose he told them well.

You said you grew in the teachings of Protestantism, but I think you did not get a very good image of Jesus from that. As for why he spoke in parables (riddles), in Mark 4: 10-12 Jesus says that he speaks in parables specifically so they would not understand. As for being a good communicator, listen to this Yale lecture. https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/ ... lecture-12 That is from a series that is a class. Look under “sessions” here - https://oyc.yale.edu/NODE/246 It's an excellent series.

Jklint wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 10:53 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 6:32 pm

Most so-called materialists aren’t really true to materialism. They do believe that they can see the real world outside the mind. They really do believe in minds. But I take them at their word. Reality is beyond their reach. They must speculate and dream. Words are all they have. And they are next to nothing.

I'm sure Nietzsche didn't feel that way. He didn't have his ass in the air like most philosophers farting useless theories and speculations.

I always look forward to reading your responses. They are always so full of sweet eloquence with arresting imagery. Were you once a professor of English literature? As for that mincing, lisping queer Nietzsche, it's hard telling what he did with his ass.

Felix wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 2:36 am

Consul: A class's/set's degree of naturalness is determined by the degree of objective resemblance or similarity between its members, with qualitative identity (indistinguishability) being the maximum degree.For example, the class/set of electrons is perfectly natural because all electrons are qualitatively identical, all of them being perfect duplicates of one another.

The electron is a theoretical concept, not a natural object.

I like that you took this position and I think there is something to it. On the other hand it sounds like you mean there is nothing 'out there' that this concept represents. No particle, no wave, nothing moving through wires in electricity. In the double slit experiments with electrons, nothing went through the slits. Does this mean there are only effects but no causes? in this case?

Felix wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 2:36 am

Consul: A class's/set's degree of naturalness is determined by the degree of objective resemblance or similarity between its members, with qualitative identity (indistinguishability) being the maximum degree.For example, the class/set of electrons is perfectly natural because all electrons are qualitatively identical, all of them being perfect duplicates of one another.

The electron is a theoretical concept, not a natural object.

The concept <electron> is a concept, but electrons aren't concepts but objects—natural, material objects. You don't seriously believe that they were invented by physicists, do you? Social constructivism about the objects of the physical Standard Model is ludicrous.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 1:33 amFor Kant the great divide was between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal. Man cannot see into the Noumena, the Really Real. He can only gaze on the Phenomena that surround it.

Kant is wrong! It is not the case that there is "a Chinese Wall between reality and appearance" (N. Rescher—see this quote!) that is perceptually and cognitively impenetrable in principle, such that all we can perceive and cognize are subjective appearances (phenomena). Reality isn't "noumenal" in the sense of being absolutely inaccessible to, inconceivable and imperceptible by us. Appearances are perceptual windows to reality!

Consul: You don't seriously believe that they (electrons) were invented by physicists, do you?

Yes, the models of electrons were invented by physicians. Electrical energy exists but does it come in pointillistic units such as electrons, or is this merely a convenient theoretical unit of measurement? Quantum mechanics tells us it is the latter. The electron is ghost-like, it's impossible to know both it's precise position and momentum, we can't say exactly where it is, where it's been, or where its going. Voila! Now you see it (measure it), now you don't.

Consul: For example, the class/set of electrons is perfectly natural because all electrons are qualitatively identical, all of them being perfect duplicates of one another.

Therefore, what you said above is like saying, "all leprechauns are perfectly natural because they are are qualitatively identical." To quote Niels Bohr: "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can only be used as in poetry."

Consul: Appearances are perceptual windows to reality!

Perhaps, but the windows appear to be stained glass.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 7:45 am

Jklint wrote: ↑September 5th, 2019, 10:53 pm

I'm sure Nietzsche didn't feel that way. He didn't have his ass in the air like most philosophers farting useless theories and speculations.

I always look forward to reading your responses. They are always so full of sweet eloquence with arresting imagery. Were you once a professor of English literature? As for that mincing, lisping queer Nietzsche, it's hard telling what he did with his ass.

One thing he never did was confuse the lower sources of hot air with the upper ones which is so common among most modern barely mentioned philosophers, especially the would-be ones on philosophy forums. He was well aware that just because snot lies in proximity to one's brain doesn't mean the two are interchangeable. Philosophers, including the would-be ones, have not yet spent sufficient time in attempting to clarify this quandary which, if they did, would force all the hot air back into its proper place. Unfortunately, the smell of mediocrity never ceases to manifest itself when attempting to cross its legal boundaries.

Also, queer is the last thing someone like you should hold against him. Concerning mincing & lisping, Nietzsche ranks as one of the greatest of modern philosophers - whether you like him or not! There is also the outstanding brilliance of his prose even in translation. The style enforces further consideration of his thoughts even when presumed or acknowledged as error - though admittedly some are completely dispensable; philosophers also have their prejudices.

Everyone has their own customized philosophy but most don't mention or write about it. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred that's a good philosophy to have based on its diminutive merit.

Jklint wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 4:23 pm

Also, queer is the last thing someone like you should hold against him. Concerning mincing & lisping, Nietzsche ranks as one of the greatest of modern philosophers - whether you like him or not! There is also the outstanding brilliance of his prose even in translation. The style enforces further consideration of his thoughts even when presumed or acknowledged as error - though admittedly some are completely dispensable; philosophers also have their prejudices.

Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. And I don’t hold it against him because he was queer; I am queer myself, though I don’t mince and lisp. In Zarathustra’s Secret and Nietzsche and Wagner, Joachim Kohler has very convincingly proven that Nietzsche was gay and he minced. He may have lisped. Whatever the case, people made fun of him. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=joachim+kohl ... _sb_noss_1

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 7:50 pm…Joachim Kohler has very convincingly proven that Nietzsche was gay…

Really? An excerpt from a review:

"…The evidence, then, is exclusively indirect. …Still, while there are lingering questions and no conclusive evidence, Köhler’s case is strong: he makes it a very real possibility that Nietzsche was gay."

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/zarathustra-s- ... nietzsche/

What exactly is a "very real possibility"? Whatever, it's far away from certainty.

Consul wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 8:24 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 7:50 pm…Joachim Kohler has very convincingly proven that Nietzsche was gay…

Really? An excerpt from a review:

"…The evidence, then, is exclusively indirect. …Still, while there are lingering questions and no conclusive evidence, Köhler’s case is strong: he makes it a very real possibility that Nietzsche was gay."

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/zarathustra-s- ... nietzsche/

What exactly is a "very real possibility"? Whatever, it's far away from certainty.

Are you trying to prove something with semantic quibbles. It's not going to work. If you want to say you don't believe he was gay then just come right out and say it. Don't ***** foot around with academic obfuscation.