The profound underlying difficulty is, however, that we're not actually outside of, or separate to, reality, as such - an awareness which is found throughout phenomenology and existentialism... — Wayfarer

:up:

We aren't outside of it, and it isn't in us. Co-given, entangled.

Scientists seek truth, while philosophers argue the definition of truth. Interesting interplay. — jgill

:up:

I'd say that philosophers want the truth about truth. But in that pursuit they have to question constantly whether they do or even can know what they are supposed to mean.

Perhaps the definition (of 'truth' or 'logic') is discovered through conversation research, sort of like patterns in the natural numbers. There's a constraint on our creativity, though it's hard or impossible to specify ahead of time, for that too is part of the conversational research.

In some ways, proper science is an escape from the treacherous mud of the most radical thinking (which turns like a snake to bite itself constantly.). This doesn't mean that it's easier, of course. It's much easier to be bad philosopher than a good scientist. And even good philosophers don't obviously help much with passing out of gadgets.

We aren't outside of it, and it isn't in us. Co-given, entangled. — plaque flag

Right. And would you agree that this insight is more typical of phenomenology and existentialism than Anglo philosophy?

I'm open to being convinced there's another approach available, but I'll tell you what's not going to work for me, that it just comes down to choosing sides. — Srap Tasmaner

Fair enough. But aside from a few places in the thread about the argument from reason - particularly in the discussion about the distinction between physical causation and logical necessity - a lot of what you write in response to my posts is not to me, but about me, presumably as a demonstration to others of what you regard as my bad form. This thread has sure seemed like that. I acknowledge that my general stance is contrarian with regards to philosophy as it is nowadays understood and taught, and I also readily acknowledge the shortcomings of my education and training with respect to many subjects that are discussed here. But I will continue to try and make the anti-materialist case.

In some ways, proper science is an escape from the treacherous mud of the most radical thinking (which turns like a snake to bite itself constantly.) — plaque flag

You're no doubt aware that the Hegelian (and generally German) approach to science is radically different from modern scientific method - the Germans have that nice word, 'Geisteswissenschaften', often translated as 'sciences of the spirit', for which English doesn't have an equivalent. Of course, Hegel's work collapses under the weight of its own verbiage and I don't want to involve discussion of him, other than to say that, unlike modern scientific method, his notion of science includes consideration of the nature of the subject, in a way that, up until recently, modern scientific method has not. It is beginning to change with systems theory, embodied cognition, phenomenology, and so on, but that implicit exclusion of the subject is still influential in science and culture.

And would you agree that this insight is more typical of phenomenology and existentialism than Anglo philosophy? — Wayfarer

I'm tempted to say yes, thinking of early AP, but there are people like Sellars and Brandom and Braver, to name just a few.

You're no doubt aware that the Hegelian (and generally German) approach to science is radically different from modern scientific method — Wayfarer

Indeed. I've tended to favor the Germans because they try to account for existence as a whole. Maybe there's something stormy and grandiose in some of it, but to me that's more good than bad. This stuff involves us. We risk ourselves (in our current formulation) when we open certain books --- though perhaps this risk diminishes with exposure.

there are people like Sellars and Brandom and Braver, to name just a few. — plaque flag

Fair enough, although I think it's fair to say that the bulk of their work is directed principally or solely to their academic peer group. I don't know if much of it will filter through to popular culture.

.

It is beginning to change with systems theory, embodied cognition, phenomenology, and so on, but that implicit exclusion of the subject is still influential in science and culture. — Wayfarer

I think we both already touched on the main reason why. Even though I think philosophy is science in some high grand sense, it can't be denied that a methodical stupidity has functioned brilliantly. As @apokrisis put it (quoting Newton), hypothesis non fingo, motherfuckers!

I studied real analysis for years ( it has a severe beauty, and writing proofs is a craft). But how many engineers or random citizens trust their calculus because of real analysis proofs ? I think we just trust the familiar airplanes in the air and the bridges that have stood for decades and the pills that reliably make us feel good. O the brutal rhetoric of the skyscraper and the opiate! Math is respected because it's connected to 'magic' technology and not the other way around. We elite exceptions, unsullied by indoor plumbing, by are excluded of course. [In other words, I confess my monkey addiction (so far) to all the usual machines. I love my M1 chip. ]

This sense of the division of self-and-other, the Galilean division of primary and secondary attributes, the Cartesian division of mind and matter - these are huge influences in today's culture and commentary on them is voluminous. It is not bad history, it's simply history. — Wayfarer

The history of the dialectic that pragmatism resolved – even if it is a Cartesian divide baked into modern culture for its own pragmatically comprehensible and historical reasons.

