Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[Gervin]

It gets even worse. We assume we're things, but how do we characterize what we are? How do you even know you're you or if you even exist?

I've always been partial to SK's opening to "Sickness Unto Death" - in part:

Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.

In the relation between two, the relation is the third term as a negative unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation to the relation; such a relation is that between soul and body, when man is regarded as soul. If on the contrary the relation relates itself to its own self, the relation is then the positive third term, and this is the self.

Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.

It gets denser but opens up brillantly if one takes the time to unpack it ... imho.

[Seraphim32]

I don't know what any of these words mean and you have left them undefined. How does one know the correct way to characterize "what a thing is made of"?

I think your response itself is evidence that there is clearly enough common understanding between us that we can in fact speak to each other in a way that makes sense. All this linguistics stuff seems like an incoherent way to get around common sense.

According to Aristotle, who goes to greater lengths to define what he means by "what a thing is made of," a material cause is the the sensible, conglomerate of molecules arranged in a specific way that give a thing its presence in space. A rubber ball is made of rubber, a wooden bat is made of wood. To deny this seems to go against what reason and experience tell us.

Is it made of atoms? Quarks? Strings? Chemicals? Energy? How is one to know the difference in the light of Quantum Mechanics? Is it made of metal- do we want to say that? Or is it made of compounds which make the metal? Is it an alloy? What is our purpose in saying what the thing is "made of"? Is it a medical question? Is it a psychological question?

If we hold that such theoretical entities - as posited by science - exist, then they would be a part of this material cause, and would do nothing to compromise Aristotle's philosophy. For example, let us again take a rubber ball. When examining it at its largest, we see that it has the form of a ball, and the material cause of rubber. If we have a microscope powerful enough we discover that the rubber of which the ball is made is itself made of molecules, which are made of atoms, and so on. This does not undermine Aristotle's argument, but shows that a material cause like rubber contains molecules that also have a material cause.

We say often that a man is a "man of steel", or that "you should be made of sterner stuff". What is a man "made of"?

Yes, there are many such figures of speech: "My legs are jelly," "heart of ice," and so on. However, if I hear someone say someone is a "man of steel" I do not assume that they are in fact made of steel. I am quickly able to place such a statement into the "figures of speech" category because experience and reason inform me that human beings are not made of the material steel.

Why is it the case that we are able to make such a distinction? I would argue that it is because language has been developed in such a way, and the human mind is so capable of understanding language, that an individual is able to begin making the distinction between literal and figurative speech while they are still in kindergarten. Experience plays a role in this, since a child hearing "man of steel" for the first time, if they have a knowledge of steel, may observe the man spoken of more closely. Upon discovering that there is nothing about the man comparable to what he knows of steel, the child will initially be led to assume that this statement is inaccurate. It is funny then that we don't grow up, from that point onward, assuming that everyone who uses such figurative speech is a liar. Rather we learn that there are different ways of speaking about things .

One can characterize "what a thing is made of" in many ways.

Yes, and it is easy to determine in what way they are doing so (literally, figuratively, nonsensically). I have no hard, Cartesian level proof that everyone else outside of me is able to make this same distinction. but based on my conversations with other human beings it clearly seems that they are capable.

And for that matter what is a "material thing" as opposed to a "non material thing"?

How can something non-material be a "thing"?

This is a good question, but it lies outside the scope of Aristotle's four causes. Perhaps we can consider this, on its own, next.

I have no clue what that means. How does a thing take a form? Does it have a choice to appear as a car or a tree? And what is a "form" in this context?? And how does a "thing" take it?

How a thing takes a form depends on what the thing is, and this relates to efficient cause. A table, for instance, receives its form from an outside entity capable of constructing a table. A life-form contains within itself internal principles of change that allow it to move from potency to actuality. To deny these is to undermine not just scholasticism, but modern science, and any other method we have for determining things about the external world.

And what does any of this have to do with causation? Why does a thing taking a form have something to do with causation?

The form of a thing tells us what the thing has been caused to be, whether that thing is a rubber ball, a tree, a boat, or a human being; it is the end result, if you will. One can deny all of this if they like, but I feel safe in my assumption that nobody lives this way. If a person with even a basic education thinks about the origin of a tree, they do not assume the tree has always been there. They look for a way in which to describe its coming to be. Likewise, if a rabbit randomly appeared in front of you (I think, but you may be an exception) my guess is that you would recognize this as an abnormal event requiring an explanation, or cause.

And "source of movement" of a thing? Are you serious? What is the source of movement of an atom? The entire universe is in constant motion- what is it's "source"??

