Jump to content
Avant Labs
Sign in to follow this  
Dante

When debating philosophy/politics/economics.

Recommended Posts

I'll claim no education when it comes to philosophy. I am full of opinions and ideas though, some of which I might even share with you guys. Right now though I feel about as smart as a bag of hammers. Reading you gents is enlightening but, by golly, you make me bleed from the ears. I think my brain just imploded.

 

Too much wit and intellect, and from body builders no less. blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ever, anyone, be afraid to offer input or to here ask questions. If you have an opinion, just mention why you believe it, and from there we can debate it (strengthening your understaning, or perhaps arriving at a different conclusion).

 

If I debate one person, I may use certain analogies, arguing at a different level, however, if one truly knows what they're talking about, they can reduce this to a more basic level (and if there's something you don't understand, it could be my fault, so don't fear questioning).

 

Love debates when there are more people participating. Want more members to be involved in such discussions, as I view them important. People should come away from this board with far more than just some understanding of supplement science. We should be seeking to progess, on the whole ("spiritual", if you will).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The salient but somewhat tacit crux of much of what is being discussed here is the purpose behind the eidolon...the apodictic power behind ideas such as God, Objectivity, Truth, and the entire dizzying pantheon of arche-concepts lies in their contextual functioning, not their aetiology. How do they work? What do they do? Where are they doing it? We argue, like all those al'kitab, as if the written word has an inherent truth function. Plato took exception to this, but we are cabalists at heart, and believe in the conspiratorial and ceremonial power of symbols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The salient but somewhat tacit crux of much of what is being discussed here is the purpose behind the eidolon...the apodictic power behind ideas such as God, Objectivity, Truth, and the entire dizzying pantheon of arche-concepts lies in their contextual functioning, not their aetiology. How do they work? What do they do? Where are they doing it? We argue, like all those al'kitab, as if the written word has an inherent truth function. Plato took exception to this, but we are cabalists at heart, and believe in the conspiratorial and ceremonial power symbols.

 

 

This went way over my head I'm afraid.However interesting how you put God in there with Truth and Objectivity(maybe not since Nietzsche seemed to believe God is dependent on a belief in Truth).I'm sure Dante would in fact object (pun) to that.

 

Ras,are you saying only a mystic (=cabalist) would believe in Truth and Objectivity (i.e absolutes?)?

 

Anyone else care to decipher Ras' post?

 

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really exhausted, so I'm resorting to cryto-speak. Let ME translate:

 

Eidolon is the 'image':

 

"Every existing object has three things which are the necessary means by which knowledge of that object is acquired; and the knowledge itself is a fourth thing; and as a fifth one must postulate the object itself which is cognizable [7.342b] and true. First of these comes the name [onoma]; secondly the definition[logos]; thirdly the image[eidôlon]; fourthly the knowledge [epistêmê]."

 

Plato cautions us not to be fooled by the image or by the medium through which the image is transmitted. I'm not interested in the truth content of the image...for me what an image/concept is can be understood through what it does...its affect and effects. I haven't read Cioran in years...thanks for reminding me of him, ***!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this will sound rediculous, but I tried to write down my logic on absolutes in a sort of "stream-of-consciousness" (not the effortless kind)

 

My main premise: Opposites cannot coexist at the same time and in the same context (non-contradiction). This fits with light being particle/light in different contexts (I think), and quantum particles occupying more than one distinct cartesian coordinate location at any one time (superposition).

 

"There are no absolutes" is an absolute statement, therefore absolutes exist (ie, "there are not absolutes; here's one"). Otherwise, it would be possible for absolutes to exist and not exist. This would only be possible is existence was not absolute. But, that would be a contradiction, and we can't perceive reality if there are contradictions in it. Space-time reality must be absolute for us to be able to perceive it, otherwise one could alter their reality and subject it to it's own laws. I'm further presuming that by altering one's reality, one could alter other realities by disturbing the time-space continuum (movie "The One," or something of the kind). Therefore, absolutes exist. Moreover, existence and reality are absolute. However, this implies that our perception of an absolute (reality) is relative, further implying that it is possible to perceive an absolute (ie, my arguments on science stand, for now at least).