So the epistemic fix is in. That is the facts of philosophical history. The Cartesian divide continues in popular thought. That is the facts of the more general history of ideas.

You are ignoring the one and perpetuating the other.

But that is no surprise. There has got to be a reason why science is taught in the science block and philosophy is taught over in the humanities block, right. The culture wars are baked deep into even our institutions of free inquiry. They other the impressionable from the get-go.

I myself was disconcerted to find that my university treated psychology as either a BSc subject or BA subject. But I had to do physics and chemistry to qualify for a BSc. Yet the fine print also let me go mix with the unwashed and add on some philosophy as some light relief.

As to my route after that, I've never not been working in a mixed environment where science and philosophy are complementary rather than antagonistic. I just don't recognise this culture wars divide at the coalface of ideas.

No great scientific mind says "shut up and calculate" – except in the Newtonian spirit of vaulting some metaphysical chasm to reach the next paradigm shift. The critical question from the scientist's point of view is the philosophical one of "what should we next pick as our measure?".

The supposed divide between science and philosophy is over-blown. Even PoMo got its impetus from anthropology and linguistics.

Fair enough, although I think it's fair to say that the bulk of their work is directed principally or solely to their academic peer group. I don't know if much of it will filter through to popular culture. — Wayfarer

Pop culture is IMO way too visceral-mythic for any 'serious' intellectualizing. They don't care about Bertrand Russel's 'famous' beef with Hegel, never heard of Popper unless you put corn in it.

I've never not been working in a mixed environment where science and philosophy are complementary rather than antagonistic. I just don't recognise this culture wars divide at the coalface of ideas. — apokrisis

Fair enough, but I have observed in your case that your approach to philosophy has been that it provides alternatives to Cartesian dualism for the purpose of modelling and understanding organic life, rather than for its own sake. I mean, your over-arching model of the primacy of the second law of thermodynamics basically reduces life to an efficiency measure, don't it? :wink:

Pop culture is IMO way too visceral-mythic for any 'serious' intellectualizing. — plaque flag

I learned in Buddhist studies about 'picture men' in traditional India, who used to travel from village to village with scrolls illustrating scenes from the Indian epics - the Mahābhārata and it's various sub- narratives. They would put up a stand under a tree and put the scrolls up on them, entertaining the populace who would all gather around to hear their telling of the great mythic stories. I suppose early Greek drama was another example. Heck, even today the cinemas are full of 'super-hero' stories which project archetypal themes (per Joseph Campbell) using unbelievably realistic CGI. It's all culture. It all filters through (although unfortunately a lot of today's is junk.)

Indeed. I've tended to favor the Germans because they try to account for existence as a whole. — plaque flag

And the Russians. The Brazilians. Er ... anyone not Anglo? :chin:

The cosy "history of ideas" view on this would be that the Brits/Dutch were unified populations, secure in their community and seeking to express their individuality, while the Germans were having to forge a nation from its scattered people. French rationalism argued for a politics of state centralisation, hence Hegel's excitement about Napoleon as "the world spirit on horseback". The Brits, as a nation of shopkeepers, were more into the politics of decentralising liberalism.

Another example of how philosophy, like science, rather reflects its cultural context in terms of what is fashionable and talked about.

Boomer philosophers went through the hippie years. Eastern thought became high fashion in the "counter-culture" and still lingers here and there.

There is always a narrative to be told. And the telling is what reveals its own inconsistencies and contradictions. Even what I just said here should raise a storm of "buts".

And funny how philosophy came into focus as this kind of dialectical conversation. Then science fetishised it as epistemic method. It is almost like our brains operate on some kind of Bayesian reasoning algorithm, hazarding guesses to discover their consequences.

a lot of what you write in response to my posts is not to me, but about me — Wayfarer

Well in this thread, yeah, and I feel bad about that.