This has been addressed by many Aristotelians and Scholastics, but we don't even need to look back that far. Newton observed that motion is both initiated and stopped by something, and modern scientists continue to describe things in ways that sound quite Aristotelian. Have you read any Van Fraasen?

I am admittedly far from an expert in the physics of atoms, but I feel safe in assuming that the movement of electrons around a nucleus of protons and neutrons has to do with laws of magnetism, electricity, physics, whatever it may be. The point is, there are scientific principles that explain the movement of an atom in a way complementary to Aristotelian causality.

I suppose the ultimate source of anythings movement was the Big Bang.

In a chronological sense, yes, but as was pointed out by Aquinas' cosmological thought, it is not just the chronological origin of movement that needs an explanation. After all, like Aristotle, he didn't begin from the supposition that the universe had a beginning. He seeks to explain why, in any instant there is movement taking place, there must be an explanation to explain such contingency.

And if I did know what a "substance" was (which I do not) how would I know how many causes or aspects it could have? Why four? Why not four million? Why not none at all? And besides, what qualifies as an "aspect" and why?

A substance is a form-matter composite. Form is the shape a thing takes, and the matter is the stuff that is shaped, giving a thing a presence in space. Do you want me to explain shape, space, and stuff?

Aristotle discusses this at great lengths in his "Physics" and shows why four is exhaustive. Put simply, there are four because three would be too little, and five would be excessive. If you can think of anything that can be subtracted without causing a deficient explanation, or added without being unnecessary I am all ears (or I suppose eyes since we are typing and reading).

What was the cause of YOU? Your parents? Their parents? Adam and Eve? The big bang?

Are we speaking of my cause in a chronological sense, or in the sense that at any instant I require an explanation for why I am sustained? In any case the answer is the unmoved mover/ uncaused cause. I cannot ultimately be explained through a chronological chain of causes that are all contingent, for even extending to infinity the chain would remain contingent upon something else.

Where does it end and why does it end where you think it does?

It ends with the unmoved mover. As for why I think it ends here? Because this is the best explanation I have seen for the universe and its movements. Any other explanation is deficient or incoherent.

The point is that he plucked all this from thin air.

Even if you disagree with his theories, the idea that he plucked them from thin air is ridiculous. They are very likely the result of countless hours of thinking, debate, and observation.

There is no way of deciding if any of it is true or false or if he got anything right. There is no evidence, there is no reason to think any of it even makes sense.

I'll give you a way. As I look at and think about the world I observe that things seem to conform to Aristotle's four causes. There has yet to be anything that challenges this view, and it seems quite clear that things operate as Aristotle stated. If you don't count observation and experience as evidence, then our discussion is indeed pointless.

Maybe he is right, maybe Plato is right or maybe both of them are wrong. How does one decide that? What are the practical consequences in our lives if one is right or the other? How would our lives change if one was right or the other?

I concede that there is always room to doubt. I suppose the question for me is how far is too far when extending such doubts. Is it more reasonable for me to believe that a baseball flying through a window is the result of a causal chain, or to doubt it because I am not sure if the external world really exists, or some other doubt? Everything I have ever observed about chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, gives credibility to my Aristotelian world-view, but I promise you that if I am ever confronted with something I cannot reconcile with my Scholastic proclivities I will alter them.

As for how my adoption of Scholastic ideas has changed my life? I was once a great lover of Russell, Nietzsche Heidegger, and much of the post enlightenment and existentialist thinkers. I suppose I love them still, but I am no longer a skeptic, nihilist, moral relativist, post modernist, because in the end I felt that in order to be so I had to doubt so much of what seems apparent and common sense to be. In addition, I was adhering to arguments, such as Nietzsche's for morality, and Hume's for empiricism that contain points at which they seem to undermine themselves. I don't see that in the Realist, Scholastic tradition.

[MiserereNobis]

In addition, I was adhering to arguments, such as Nietzsche's for morality, and Hume's for empiricism that contain points at which they seem to undermine themselves. I don't see that in the Realist, Scholastic tradition.

To me, this appears to be a common problem in many (post-)modern theories -- they ultimately implode in self-contradiction, usually because they are so subjective, denying to whatever degree objectivity, yet then make objective claims. The most blatant is when someone says something like "all truth is relative" when such a statement is obviously meant to be taken as an absolute.

[mfbukowski]

Neither believe that the floor exists, but the philosopher still walks on it

No, the Pragmatist walks on it while the Scholastics debate what kind of Substance it is.

[mfbukowski]

Common sense tells us that knowledge corresponds to a world beyond what we experience.

Pragmatism tells me that that is silly. What we see and experience is the only thing we can talk about.