 

So this is how I changed my mind on the subject. So, finally, I understand what Dante means (it can be hard to decode sometimes; and it's exponentially harded if you disagree with him, because you perceive arguments in a different manner and give them less legitimacy by default). I'm still trying to figure out what Ras is saying wink.gif Thank you both for the PMs, btw, when I asked for help, several months ago. Following others' twisted logic is always a plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm further presuming that by altering one's reality, one could alter other realities by disturbing the time-space continuum (movie "The One," or something of the kind). Moreover, existence and reality are absolute. However, this implies that our perception of an absolute (reality) is relative, further implying that it is possible to perceive an absolute (ie, my arguments on science stand, for now at least).

This whole part confuses me. I haven't seen The One, so the illustration does not illustrate a vague statement for me. So, maybe that is why I am lost as to the rest of this part. But reality is reality (law of identity - A is A), there is no such thing as "one's reality" and another's reality - that notion is still relativism. I guess that is what's confusing me; in one breath you say "one's reality" and another you say "reality [is] absolute".

 

Second, in the argument re: science, you seemed to be saying that it was not possible to perceive absolutes. Basically, I don't see how the existance of an absolute (ie reality) implies that our perception of it is relative.

 

Arrrgh! I must be confusing you, but I leave the above in hopes that it does make some kind of sense. What I am getting at is, I don't understand this statement:

 

However, this implies that our perception of an absolute (reality) is relative, further implying that it is possible to perceive an absolute (ie, my arguments on science stand, for now at least).

 

Our perception of reality is relative, but we can perceive an absolute? Is it something as simple as a typo on your part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, bear with me because I'm treading in unfamiliar waters. I think I meant that it is possible to have a perception of reality, and this is of course relative and a function of the psychosomatic and cognitive state, both conscious and subconscious (when this perception goes astray, we have "delusions," where one can see what others can't sense). Does that make sense? That's what I meant in the statement preceding the one that appears confusing.

 

Look back to the marijuana thread; my first question to Dante on absolutes was whether it is possible to perceive an absolute. I have the right idea, I think, but it's not coming out properly when pen hits paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any immanent perception of an absolute is from a subjective viewpoint, and is phenomenological in character. In involves a mediated instantiation of the absolute, an 'avatar' if you will. Transcendental apperception of the absolute, of the thing-in-itself, is noumenological, and non-relational. It doesn't 'apperceive' the absolute in relative terms, it simply understands it as is...this the unity of thought, the sublation of self and other. To understand the absolute, you have to be absolute. This at least is what Feuerbach was driving at, following Kant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We observe them through their actions, cause and effect. Again, using Economic systems, we can't just "look", at the world, and say "I *see* how Laissez Faire Capitalism is the superior system", just like staring at the world, and looking to find the "manness", in man. You'll find nothing.

 

You can, however, objectively observe the absolute, assuming you believe every entity to have an identifiable property, which acts in a certain manner, and can't otherwise act.

 

Some to state, in essence: If I can't see it, it isn't there, and whatever perception I come to, is just that, merely what I perceive. If it is there (an absolute), and it I can't see, then whatever conclusion I come to, is just again mere perception. We can't truly know anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the problem of using optical metaphors for Truth...perhaps a problem of vocabulary rather than metaphyics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gene

 

The French psychoanalyst Lacan suggested that psychotics have access to what he called 'the Real'...this Real is figured as an unorganized morass of floating and detached 'meanings' and signifiers. Think of it as entropy...information tends towards zero. He posited the category of the Real against that of the Symbolic (loosely understood as the state of language/social relations) and the Imaginary (loosely understood as a primal narcissistic/mirror state).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lacan...ah yes, and there is the issue of the Phallus. What do you think of his thoughts in general? I studied some aspects of his work quite recently in relation to depth psychology, Freud and Jung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like to use economic systems as an anology: if all economic systems are equal, then can progress within each be equally gained. If not, doesn't this show how one, being better than the other, is a truth.