I acknowledge that my general stance is contrarian with regards to philosophy as it is nowadays understood and taught — Wayfarer

Which is fine by me. It's just hard to engage with you because every argument you present quickly morphs into all of your arguments. We start out changing an oil filter and end up taking apart the whole car.

Okay, occupational hazard, Issues connect to one another, arguments depend on one another, there are assumptions to suss out, all that. And there's a place for synthesis as well as analysis. I wouldn't lay down some rule that we only deal with one thing at a time and everything else is off-limits. Philosophy just doesn't work that way, and shouldn't. But we have to be mindful of the cats we're herding and take the opportunity to control the complexity when we can do so without doing violence to the discussion. The best discussions move up and down gradients of abstraction and connectedness, taking now the wider view, now the narrower, bringing in new issues at one moment and keeping things out at another.

It's just hard to engage with you because every argument you present quickly morphs into all of your arguments. We start out changing an oil filter and end up taking apart the whole car. — Srap Tasmaner

Fair point, I'll take that on board.

That's exceptionally gracious of you.

Fair enough, but I have observed in your case that your approach to philosophy has been that it provides alternatives to Cartesian for the purpose of modelling and understanding organic life, rather than for its own sake. I mean, your over-arching model of the primacy of the second law of thermodynamics basically reduces life to an efficiency measure, don't it? — Wayfarer

That's your narrative and you are going to stick to it.

But no. I take the natural philosophy and systems science route by pragmatic choice, having discounted the less pragmatic alternatives

A pragmatic epistemology does of course do the natural thing of seeing the world in terms of a pragmatic ontology. But hey. What do you know? It works better than the other options.

Rather than putting us outside the world in frustrated realist/idealist fashion, it puts us into the world as we are trying to make it for ourselves. We can find the world that indeed contains "us" as its complementary "other".

It is the view from the organism. It is the model of reality as a metabolism. It places us at neither a first person, nor third person, POV, but instead right in the thick of the meaning-making that is our semiotic Umwelt. It puts our hands on the controls in way which is focused on the process that is constructing "us" along with our "desired kind of world".

So the Cosmos does have its own "pansemiotic" metabolism – the one that thermodynamics (upgraded from second law equilibrium narratives to the new science of dissipative structure theory) describes.

But life and mind stack up their further levels of actual semiotic metabolism on top of that – as negentropic exploitation of cosmic entropy gradients.

Science and philosophy are products of the fourth level of semiotic code. Their metabolic reality is the rational structure that began with the Greek mathematical/logical turn and found itself eventually hitched to the rocket ship ride of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. That is the dissipation-accelerating metabolism they serve.

This becomes easier to see, in a history of ideas fashion, when you start off down in the basement of biology where the algorithmic trick of semiotic regulation/the modelling relation/the epistemic cut first got going.

There is an organic thread from the start of life to where we are in history today.

So pragmatism is bigger than philosophy and bigger than science. It accounts for these dialectical practices in terms of an actual evolutionary history. They exist in their annoyingly culture-bound fashion as that "self" is a part of the "world" that is being fashioned as the new planetary metabolism – the arrival of the (likely short-lived) Anthropocene, as we are calling it.

The cosy "history of ideas" view on this would be that the Brits/Dutch were unified populations, secure in their community and seeking to express their individuality — apokrisis

I like this approach. The anti-Hegel movement can be read as an expression of egoism (an atomistic ideology of traditional liberalism) against the awareness of the sociality and temporality of reason. The little king of the castle is a ghost made of freewill behind a wall of screens. Even if this is silly, it goes with what really mattered -- the (relative) personal freedom and far more serious interest in technology, the thing itself (giving not only wealth but military power.)

I like the sound of those scrolls. An entire culture sharing an epic like that is nice. They had a language of references in common. That's maybe becoming more difficult as the memory of our world gets larger, and we have, seriously, at least a million channels to choose from. Every once in a while I hear about so-and-so who is apparently famous among the youth, but I've never heard of them. Probably the present has always drowned out much of the past. Is it worse in these days of live projection across a billion screens ? I love my old books for the leverage they give me against my age.

