Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[mfbukowski]

Sorry all- this thread was set up for Seraphim and I to have a discussion. I will try to get to the other comments eventually but this comes first. I am still working on his first post!

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).

Matter is the stuff being shaped? Giving a thing a presence in space?

Why not atoms and elements and quarks and whatever?

Three would be too little and five too exhaustive?

Does anyone else agree this is making no sense whatsoever? I feel like I have fallen through the looking glass into a metaphysical world of mirrors.

How can one possibly know the truth value of any of these statements? I am sorry, I would like to try to answer intellectually, but this all seems plucked out of the air. As far as I am concerned this is Star Trek gobbledy gook.

"Reverse the coils" and the problem is solved. Look I honestly don't mean to make light of this- I admire your knowledge of Aristotle, and easily admit that you are trying to present a complicated theory in a very cursory way. I really enjoy speaking with you, and admire your willingness to carry on with this, and am actually growing quite fond of your spirit in taking this on, but honestly I think we are on different planets.

Your assumed frames of reference so far from mine that it is doubtful that meaningful dialogue can continue

I respect you tremendously- I am not closing off dialogue because if possible I would like to continue, but after all I have not even finished commenting on your first post yet!

Progress seems a tad slow, don't you think??

[Gervin]

Run Forrest, run.

oh yeah ... Frank Ocean

[3DOP]

Sorry all- this thread was set up for Seraphim and I to have a discussion. I will try to get to the other comments eventually but this comes first. I am still working on his first post!

bukowski...stick to Seraphim. No need to reply to jeers or cheers from the peanut gallery.

Edited November 1, 2012 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

Your assumed frames of reference so far from mine that it is doubtful that meaningful dialogue can continue

Yeah, mfb, this is the reason why I decided you and I shouldn't have had this thread awhile back when we considered it. It's a lot of effort and I doubt we would have understood each other after all was said and done.

So now we can just poke fun at each other in threads instead

[mfbukowski]

Seraphim in post 52 said:

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.

Well I suppose then science is incoherent. You are presuming that even the Big Bang had no "cause" other than God which I think science would disagree with.

There are many scientific theories about the origins even of the big bang and God is not one of them. On the other hand, I think the Mormon view is far more coherent with science- that the origins of the universe were based on natural laws from existing "matter" which has always been.

In other words, continuing contingency for eternity, or at least the appearance of it. That is ultimately the Mormon view. We are contingent created beings made of matter and will continue to be made of "spirit matter" forever. We are "caused", in a manner of speaking imprecisely, by our Heavenly Parents just as contingent men are here on this earth are "caused" using the term imprecisely because it is an imprecise term but we know what it means for practical purposes. We can call God "contingent" in one sense if we like, because certainly he was not always God and he is changeable because he can hear and answer our prayers.

God is immanent and part of our universe yet he is unfathomably more perfect (in an non-Greek sense) than we are- in fact he is perfect in every sense we can imagine as long as that idea does NOT include "complete"

He can hear a child's prayer and create miracles based on that prayer if necessary because he can change in response to a child's prayer. No mumbo jumbo. He just changes if he needs to. No big deal.

He gives us revelation depending on what we need here on earth. No big deal about cosmology to answer a prayer. He just does.

That's my view, but of course I am a tad prejudiced.

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

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.

3DOP, I'm sorry, that comment you replied to wasn't for you. It was for mfbukowski. I forgot to address it to him when I commented.

[mfbukowski]

man I am messing up hitting the wrong buttons here. deleted

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

bukowski...stick to Seraphim. No need to reply to jeers or cheers from the peanut gallery.

Man, I'm just trying to understand where mfbukowski is coming from and when I write it's on the fly. I'm no expert; I just read a lot, sometimes too much for my own good (or so I'm told). I'm sorry, mfb. I didn't realize I might be coming across as a pain in the neck??? For my part, I'm sorry I jumped in on this discussion between you and Seraphim. I thought it was open to all takers.

[Seraphim32]

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??

If by know you mean absolute knowledge with no possibility for doubt, then we can't know anything. I already acknowledged that.

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

what do you mean by this?

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?

If we call a rock a table, why is it we do so? Because it resembles in some way our concept of what a table is. Depending on how well it matches this concept will determine what else we may say about it. If it is a rock that only resembles a table simply in that it happens to be relatively flat on top, then we would speak about it differently than a table that is an artifact; however we do relate it to our concept of table because we are able to draw such a connection.