 

What must be defined here, are things such as "progress" and its affiliation with "better". Do you mean progress for poor or progress for the rich, or simply progress for the economy as a whole? If, as I imagine you do, you insinuate progress as the function of the economy (though it is the word for a system) as a thing in itself the you must concede that progress within this system is NOT exclusively interdependant for everybody. "Economy" is a systematic understanding of a set of circumstances as is "progress". To someone who did not understand the words used in the same context you would have to explain and you truth would boil down to the equivilant of, "If (a),(z)and (q) are so that they are equal to the sum total ©, then it is a truth that (a) + (z) + (q)= ©"

 

\"There are no absolutes\" is an absolute statement, therefore absolutes exist (ie, \"there are not absolutes; here's one\").

 

The same analogy can be used for this statement, though I'll simplify; 4+4=8 only insofar as we define the context of each number. 4 being between 3 and 5, and the product of 2 + 2, and 8 being between between being 7 and 9 and the product of 4+4 etc. Thus, we may see that the original equation is really a description of 8. By contextualising it as such we may glean clearer description of it, but no transient "truth" has been elucidated. ie. 8, in the absense of other numbers (non-contextualised), is still meaningless. To further the example, we know our number system is infinite, thus to understand one may assume that to know 8 in the context of (or relation to) infinity would be to understand it in itself. But applying the upwards causation (see Popper) of infinity on the number system renders all numbers un comprehensible, as their distictions from one another are no longer relevent.

 

Can we assume an infinite reality? Yes, insofar as (Raz mentioned) their are infinate angles of perception (such as in mathematics: ie. 8 is half 16, 1/4 32 etc. etc.) and I guess anyone having studied quantum physics and the likelyhood of infinately branching quantum universes, will agree in a sceintific sense. But even then it hardly matters, as even a finite reality cannot be percieved, by reason, as singular (ie. in relation to nothing).

 

EDIT: Whoops, I crapped on a bit here, and I just realized I haven't said much more than Raz, and he put it far more elegantly. I wanted to expand on what concioussness means if there are no absolutes, but perhaps someone else will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would "8" refer to. Is is something we merely made up, something which lies between 7 and 9, which themselves, are meaningless, unless we know what we're referencing.

 

As for "progress for the rich versus progress for the poor", for one, don't assume progress as automatic (that is, if there are still poor people, that doesn't vitiate the system), but rather, if such a system, by law, grants such favours that ensconce the rich perpetually in their positions, then that's not progress.

 

I ask, wishing this question answered (as I refuse to debate out of contexts, easier for me to debate someone's perception):

 

What, to you, would justify the "proper" economic system. Is there such a thing. When "the technological age hasn't reach the third-world countries", don't first you wonder if certain systems such as theirs (philosophical/political/economic), precludes long-terms investing and planning.

 

So there is no "NOT", unless you wish everything in life guaranteed. So again, I ask, what would justify the "right" system.

 

Or do you just assume progress automatic for every person, every nation, if that ever we found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would \"8\" refer to. Is is something we merely made up, something which lies between 7 and 9, which themselves, are meaningless, unless we know what we're referencing.

 

Again, 8 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, or 4+4... we understand it in relation to percievable objects, but dissacociate this relation metaphysically which, indeed, makes it meaningless (as it is a function of a meaningless numbersystem). But 8 protein bars, for example, are not singular objects. How does one define a protein bar? can it be round? how much protein must it have? is it allowed to taste better than a snickers bar? etc. etc. So when saying "a protein bar is..." you must specify guidlines (contextualise it). Then to say "8 protein bars are...." you must further contextualize; eg. 8pb's = pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb. To say this equation is a "truth" is wrong, as you are merely fullfilling your own parameters.

