I beg to differ. There's a philosophical issue at stake here, which is not fuzzy or vague. The fact is, through the languages of mathematics, we convey facts that are true for all observers, and perhaps even true in possible worlds. What people don't agree on, is what this means. — Wayfarer
Nothing to do with the issue in my view. But, again, thanks a heap for your feedback and interest, deeply appreciated. — Wayfarer
Octopuses and cuttlefish can count.
— Olivier5
Or, respond to stimuli in accordance with what we categorise as numerical. — Wayfarer
Ask ‘em what a prime number is. :-) — Wayfarer
It has generally been assumed that the concept of the human body is unproblematic. But that is wrong.
Most scientists don't try and think too hard, in my experience. Glorified lab technicians. A lot of them have no clue why they do what they do. They just go along with the motion and get the paycheck. — Olivier5
formalist gesture in thinking
— Joshs
I don't understand what you mean here? — Tom Storm
Can it not be explained in a simple sentence? — Tom Storm
I always get that from corporate types( not that you’re necessarily a corporate type). If an idea is worth anything it should be explicable in a simple
sentence. That works well in the world of
commerce because by definition a commercial product only has a market if it’s value is understood by a sizable number of people. But philosophy traffics in ideas
that are not already well understood by the mainstream , so buzzwords, soundbites and tweets will only be coherent to whose already well versed in a particular philosophical approach. Plus, different philosophical orientations define metaphysics in their own ways. Since I’m using Derrida’s definition , I’d need to introduce you to his vocabulary and way of thinking before his notion of metaphysics will make sense.
I could, however, respond to focused questions from you. — Joshs
generally take the view that if an idea is understood well it can be expressed simply and clearly. — Tom Storm
But i think it goes further than that for you. I think your worldview itself may be naive realist one,( our scientific theories attempt to correspond to an independently existing external world ) and if that is the case then the notion of a philosophical perspective requiring a whole new way of thinking and a transformation of your language is alien to you. — Joshs
Noam Chomsky - a highly complex theorist - made this exact same point about some French thinkers. Not a naïve realist or simple man by any means. — Tom Storm
If you think any set of philosophical ideas should be immediately readable by you in particular in a way that appears ‘simple and clear’ then I suggest what you really are looking for is a set of ideas that fit within a worldview that is already eminently familiar to you.
Scientists don't know anything at all about the world outside of the very narrow field they've specialized in. Which is fine by me, it's just not fine to those who need science to be an infallible oracle of Delphi. They cannot accept that. — Dharmi
There are many marvelous scientists who do a great job, and often manage to share the results of their work with much passion, because they care, but also the necessary humility, because they care. And one can learn a lot from them. Gould for instance. — Olivier5
Then you have the type that goes around telling non-scientists that they know nothing worthwhile because they never entered a science lab, and if they did they couldn't use the instruments... It's only the latter type that I call "glorified lab technicians". They tend to be quite jealous of their exclusive access to truth, and from them, the common man can learn very little. — Olivier5
I think you are using my comment to engage in a little patronizing ad hominem. Noam Chomsky - a highly complex theorist - made this exact same point about some French thinkers. Not a naïve realist or simple man by any means. — Tom Storm
His comment about French thinkers was probably aimed at Foucault. — Joshs
Chomsky is a charlatan and a fraud. He got famous for an unfalsifiable pseudo-theory about language that's been challenged by multiple linguists, and it's not even clear what the actual theory is except that language is somehow innate. His political views might be interesting, but they belong to a bygone era. — Dharmi
Like Pato's theory of forms? Can it not be explained in a simple sentence? — Tom Storm
No. But the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good, especially the section which details the dialogues that discuss the forms, and also the biblography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms — Wayfarer
For me Heidegger, Derrida and Husserl are clear and accessible — Joshs
I like Kuhn too. I just meant that I liked Popper's appreciation of what's good about metaphysics. (I actually have come to dislike the word metaphysics. Maybe because it's pompous? Or because there's such a thing as physics? Or because I think of metaphysicks ?) — norm
Point is, just because someone wrote something down is insufficient to say anyone after then has been 'Influenced' by it. — Isaac
how do we know you understand them? And I am not saying you don't, just that we have no way of knowing this. Heidegger is notoriously difficult to follow. Derrida is understood so differently by so many closes readers who can say what he really means? — Tom Storm
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.