Speaking of scrolls, I suppose we live in the supreme picture age. At their best, modern movies are supreme delivery systems for stories that are already great. But there's (as you say) lots of trash. What kind of pop culture did the Athens of Socrates have ? Horseracing ? Pornography ? Celebrity gossip ? I've read about the Rome of Nero and it's sounds a bit like us, though our Colosseum brutality is simulated. I watched Extractor 2 recently, and the choreography of the violence was amazing and absurd. The star beats down about 40 (?) enemies in a row in an insane prison fight scene. No gladiator could ever live up to Hollywood's hyperreal forgeries. Coming soon: bespoke adaptive synthetic 'wives' who really do know what you want before you do.

I agree with all of that, but would like an approach that doesn't require switching hats. Maybe that's a mistake, and being self-consciously multidisciplinary is the best way to get what I want. — Srap Tasmaner

I see the thread has moved on, and you've received quite a bit of heat for even broaching the subject, so I understand if you just want to leave it, but I'm interested in what you mean by switching hats. I don't see the distinctions so sharply as that. If language, discourse (and communication in general - non-linguistic included) are just tools, then what one is doing with them is just the process of living (which is the process of self-maintenance, entropy fighting, surprise-reduction - pick your metaphor). If you see a blacksmith using a hammer, it's unsurprising to find he's peening a rivet, not driving a nail.

In other words, we take our best guesses as to the goals of the people we're interacting with into account when we model their behaviour all the time, language is no different. I don't see it as a different hat to treat some linguistic expressions as social group badges, whilst others are almost one-to-one mappings to some worldly object, it's all part of the same enterprise - we reduce our surprise by trying to get others to agree with us about strategy, or by more closely aligning ourselves with them so we're not all pulling in different directions and 'surprising' each other with unpredictable responses..

Trying to figure out the way things really are, what is the case (as Van Inwagen delightfully put it - "even if your claim is that nothing is really the case, then it is the case that nothing is really the case"), as a social enterprise is just that process of alignment. That could be science trying to align our varied observations, or philosophy trying to align all the other stuff we think about what is the case.


Another way of putting this is from Quine. Since the evidence over-determines the theory (and vice versa) we have two tasks in choosing which model to follow - one is a rational task (if a theory is actually overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, then we ought discard it), the other cannot really have any rational reasoning applied to it (which, of the many remaining theories, do we prefer?). I tend to exhaust task one first, then maybe feel a little uncomfortable about task two since I'd prefer a straight answer derived from a clear logical process, but there isn't one. Others tackle task two first, then (if we're lucky) might engage in something more pro-social in attacking task one checking if it's overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary.

The problem is that at each stage there's this sense of wanting to align the view with that of others because we're uncomfortable with the surprise that too many unpredictable theories generates. Aligning task one has a relatively clear method (or at least boundaries of method). Aligning task two doesn't and includes everything from the light threat of social ostracisation to inquisition-style religious pogroms. Progress as a social group obviously requires us to avoid moves toward the latter.

What I object to in many of the approaches to discourse here is what I see as unhelpful moves usually in this second task (choosing theories).

One such is the move you started this thread with - the implication that your choice is the result of some weakness, easily-lead gullibility to the latest fashion, whereas my choice is the result of a deep understanding of some golden-era intellectual canon.

The other (which has nothing to do with this thread, but since I'm on the subject...) is pretending task two is task one. Pretending there's some logical, rational way to choose between two competing theories even when neither is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary. It's this latter I've had most trouble with recently.

You don't make any point by trivialising the argument. The issues at stake are considerably more subtle, and more significant — Wayfarer

(... then proceeds to reduce the whole of the move to naturalism to a single 'erroneous' assumption)

Come on! If you want respect for the subtlety and complexity of your approach, then perhaps show a little for those who see things differently to you and stop trivialising their reasoning by dismissing it all as 'fear of religion', or 'lack of awareness'. It's insulting. People who've chosen to follow a more naturalistic (or even materialistic) path are as mixed a bunch as those who've chosen a more religious one. They're not some homogeneous mass of people who've all made the same basic mistake, or lack the same basic insight. If I made the same lumpen analysis of all religious people, you'd be on it like a shot, so perhaps a little mutual respect might help.