 

Again, we may break down "objects" to a quantum level and the neccecity for their contexualization becomes very much apparent. In short, the platonic "form" cannot be understood without "the good" because "the good" limits an infinate regression of forms (and the form of multiplicity). What is special about human conciousness is that we may impose something "like the good" between our opinions and the infinate regression that our self-referential reasoning imposes.

 

I ask, wishing this question answered (as I refuse to debate out of contexts, easier for me to debate someone's perception):

 

What, to you, would justify the \"proper\" economic system. Is there such a thing. When \"the technological age hasn't reach the third-world countries\", don't first you wonder if certain systems such as theirs (philosophical/political/economic), precludes long-terms investing and planning.

 

A good point about economic systems but...

 

So there is no \"NOT\", unless you wish everything in life guaranteed. So again, I ask, what would justify the \"right\" system.

 

I cannot answer that due to my restricted knowledge of economics. Though I can only say that it should, in my opinion, be a balance between equality in oppertunity and fairness in reward for taking advantage of the former.

 

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with no objective truth, humanity may try to agree on what it values and progress toward that point. In a society where the survival instinct has been made redundant, the will must be projected toward a new goal. We are gods of our own creation, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if we agree on a point, how do we know if it's actually conducive to survival. We can surely all "agree" on a path, not knowing it to lead to our destruction. But, how can there be destruction if there's no objectivte truth. All is equal, and therefore beneficial, or rather, nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Delphinus,

 

I'm more than willing, step by step, to walk you through economics, if you state your beliefs, or at least your present thoughts (in bulletpoints or something). Basically why you'd believe each point valid, and from there I could with it run.

 

smile.gif

 

 

 

Again, 8 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, or 4+4... we understand it in relation to percievable objects, but dissacociate this relation metaphysically which, indeed, makes it meaningless (as it is a function of a meaningless numbersystem). But 8 protein bars, for example, are not singular objects. How does one define a protein bar? can it be round? how much protein must it have? is it allowed to taste better than a snickers bar? etc. etc. So when saying \"a protein bar is...\" you must specify guidlines (contextualise it). Then to say \"8 protein bars are....\" you must further contextualize; eg. 8pb's = pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb +pb. To say this equation is a \"truth\" is wrong, as you are merely fullfilling your own parameters.

 

We relate the fundamental concept of "protein bar", that which separates it from others objects, omitting the non-essentials (size, shape, tastes, so on).

 

When you're measuring an object, are the numbers random, and meaningless, or do they indeed refer to a specific property of the object.

 

But if it's meaningless, I guess we could duly measure the weight of a dog and the distance between New York and Paris with the same method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even with no objective truth, humanity may try to agree on what it values and progress toward that point.

 

I shudder to think what methods humanity would employ to convince me to come to an agreement on values with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should also be noted that failures of our language or society to properly/formerly classify things, does not invalidate the concepts.

 

To use the "protein bar", the fact that people say "protein bar", in reference to something with 40 grams and the nonsense with 10 grams, does not mean that you could not divide them into categories, based on real and distinct essentials.

 

The term chosen is rather arbitrary, but the concept it refers to is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same analogy can be used for this statement, though I'll simplify; 4+4=8 only insofar as we define the context of each number. 4 being between 3 and 5, and the product of 2 + 2, and 8 being between between being 7 and 9 and the product of 4+4 etc.

Saying 4 is between 3 and 5 is far too broad of a definition, as there are an infinite amount of numbers between 3 and 5. Same with 8 being between 7 and 9.

 

Also, the word "sum" should be used, not "product".

 

Your definition is meaningless, because it contains generalities and errors, but the numbers you are attempting to define are not. smile.gif

 

Nothing is meaningless if we define concepts/ideas/abstracts/etc. by their properties and, if necessary, prove them true using their properties (1 + 1 = 2, defining what "1", "plus", "equals", and "two" each mean).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\"There are no absolutes\" is an absolute statement, therefore absolutes exist (ie, \"there are not absolutes; here's one\").

