The a priori/a posterior distinction has its merits in explaining some things... — Merkwurdichliebe
I don't believe any philosophical framework aptly takes into account any of those metaphysical dichotomies which "consist of both, and are thus... neither". — Merkwurdichliebe
The only framework that comes close, is the dialectical one, which includes movement/transition into its logic, allowing it to essentially negate the law of contradiction. — Merkwurdichliebe
No, you are right...
Cameras freeze three dimensional fields of color onto two dimensional a surface.
...so, yes, you are wrong. — Merkwurdichliebe
It's an aside, but I'm dying to know...
Can you demonstrate such a negation of the law of contradiction? — creativesoul
However, I don't see how we can avoid beginning at an unverifiable metaphysical premise. The necessary abstraction of concepts inevitably places us on metaphysical ground. I don't know how it is possible to nullify this problem (in totality) through any methodology.
As I see it, we are left with two choices: to keep trying to metholologically locate a non-metaphysical premise from which we can proceed with absolute certaity; or to simply accept a metaphysical premise as self-evident, and proceed methodologically to investigate its consequence. The latter is obviously naive; but the former requires blind faith in a methodology that will only have proved itself, once it has indisputably proven itself. The only other way to validate a methodology is to test it by another method. What independent method could we use to determine the effectiveness of our methodology here (not that we actually have one)? It would seem to require another method to determine that methodology . . . ad infinitum. — Merkwurdichliebe
It is of utmost importance for it is the measure of all things further considered when one is using a framework resting it's laurels upon that dichotomy. — creativesoul
How can we avert the Notion of: man as the measure of all things? — Merkwurdichliebe
I'll not get into the negation. Thanks for taking the time to set it out. — creativesoul
If all minds are existentially dependent upon thought/belief, then we better make sure that we have thought/belief right.
So... it's the method of approach that matters. What steps do we take, which things ought we consider, what can we know and how can we know it when it comes to thought and belief itself? Are thought and belief things? What sorts of things could they be? Do they exist? Are they real? In what way do they exist. How can we establish some sound foundation? — creativesoul
All explanations of thought/belief are themselves existentially dependent upon pre-existing thought/belief. That is to say that all explanations of thought/belief are metacognitive endeavors(they require thinking about thought/belief). Thought/belief cannot be pointed at. It does not have a spatiotemporal location. So, unlike thinking about physically perceptible things, thinking about thought/belief requires quite a bit more than just brains/nervous systems replete with physiological sensory perception and the innate ability to experience the effects/affects of basic emotion(contentment/discontentment/fear).
— creativesoul
Nice point, possibly something to build upon. I'll try not to get too excited and jump the gun.
Emotional affection, at the physiological level, corresponds directly to the behavioral disposition of desire/aversion. But, at this point, I can not say whether that the valuation of behavioral disposition marks a transition into the ethical, or, rather, stands as merely an aesthetic assessment of what seems most conducive to attaining the desirable.
Consider, that early in life, the infant begins to evaluate the desirable somewhere in the interplay of her nerve stimuli, and her emotional responses. As primitive as it is, this does constitute a valuation, despite the absence of any language skills. The primitive level in which value is imposed on emotional affection does not constitute a proper ethical judgement - it is more like an observation of what seems pleasing to me, rather than a moral choice about what I ought to do.
Then we can think about the toddler who has begun to acquire language. At this point, he is being linguistically conditioned (with some corporal conditioning) so that he can be assimilated into the culture to which he belongs. It is somewhere in this process that the evaluation of his primitive valuations commences; most importantly any evaluations of his primitive valuations are primarily acquired externally from culture, and not internally as a result of primitive valuation.
I hope this takes us one step closer to adequately understanding the source of morals. I could be mistaken, it's a terrible tragedy. — Merkwurdichliebe
We are on same page, same sentence. — Merkwurdichliebe
If only thinking were not so indefinitely fluid - infinite, as it were. Perhaps, then, we could approach the topic of thinking about thought/belief in a direct manner. But, as it is, we cannot directly communicate actual thinking, and thusly, we can do nothing but approach it indirectly - as thought/belief about thought/belief. — Merkwurdichliebe
The last statement seems to be claiming or at least has the consequence of claiming that all evaluations of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture, and not as a result of the primitive thought/belief. — creativesoul
The last statement seems to be claiming or at least has the consequence of claiming that all evaluations of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture, and not as a result of the primitive thought/belief. — creativesoul
...all evaluations of primitive thought/belief are primarily acquired from culture, and not as a result of the primitive thought/belief.
Culture is existentially dependent upon individual thought/belief. — creativesoul
We can agree that culture consists of many individuals' thought/belief, can't we? — creativesoul
Anyway, let's circle back to the moral thought/belief aspect. Particularly, I think that the role of language in moral thought/belief could be set out further. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.