I think that is precisely what analytic philosophy attempts to do: analyze and bring to light the logic of thought. — Janus
But the floor changes between here, where it is wood board, and the bathroom, where it is tile. — Banno
as a practical matter I see the tree. — tim wood
Can you see a way reason gets there faster with more? I cannot. — tim wood
just because we are not conscious of reason in action doesn’t mean it isn’t; reason doesn’t turn on and off depending on experience. — Mww
As a philosophical conception, Empiricism means a theory according to which there is no distinction of nature, but only of degree, between the senses and the intellect. As a result, human knowledge is simply sense-knowledge (or animal knowledge) more evolved and elaborated than in other mammals. And not only is human knowledge entirely encompassed in, and limited to, sense-experience...but to produce its achievements in the sphere of sense-experience human knowledge uses no other specific forces and means than the forces and means which are at play in sense-knowledge.
Now if it is true that reason differs specifically from senses, the paradox with which we are confronted is that Empiricism, in actual fact, uses reason while denying the power of reason, on the basis of a theory that reduces reason's knowledge and life, which are characteristic of man, to sense knowledge and life, which are characteristic of animals.
Hence, first, an inevitable confusion and inconsistency between what an Empiricist does -- s/he thinks as a [hu]man, s/he uses reason, a power superior in nature to senses -- and what s/he says -- s/he denies this very specificity of reason.
And second, an inevitable confusion and inconsistency even in what s/he says: for what the Empiricist speaks of and describes as sense-knowledge is not exactly sense-knowledge, but sense-knowledge plus unconsciously introduced intellective ingredients, - sense-knowledge in which room has been made for reason without recognizing it. A confusion which comes about all the more easily as, on the one hand, the senses are, in actual fact, more or less permeated with reason in man, and, on the other, the merely sensory psychology of animals, especially of the higher vertebrates, goes very far in its own realm and imitates intellectual knowledge to a considerable extent. — Jacques Maritain, The Cultural Impact of Empiricism
Obviously we all concur on what a number is, and mathematics is lawful; in other words, we can't just make up our own laws of numbers. But numbers don't exist in the same sense that objects of perception do; there is no object called 'seven'. You might point at the numeral, 7, but that is a symbol. What we concur on is a number of objects, but the number cannot be said to exist independent of its apprehension, at least, not in the same way objects apparently do. In what realm or sphere do numbers exist? 'Where' are numbers? Surely in the intellectual realm, of which perception is an irreducible part. So numbers are not 'objective' in the same way that 'things' are; but they are nevertheless real.
I started wondering, this is perhaps related to the Platonic distinction between 'intelligible objects' and 'objects of perception'. Objects of perception - ordinary things - only exist, in the Platonic view, because they conform to, and are instances of, ideas. Particulars are simply ephemeral instances of the eternal forms, but in themselves, they have no actual being. Their actual being is conferred by the fact that they conform to ideas. So 'existence' in this sense, and I think this is the sense it was intended by the Platonic and neo-Platonic schools, is illusory. Earthly objects of perception exist, but only in a transitory and imperfect way. They are 'mortal' - perishable, never perfect, and always transient. Whereas the archetypal forms subsist in the One and are apprehended by Nous: while they do not exist, they provide the basis for all existing things by creating the pattern, the ratio, whereby things are formed (which is made explicit in Plotinus). They are real, above and beyond the existence of wordly things; but they don't actually exist. They don't need to exist; things do the hard work of existence.
So the ordinary worldly person is caught up in 'his or her particular things', and is thus ensnared in illusory and ephemeral concerns. Whereas the Philosopher, by realising the transitory nature of ordinary objects of perception, learns to contemplate within him or herself, the eternal Law whereby things become manifest according to their ratio, and by being Disinterested, in the original sense of that word.
I suppose you could call them noumenal objects (I didn't think of this at the time and it's certainly not something Kant would have said. — Wayfarer
We can't see the world as it really is, because there is no way it 'really is'. — Wayfarer
[Kant] would have called [numbers] transcendental objects. — Mww
Because of the kind of intelligence we are as humans, we think there must be a way the world really is. — Mww
Agreed, but I submit the formal predicate logic they use to deconstruct thought, is not the Aristotelian syllogistic propositional logic used to construct it. Apples and oranges? — Mww
I believe animals are capable of basic rational thought to varying degrees. I've seen it quite clearly in dogs. — Janus
As soon as you assert something is the case, you're doing something that no animal does. — Wayfarer
I, for example, have seen dogs and cats do amazing things - which without too much trouble match up with human thinking. — tim wood
As to animalistic behavior in humans; there is tons of it and also tons of behavior no self-respecting animals would indulge in. — Janus
As soon as you assert something is the case, you're doing something that no animal does. But you don't notice that you're doing it, so you can't see why the dog is any different. — Wayfarer
If a culture thinks that we're no different to animals, then it follows. — Wayfarer
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.