I have never in my life experienced "substance" or "essence". I can't see them. I can't weigh them. I can't eat them.

If you call arguing about things you can't see "common sense" then so be it. I will stay rooted in reality thank you.

[mfbukowski]

To me, this appears to be a common problem in many (post-)modern theories -- they ultimately implode in self-contradiction, usually because they are so subjective, denying to whatever degree objectivity, yet then make objective claims. The most blatant is when someone says something like "all truth is relative" when such a statement is obviously meant to be taken as an absolute.

You want objectivity?

Really?

A person who thinks a piece of bread is flesh and blood wants objectivity? I think not, sir.

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

You want objectivity?

Really?

A person who thinks a piece of bread is flesh and blood wants objectivity? I think not, sir.

Let's not get all red herring on the topic now, eh? Transubstantiation (and my belief concerning it) has nothing to do with whether or not theories based on extreme subjectivity are inherently self-contradictory. You should know better than to try such a deflection, mfb

ETA: you left out that the Host also has Soul and Divinity, by the way...

Edited November 1, 2012 by MiserereNobis

[Spammer]

Common sense tells us that knowledge corresponds to a world beyond what we experience.

Pragmatism tells me that that is silly. What we see and experience is the only thing we can talk about.

I have never in my life experienced "substance" or "essence". I can't see them. I can't weigh them. I can't eat them.

If you call arguing about things you can't see "common sense" then so be it. I will stay rooted in reality thank you.

So, reality is only that which is experienced or sensed. Nothing not inferred based on sense data or experience is real? You can't experience what I experience or my consciousness, nor can you see, weigh, or eat my thoughts. Common sense should tell you that the "I" that I call myself is just as real as the "I" that you call yourself. Does your pragmatism go so far as to deny the objective reality of the inner life of the person responding to you? Do you deny the validity of any and all inference, or only that which is not subject to verification by empirical measurement?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

If we hold that such theoretical entities - as posited by science - exist, then they would be a part of this material cause, and would do nothing to compromise Aristotle's philosophy. For example, let us again take a rubber ball. When examining it at its largest, we see that it has the form of a ball, and the material cause of rubber. If we have a microscope powerful enough we discover that the rubber of which the ball is made is itself made of molecules, which are made of atoms, and so on. This does not undermine Aristotle's argument, but shows that a material cause like rubber contains molecules that also have a material cause.

I will respond to this I suppose.

Why is it that you decided to examine it "at it's largest"?

Of course these same issues occur with the word "rubber" etc. And you have not explained why being made of rubber is called the ball's "material cause". Isn't that begging the question that it HAS something called a "cause"?

And why is the word "molecule" any more a "theoretical entity" than the word "rubber"?? I don't see "rubber"- I see a small sphere which has a certain diameter and color and bounces- THAT is my experience of what we call a "ball" in English. I have no idea what it is made of and no idea how it was made or by whom or in what country etc.

How do I infer anything about it's "cause" much less call it a "material cause"?

As I read through your post, I will comment in separate comments so they can be followed up on individually if necessary.

You are begging the question from the first that things have what can be defined as "causes" by making that conclusion about their very make up. I think that is an unwarranted conclusion.

Further, I think I will only respond to you since the others are just making shotgun claims about something they call "postmodernism" and various other "isms"- more "abstract entities" known only to them, whereas you appear to be interested in examining specific arguments and not strawmen.

[Spammer]

Further, I think I will only respond to you since the others are just making shotgun claims about something they call "postmodernism" and various other "isms"- more "abstract entities" known only to them, whereas you appear to be interested in examining specific arguments and not strawmen.

How 'bout deigning to respond to my question about inference? After that, I'll leave it to the experts.

[3DOP]

I like how Forrest Gump has made it into multiple posts on the Scholastics vs. Pragmatists thread... oh my

Could someone explain to me who or what Forrest Gump means, or must I taste him/it myself?

[Spammer]

I understand your response comes from serious philosophical reflection, but it's fascinating to me how the impossibility of tasting what someone means (except, perhaps, through dining zombie-like on brains) when a specific word is uttered in a conversation can seemingly conveniently be used to dismiss arguments and conversants from consideration. I don't see a strawman in the statement that (post)modernist subjectivist philosophy is self-refuting.

Mmm...brains.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

How a thing takes a form depends on what the thing is, and this relates to efficient cause. A table, for instance, receives its form from an outside entity capable of constructing a table. A life-form contains within itself internal principles of change that allow it to move from potency to actuality. To deny these is to undermine not just scholasticism, but modern science, and any other method we have for determining things about the external world.