If one encounters a rock that resembles a table in multiple ways, in that it has legs, an unusually flat surface, and any other things that make it look less natural my guess is that we would wonder if it was in fact man made because we are able to tell the difference in degree of how well something matches a concept. If you do not acknowledge this, then we best agree to disagree and move on.

I fail to see how your objection does anything to even put a chink in Aristotelian/ Scholastic philosophy.

And what precisely is the "external world?"

A mind independent reality that we have little control over.

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.

You mean reality as you perceive it, right? To maintain consistency, you can't say anything about what anyone else experiences.

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?

Truth for truth's sake, figuring out what sort of philosophy gives the most reasonable description of the world. A lot rides on this. If I am correct, then many of the ideas to which you adhere are false and you are living a lie. If you are correct the same applies to me.

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.

I am sure even you can imagine other reasons one may want to revive Scholastic philosophy, i.e. the possibility that it is true and gives us the best explanation of reality. Post-enlightenment philosophy simply seems to be the idea that there is a chance that the best explanation we have for reality might be incorrect, so lets throw it out and only adhere to ideas we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately this rules out everything so lets just all be hedonists and nihilists in a world absent of truth, beauty, and meaning.

[Ahab]

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.

You don't seem to understand what "communication" is all about. You do know what it is, and are using it now. I can hear you, and experience you, and understand what you're sharing with... to at least some level. This is actually happening. We are communicating, and the better we develop our skills at communicating the more we can know of each other.

God's an awesome communicator. He can communicate with whoever he communicates so clearly that they can clearly what he's sharing with them, from thoughts to feelings to visions to even all the power he has to help us so we can in turn help other people.

Can you hear me now? Are we connecting on at least some level? I won't know until I hear back from you because for all I know you're not reading this thread at this moment, or maybe you skipped over my post, but you can let me know if you read what I said and then I'll know that we connected on at least some level.

Look, Ma. Without any wires, even. What will they think of next.

[mfbukowski]

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.

That's the best thing you have said yet. I totally agree. But guess what? I also think and experience and do so in a totally different context than you do. Case for contingency closed!

The point is that we all make individual decisions about how to live our lives and that is exactly what my point of view IS! Our experience is contingent on our language, on our upbringing and what we had for breakfast.

When we share experience- which is a lot of the time- we call that "science" even if we have not experienced it for ourselves. Presuming that none of us here have been to Antarctica, I think it is safe to assume we all believe it exists because other humans have recorded THEIR individual experiences walking around there an taking pictures and we believe them because SOMEONE - and enough people - have experienced it so that we have an "established literature" which makes the existence of Antarctica "real" to all of humanity even if they haven't been there.

UFO's not so much. Maybe yes, maybe no.

But beliefs like religious beliefs are totally subjective. One person believes one thing another believes another. Why? Because we do not (generally) share experience about religious matters.

Shared experience is called "objective experience" and subjective experience is just that- known only to me. Religious experience is subjective - or else we would all agree about it like Antarctica.

And the way we see "reality" is based on subjective issues. I don't know how anyone can deny that.

Of course that is why I see things the way I do!

But honestly, the very existence of this discussion, I think, illustrates my very point.! The mere fact that after all your study, you and I see it differently is evidence for my view, that these issues are totally contingent.

[Spammer]

You don't seem to understand what "communication" is all about. You do know what it is, and are using it now. I can hear you, and experience you, and understand what you're sharing with... to at least some level. This is actually happening. We are communicating, and the better we develop our skills at communicating the more we can know of each other.

God's an awesome communicator. He can communicate with whoever he communicates so clearly that they can clearly what he's sharing with them, from thoughts to feelings to visions to even all the power he has to help us so we can in turn help other people.

Can you hear me now? Are we connecting on at least some level? I won't know until I hear back from you because for all I know you're not reading this thread at this moment, or maybe you skipped over my post, but you can let me know if you read what I said and then I'll know that we connected on at least some level.

Look, Ma. Without any wires, even. What will they think of next.

Well, I agree that we can communicate. I just want to know whether the pragmatic philosophy allows the observer to treat someone else's supposed inner life (inferred from the observer's own inner life) any objective reality. As for communication, all you're experiencing and observing when we communicate is the words I use and gestures I make. You're not experiencing or observing the actual thoughts behind those words and gestures at all. I think that's mfbukowski's point. Please correct me, if not.