 

I think this is what I was trying to say here earlier:

 

I think objectivists say that claiming that \"there are no absolutes\" is an irrational claim in itself since that statement alludes to a fact i.e fact=there are no absolutes.Can you state anything without believing in absolutes?

 

The 'Randites' talk of something called "fallacy of self-exclusion" when you try to deny the absoluteness of your own consiousness and existence.

 

I have a comment on perception:Take Mike Mentzer for example.He constantly talked of the aforementioned absolutes.A couple of years before his death Mentzer said he had come to a conclusion on the 'one right' way to excercise and his work was done.Basically it was:One set to failure-Recovery-Growth.Simple as that.Same for everyone.As much set in stone as 1=1.

Now,I don't know about you but I think Mentzer was terribly misguided on several levels.I think even fellow objectivists familiar with exercise science would agree.

The French psychoanalyst Lacan suggested that psychotics have access to what he called 'the Real'...this Real is figured as an unorganized morass of floating and detached 'meanings' and signifiers.

Mentzer was a self admitted psychotic.Maybe he was closer to the 'real' than the rest of us. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any immanent perception of an absolute is from a subjective viewpoint, and is phenomenological in character. In involves a mediated instantiation of the absolute, an 'avatar' if you will. Transcendental apperception of the absolute, of the thing-in-itself, is noumenological, and non-relational. It doesn't 'apperceive' the absolute in relative terms, it simply understands it as is...this the unity of thought, the sublation of self and other. To understand the absolute, you have to be absolute. This at least is what Feuerbach was driving at, following Kant.

 

 

I hope I'm not bugging you Ras but I have a couple of questions:

How would you achieve this trancendental apperception?Sounds a bit like eastern mysticism and buddhism with the 'sublation of the self'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if we agree on a point, how do we know if it's actually conducive to survival. We can surely all \"agree\" on a path, not knowing it to lead to our destruction. But, how can there be destruction if there's no objectivte truth. All is equal, and therefore beneficial, or rather, nothing.

 

I wasn't inferring that civilazation should unite in the form of some sort of socialist utopia. smile.gif To force people to direct their will towards one set of things is would be, well... since organised religion does this (to an extent) I won't go any further; I don't wish to reignite that debate smile.gif. I enjoy living in a world of conflicting values, infact the more conflict and the less oppression, the better, in my view.

 

Nietzsche asserts that ideals of justice become "selbstaufhebend" (self-overcoming) leading to the distruction of metaphysical values, ie. nihilism, and re-introduction of the "will to power" (which he terms the primary action, as oppose to Darwins survival instinct). He, indeed, views this as beneficial. I disagree with him. So, the "object" (in this case metaphysical) is the context in which the beholder views a circumstance. One may look at it from many vantage points only to find that it has no distinct shape at all, and is in itself... nothing.

 

But I do see the relevance of your example (and it's a good one!) in that it links the metaphysical to the physical. If the human will to survive is made redundant and we agree, say, to hold above all others the will to technological advancement, then we may very well bite ourselves in the collective anus and obliterate our own survival. The question is whether or not, in realizing that we our survival is threatened, the will to survive will be reinstated. If it is not then there should be no despair at our destruction smile.gif Again, I am not suggesting the will is restrained to one thing in particular.

 

We relate the fundamental concept of \"protein bar\", that which separates it from others objects, omitting the non-essentials (size, shape, tastes, so on).

 

When you're measuring an object, are the numbers random, and meaningless, or do they indeed refer to a specific property of the object.

 

But if it's meaningless, I guess we could duly measure the weight of a dog and the distance between New York and Paris with the same method.

 

I fail to grasp your point in this post though, admittedly, my use of "protein bar" was not the best analogy.

 

Should also be noted that failures of our language or society to properly/formerly classify things, does not invalidate the concepts.