It appears here also that you are presuming a lot, to say the least. What is the epistemology behind these metaphysical statements? How are we to know you (Aristotle) is correct about any of this??

Here again you appear to take causation for granted when indeed there can be many causes- (back to Hume etc.)

Can't a rock be called a "Table"? What is the word "mesa" in Spanish, from the Latin, after all? Do all things called "tables" receive their form from outside entities?

And what precisely is the "external world?" I know only about what I have experienced and what others also experience together with me, what we speak and write about. How do we get outside of our experience - scientific AND subjective to see if it comes from some "external world" we CANNOT experience? Who cares? Reality is what we experience personally and what experiences we share together. The latter is what we call "science"- the linguistic expression of the shared and verifiable experiences of all mankind.

And who cares if something is an "efficient cause" or not?? What is the purpose of this discourse?? What good does any of this do?

The Pragmatist is one who sees all of the world differently than those who see true statements as "corresponding to reality", so they effectively avoid all the issues such a viewpoint raises. The Pragmatist sees these issues pragmatically- true propositions do not "correspond" to a "reality" beyond what we can see feel and touch with our senses or our emotions- for all practical purposes there is no separation between what is real and what we experience- experience IS reality.

Since experience IS reality- there is, practically speaking, no difference between appearance and reality.

Truth becomes a property of propositions and linguistic statements- it is not a property of reality because we cannot "get down" to a reality beyond our experiences of it. We know how to use the word "true" and "false" and those meanings depend on linguistic contexts- not on any state of some un-perceivable "reality" which only exists in our imaginations.

Truth is always based on some practical use for a particular proposition. "The car is red" is not about a state of the world, but is about our linguistic statement of some experience we have. The car is red because we perceive it as what we call, or define as the color "red".

The practical use of such a statement might be to distinguish a red car from a green one etc.

The practical use of a scientific description would be the fact that such a statement works better in achieving a practical result than some other statement. (Copernicus works better than Ptolemy, Einstein works better than Newton)

Such scientific understandings change from time to time in paradigm shifts which change our definitions and understandings of our collective experience. Copernicus did not change the observational "data" just its interpretation.

Similarly, moral propositions are "true" because they work better socially- societies which do not sanction murder for example are more desirable to live in that those who might oppose those ideas.

So what does this have to do with religion?

Like all other propositions, religious beliefs have nothing to do with some abstract "reality" we cannot see or feel- they are judged by how they function in our lives in giving our lives meaning and peace.

Statements about God, like the statements about the "red car" are about out perceptions and experiences, not about anything else. Religious statements are subjective in the sense that the difference they make is within us- in personal experience, and are not verifiable by others.

But all of the most important decisions or ideas we have as human beings are subjective as well- we decide whom to marry, what is right or wrong, whether or not we should do something perceived as "wrong" or not, based on subjective feelings. There is no objective scientific way to decide what is right or wrong in our lives- whether or not abortion is wrong, which political party to vote for, which church to join, whether or not the historic person Jesus was the Son of God and our redeemer, or not.

I am quoting myself so that I do not have to repeat it all. http://theomorphicma...el/Epistemology

The only reason to even try to save Scholasticism is to save an outmoded way of thinking that has little practical benefit in today's world except to save some esoteric theological points.

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How 'bout deigning to respond to my question about inference? After that, I'll leave it to the experts.

What question? Haven't I answered it already?

[mfbukowski]

Sup Homie TAO!

I didn't know they talked that way in your parts!?!? Good to see you!

[Spammer]

This discussion reminds me of a fun book I read with my boy the other day.

http://www.amazon.co...andrew clements

Whether we call a pen 'pen', 'pluma', or 'frindle', the name is conventional but there's a real object in view that receives the label, the same object everyone in the room experiences in common when they see, handle, and use the pen I mean frindle. There is thus an object and a subjective experience, but unless there's some point of contact assumed between the two we can have no knowledge of anything external to us. This does make philosophical pragmatism seem self-refuting (assuming, of course, I understand correctly what pragmatism is ).

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spammer

[Ahab]

Could someone explain to me who or what Forrest Gump means, or must I taste him/it myself?

What he means? When? Where? Why do you want to know what Forrest means?

Run Forrest, run.

[Spammer]

What question? Haven't I answered it already?

Not really. It sounds like you deny the validity of any and all inference besides that based on your own direct experience and sense data. I just wanted to know whether that's your view.

[mfbukowski]

Have you read any Van Fraasen?

No but I will check him out. From wikipedia though, as an anti-realist I would guess he would be on my side on these things.

[Ahab]

Not really. It sounds like you deny the validity of any and all inference besides that based on your own direct experience and sense data. I just wanted to know whether that's your view.