It's just hard to engage with you because every argument you present quickly morphs into all of your arguments. We start out changing an oil filter and end up taking apart the whole car.
— Srap Tasmaner

Fair point, I'll take that on board. — Wayfarer

I find philosophy is always like that. As soon as anyone says anything they are open to all the big questions - how do you know? what do you mean? why should we care? etc? But a small point in favour of history; It is interesting to read the thread from the beginning and compare where it started, with where it has arrived. One might even claim that everything that is known is history, in the sense that it is known of the past, just as phenomena are of the present. Certainly the above quoted exchange would be hard to understand without the context of the thread.

It's insulting. — Isaac

I'm of the view that you're exceptionally quick to take umbrage. That's why I rarely respond. I'm aware that my kind of approach rubs plenty of people up the wrong way. By my response to Srap, what I'm saying is, I'll be more mindful of which threads, and which topics, to contribute to in future. I really don't enjoy antagonistic exchanges.

the above quoted exchange would be hard to understand without the context of the thread. — unenlightened

Would it?

If I posted, out of the blue, the exchange...

A: it's hard to dance with you because you're never focussed on the moment but always on improving your technical precision
b: Fair point, I'll take that on board

... would anyone have any trouble understanding what's going on?

The point is not that we need no context, it's that we already have the context. We've all lived, we've all read books, we all have our version of history...

The problem with historicism is not the addition of context, it's the removal of it - the attempt to focus attention on just one single aspect of the million threads of history and say this here, this one thread is the one which explains how we got here, or tells you what you need to know about X. It constrains and oversimplifies the complex contextual understanding we all already have by attempting to tie everything to (or at best, spotlight) this single thread.

The point, which started this thread, was the attempt, not to add context to an understanding of Peircean pragmatism, but to remove it, by shifting focus to this one thread from history (the move to analytical approaches post-Russell), rather than leave it as the complex tapestry of threads it already was in our present understanding.

I really don't enjoy antagonistic exchanges. — Wayfarer

Then I can only say that you need to work on your theory of mind.

Do you seriously think telling an entire swathe of serious-minded people that their carefully thought out ideas are just the result of a 'fear of religion', or that they just 'haven't understood the issues', isn't very antagonistic?

If you don't like antagonistic exchanges, the solution is to stop antagonising people by insulting their intelligence. We all read, we all think*. You don't have the monopoly on either.


* I should perhaps make it clear here that I'm talking about peers, not all of humanity, just in case this is interpreted as an argument in favour of excessive relativism.

Do you seriously think telling an entire swathe of serious-minded people... — Isaac

I generally address my posts to the individual(s) with whom I am conversing (although it's may be true that swathes of people will read them and take exception. As I said, I fully acknowledge my view of philosophy is contrarian, although in future I will try and avoid intruding on dialogues where my contribution isn't likely to be welcomed.)

Exactly.

Your first post after mine...

I don't see any big mystery. — T Clark


Well, philosophers do say that 'wisdom begins in wonder'. — Wayfarer

Insulting @T Clark by suggesting his seeing no mystery is the result of a lack of wisdom, rather than the carefully considered conclusion I'm sure it actually is.

Responding to the person doesn't render insulting their intelligence any less antagonistic.

Would it? — Isaac

Yes.

What do mean,"it's hard to dance with you" ? I don't dance, and if I did, I would dance alone.

Oh, wait! In the context of the thread history, you are giving an example of something you think would be meaningful without the historical context. In context your meaning is clear, but out of context It would be bizarre.

In the context of the thread history, you are giving an example of something you think would be meaningful without the historical context. In context your meaning is clear, but out of context It would be bizarre. — unenlightened

Which part of "we already have the context" did you not understand?

Which part of "the attempt to focus attention on just one single aspect of the million threads of history"?

I mean, did you actually read my post at all? By all means disagree, but try to disagree at least with something I've actually said.

By all means disagree — Isaac

Thank you.

By all means disagree — Isaac


Thank you. — unenlightened

Still just responding to half of what I wrote I see. Do my paragraphs bore you that much you struggle to get to the end?

Respect, dude.

Insulting T Clark by suggesting his seeing no mystery is the result of a lack of wisdom, rather than the carefully considered conclusion I'm sure it actually is. — Isaac

Thanks for looking out for me. I appreciate it.