 

To use the \"protein bar\", the fact that people say \"protein bar\", in reference to something with 40 grams and the nonsense with 10 grams, does not mean that you could not divide them into categories, based on real and distinct essentials.

 

The term chosen is rather arbitrary, but the concept it refers to is not.

 

Well, I'm going to ride Wittgensteins arse on this one (sorry Dante). He views language as a 'game' in that there is a nececcity for agreed rules if words are to hold meaning. Linguistic rules are created by us through interaction and are, intern, what create our identity (concept of self) and the identity of things we objectify (concepts of objects). To deny this would be to deny social hierarchy and human will, thus there would be a requirement for an external force to ensure that linguistic rules are perpetuated.

 

Thats a bastardization of his philosophy, and I know you guys are thinking "yeah, but what about the ACTUAL fucking bar!?". Well, metaphysically the bar only exists as a concept... that concept has been necceceraly adjusted to communicable understanding and cannot be know "initself". The physically existing bar depends on time and space etc. and I am not well enough educated in physics and maths to argue on these levels (though I'll try if I must smile.gif) . In the meantime I can argue the relevance of the physically existing as we conciously experience it only as sensation and conception.

 

Phew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying 4 is between 3 and 5 is far too broad of a definition, as there are an infinite amount of numbers between 3 and 5. Same with 8 being between 7 and 9.

 

This only proves my point; you cannot define 8 accurately at all, unless restrictions are put on infinity. In the context of infinity, 8 has loses its identity.

 

Also, the word \"sum\" should be used, not \"product\".

 

My bad smile.gif

 

.... but the numbers you are attempting to define are not (meaningless)*. smile.gif 

 

*edit

 

How so? Prove it.

 

Nothing is meaningless if we define concepts/ideas/abstracts/etc. by their properties and, if necessary, prove them true using their properties (1 + 1 = 2, defining what \"1\", \"plus\", \"equals\", and \"two\" each mean).

 

Again, meaning created through self-referential reasoning. You mould the concept to fit meaning.

 

properties (contextualisation) --> idea/concept etc. --> properties --> truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope I'm not bugging you Ras but I have a couple of questions:

How would you achieve this trancendental apperception?Sounds a bit like eastern mysticism and buddhism with the 'sublation of the self'.

 

Sure does. I disagree with phylosophers who hold these views... it sounds like a search for all consuming apathy, then again, considering the sad lives many philosophers live, maybe this is preferential to them. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This only proves my point; you cannot define 8 accurately at all, unless restrictions are put on infinity. In the context of infinity, 8 has loses its identity.

 

Infinite is pretty much meaningless in mathematics, because it reflects a concept, not an actual number. Other than saying a function approaches positive infinite (keeps getting bigger and bigger) or negative infinite (keeps getting smaller and smaller) it is really undefinable when you really think about it, as it does not settle on one single number. So, putting 8 in the context of infinite seems silly to begin with, because going to infinite is silly, as it serves no purpose (you will keep going forever). Keeping that in mind, 8 is practical and definable when the impractical and undefinable notion of infinite is kept out.

 

In other words, you're right. smile.gif However, because going to infinite is pretty silly, and there's really no point, 8 is definable and has meaning.

 

My bad smile.gif

 

wink.gif

 

How so? Prove it.

 

A proof in math?? They take forever. smile.gif But use my reasoning above: going to infinite is silly, and really has no purpose, so it shouldn't really be done. Keeping that in mind, numbers retain their meaning, under precise definitions.

 

Again, meaning created through self-referential reasoning. You mould the concept to fit meaning.

 

properties (contextualisation) --> idea/concept etc. --> properties --> truth.

 

Oh, I thought you were saying there are no absolutes (truths).

 

Speaking of contexts, I think I jumped into this conversation without knowing the full contexts of it. ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a min...even in the contexts of infinite, 8 still holds a value, still holds a place, so it is therefore definable and meaningful. It may be extremely hard to define in those contexts, but it's still there, holding its value.

 

I think... I'll have to think on this some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×