[Ahab]

I also think and experience and do so in a totally different context than you do. Case for contingency closed!

'

Not a totally different context, mski. We're not so different, us Gods/humans. Some aren't as advanced as others but collectively we communicate in pretty much the same context even though some are better at communicating than others. I think a lot of us just don't realize our Father communicates with us as we communicate with each other, by giving us thoughts and feelings based on what he can see and has seen which we also can someday see as he sees.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I don't know you, but I will bet that your adoption of Scholasticism was based on religions issues- perhaps a return to Catholicism. Good for you and I am glad it works for you, to bring you to Christ.

But guess what? My return to religion was also based on my philosophical experience of what is characterized broadly as "post-modernism" insofar as that term has meaning.

Mine was based on the understanding that when God is a Man, Humanism becomes theology, and that the exaltation of mankind represents the highest secular AND now suddenly with my realization, the highest potential of Man.

God is a Man and mankind can become like Him. He is our loving Father- not some transcendent Form floating out there somewhere. Our highest ideals as humans are his highest ideals for His Children.

No substance, no essence, no forms, just a loving Father and his children living in each other's arms

Revelation 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Experience is "real" not some world of forms beyond experience which we can never see or feel.

Science is "real" because it is shared experience.

Religious experience is "real" because it is subjective experience and we all live each moment of each day in the subjective. You are reading this in the subjective and thinking about it in the subjective.

Is what you are thinking right now "real"? As real as anything can be to you.

But guess what? We each organize our own worlds from matter unorganized. You see this through your Aristotelian eyes, and I see it through my Pragmatic eyes.

So be it! After all we are all organizing our little worlds from matter unorganized, as children of the Man of Holiness, Who organizes the universe from matter unorganized as little baby gods in embryo.

We are just doing what our Father wants us to do!

Ok I am officially done with your first post!

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, mfb, this is the reason why I decided you and I shouldn't have had this thread awhile back when we considered it. It's a lot of effort and I doubt we would have understood each other after all was said and done.

So now we can just poke fun at each other in threads instead

Yep! I was avoiding it but that dang volgadon pushed me into it.

Case for contingency proven! We see different worlds don't we?

So I guess the exercise was worth it from my pov!

[mfbukowski]

Ok now on to post 53 and others. I am a tad behind. But guess what- life intervenes and I have to take off for the rest of the day. In case anyone actually cares at this point, I shall return

[Ahab]

Well, I agree that we can communicate. I just want to know whether the pragmatic philosophy allows the observer to treat someone else's supposed inner life (inferred from the observer's own inner life) any objective reality.

Pragmatic, huh. Kind of a big word, to me. What does that mean, in more simple terms?

Just a plain ole philospher can, though, unless you want to get so technical that you rule out that kind of philospher as a "pragmatic" philospher. The objective is the sum of each individual, and if you don't accept individual input from someone, anyone, you're leaving that person out of the picture.

As for communication, all you're experiencing and observing when we communicate is the words I use and gestures I make.

Yes, but those mean something to me because I also use those words/gestures too, or at least I can learn to. We're all pretty good at learning from each other, if and when we really want to.

You're not experiencing or observing the actual thoughts behind those words and gestures at all.

Like when you're smiling? I can smile too. How about when you look sad, or frustrated? I have experienced those things too.

Hark! An angel is singing! Can you hear him? Well, I can't either, right now, but I'm sure there is an angel out there singing somewhere. That's one of the things angels can do, and I've heard they sound pretty good when they do it.

I think that's mfbukowski's point. Please correct me, if not.

I suppose he will clarify or add to my thoughts if he has somethign else he wants to share, and when he does we can both try to understand what he's sharing.

Ah, communication. It's a wonderful thing!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Ahab

[RadioFreeDeath]

Pragmatism is essentially the philosophy that truth is "what works." It is based in the philosophies of Pierce, William James, and Dewey. I just wanted to chime in and say as a pragmatic Mormon, I am thoroughly enjoying watching this post. Although this has taken a swing away from pragmatism towards philosophy of language, I think that the whole discussion has given me some good points to think on.

[Ahab]

Pragmatism is essentially the philosophy that truth is "what works." It is based in the philosophies of Pierce, William James, and Dewey. I just wanted to chime in and say as a pragmatic Mormon, I am thoroughly enjoying watching this post. Although this has taken a swing away from pragmatism towards philosophy of language, I think that the whole discussion has given me some good points to think on.