Wha...? He doesn't know about any inference besides that based on his own direct experience and sense data.

He'd have to know about it first before being able to accept or deny.

[Spammer]

Wha...? He doesn't know about any inference besides that based on his own direct experience and sense data.

He'd have to know about it first before being able to accept or deny.

No one can experience what I experience or can taste, see, or handle my thoughts. They are wholly inaccessible to everyone except me. They cannot be measured by an observer in any way. I was just seeking clarification about whether the pragmatic philosophy would deny the objective reality of my inner life and thoughts, as they can't be experienced or sensed.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

In a chronological sense, yes, but as was pointed out by Aquinas' cosmological thought, it is not just the chronological origin of movement that needs an explanation. After all, like Aristotle, he didn't begin from the supposition that the universe had a beginning. He seeks to explain why, in any instant there is movement taking place, there must be an explanation to explain such contingency.

But why did he not go the way of Heraclitus and PRESUME from the beginning that all things ARE in motion- that that is indeed their "nature"?

Why presume stasis OR motion at all? I will tell you why and that is because he wanted forms to remain unchangeable, that is why

And the main reason Catholicism adopted Neoplatonism was precisely because it made God, the Form of Goodness, unchangeable and therefore "perfect" in the Greek sense of "completed"

Talk about language triumphing! The whole notion that God has to be Unchanging derives from a quirk of the Greek language and culture which defines "perfect" as "complete" and therefore unchanging. For God to be perfect, he had to be complete and unchanging.

The only problem is that if God is transcendent and unchangeable he also cannot be our Father and hear and answer prayers.

The Form of Goodness cannot be bothered with the silly little problems of contingent created creatures like mankind.

But yet, Christ was a man. He is supposed to be God AND man. Just a little problem there. Transcendent Form meets contingent material created being.

Ah, but Aristotle solves it all. He has forms being manifested in matter! A perfect solution! Neoplatonism is born! God can be unchanging and "perfect" but because Jesus has "two natures" he can be both a transcendent form AND manifest Himself in the flesh!

Aristotle to the rescue!

No wonder Heraclitus got a bum rap. God had to be "complete" and unchanging so that he was nothing like those silly old anthropomorphic Greek Gods similar to those we find in that Old Testament! Too old fashioned! Incompatible with the latest philosophy of the day!

[3DOP]

Seraphim 32

As for how my adoption of Scholastic ideas has changed my life? I was once a great lover of Russell, Nietzsche Heidegger, and much of the post enlightenment and existentialist thinkers. I suppose I love them still, but I am no longer a skeptic, nihilist, moral relativist, post modernist, because in the end I felt that in order to be so I had to doubt so much of what seems apparent and common sense to be. In addition, I was adhering to arguments, such as Nietzsche's for morality, and Hume's for empiricism that contain points at which they seem to undermine themselves. I don't see that in the Realist, Scholastic tradition.

3DOP

Thank you for your comprehensive reply to mfbukowski's questions. I am glad you are here.

I think this whole discussion helps to illustrate why most LDS who become disillusioned with their faith turn to atheism without abandoning this underlying materialism prevalent in Mormon thought. In order to truly convert thoughtful Mormons, it is necessary to show them that this modern materialism, which is the necessary "handmaiden" to their theology, is "philosophy and vain deceit".

On the LDS side, your/my philosophy is incompatible with their faith. I don't think you have identified your religious affiliation yet, but if they were to convince me that the Catholic faith was untrue, I would still believe in an immaterial God, the unmoved Mover. They would have to show me that my belief in immaterial reality was false and that the only way to know that there is a God is through faith, not nature.

[3DOP]

I understand your response comes from serious philosophical reflection, but it's fascinating to me how the impossibility of tasting what someone means (except, perhaps, through dining zombie-like on brains) when a specific word is uttered in a conversation can seemingly conveniently be used to dismiss arguments and conversants from consideration. I don't see a strawman in the statement that (post)modernist subjectivist philosophy is self-refuting.

Mmm...brains.

Spammer,

My comment was based on the skepticism that has seemingly been expressed against the idea that anyone can explain anything true to another. I have heard of Forrest Gump and know that Tom Hanks played a character of that name in a movie, but I am unfamiliar with the "essence" that is being understood by the other parties by their use of this movie character as it relates to this topic. I am not interested in learning more about Forrest Gump. What I wished to illustrate is that I do not despair of the idea that I could learn what is meant with these references, but it seems like that is because I reject the philosophy advocated by mfbukowski which would disallow that there could be any essentials necessary to know who or what is meant by Forrest Gump by means of words.