A "philosphy of language" can be part of "what works", though, right?

Like I said, as Forrest Gump says, I think maybe a little of both is going on at the same time.

[mfbukowski]

I got a bit of a reprieve from reality for a few minutes.

Pragmatic, huh. Kind of a big word, to me. What does that mean, in more simple terms?

Not "pragmatism", Pragmatism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

[mfbukowski]

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?

I deny none of the above. Actually read what I have posted please. We obviously share experiences. If we both see a red car passing, that is a shared experience. That makes it "objective". The more witnesses we have to the passing of the red car makes it more and more "objective".

If I have a pain in my toe while the car goes by, only I know about that. That is a subjective experience. Unless of course I tell you my toe is hurting, but then you get to decide if I am lying. So then I punch you out because you don't believe me.

You haul me into court and a jury tries the "facts" of the case, and whatever they determine happened becomes "factual". Facts are always judgement calls to some extent- there are no other kinds of "facts" which can be known and shared by others. Nietzsche said "there are no facts, only interpretations"

The court case is the sort of thing he was talking about. We have shared experiences and then make up stories to explain them. We see water bubbles when we put a pot over a fire.

We decide that that is a convenient reference point to define a temperature change that we hypothesize happens at the same temperature everywhere. Of course that is incorrect, because the boiling point of water is different at different altitudes. So we define the temperature of what we call 0 degrees (Celsius) as the bubbling point of water at sea level.

Everyone everywhere can now calibrate thermometers according to that artificially defined "reality" we can all experience. What is water "really"? It is unknowable. All we know about it is what we have experienced about it. We need to drink it. We know what it is for, when it bubbles if we put it over fire etc.

But what is it "really"? That is irrelevant. All we know is what we have collectively experienced using water, including that it can be made to derive a gas that we call "hydrogen" with which we can do other neat stuff.

All of science is on this model- it tells us what works- what stuff is useful for what purpose.

But what is "substance"? Nothing. It is not water, it cannot be experienced.

Even God can be experienced- I feel him subjectively in my heart, in a different way than the pain in my toe, to be sure, yet clearly I can experience his influence in some way.

But I cannot experience "substance". I cannot experience "essence". Those are abstract words we use for other purposes. When we don't know what something is, we might call it a "substance". "There was a greasy substance at the bottom of the well". "The essence of the argument was...."

But in neither case does any of this mean there is some mysterious "stuff" out there in the world called "substance" which undergirds all of reality.

Where is it? Why has it not been discovered? Both are theoretical constructs specifically created to account for other theoretical constructs and nothing more.

Pragmatism as a philosophy deals with what is real and what works- and that is experience. Science is regarded as "true" because we can do things with it. It works. All of our modern conveniences are based on the fact that science works

But science cannot tell us what is important to us. Only we can determine that. Science says nothing about ethics or morals, what is right or wrong or why. We need another source for that - another basis for determining values, and Pragmatism can do that as well.

That which we regard as good is simply what works to give us all the kind of lives that all mankind want- to live in peace and love their families and get along and have a long happy life. That is what everyone everywhere wants, and that is where our sense of valuation comes from. It is what works best for mankind.

And I happen to think that the story of the "Plan of Happiness" clearly works in my life better than anything I have yet found as an explanation for all of it. And I have had subjective spiritual experiences which I attribute to God working in my life which confirms that whatever it is that I call "God" wants me here, doing and believing in the Plan of Happiness. There is nothing which works better for me.

I can't speak for all mankind, but I suspect many many many others would agree if they understood it as I do.

I hope that answers your question, because you are definitely pestering me.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Good.

Neither do I.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[mfbukowski]

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 ).

You don't.

The whole point is that all shared experience is based in language. So you are on the right path but just didn't carry it far enough. But you are totally right that common shared experience is expressed in language and it is the ONLY way it can be

That is why language is really ALL we have, and what we say MUST be said clearly so we understand each other.

Hence the obsession with knowing the exact precise definitions of all these abstract words which are so vague. If we get the definitions wrong we can end up thinking that "freedom" actually means "bondage" because some dictator described his system as the way to "true freedom".

Language is all we have when it comes to communication. It's a tad hard otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Nope. Honestly I am not psychotic. Just a little looney occasionally.