Like Pato's theory of forms? Can it not be explained in a simple sentence? — Tom Storm

It has to be a very long sentence.

For the record, I still don't understand the theory of forms. Are they real? Do they exist? Are they imitable? I imagine having heard that they are real but not existing in this world. I also heard from others that they are real and necessarily exist in this world. Yet others told me they are not of matter, and they don't exist in our physical world.

I first attended a lecture on Plato's theory of forms in 1985. I struggled to comprehend the nuances. Asked a fellow student who said - 'We are to take the existence of forms on faith. They all live in heaven with Lord Jesus."

'I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy' — Tom Storm

:100:

I went to a philosophy meetup sometime a decade or so ago. It was a physical meeting in a bar. The hosting couple were philo majors. They proved under two minutes that the forms are necessarily physical and must exist. I could not find anything wrong with the proof. By now I forgot it, too. I am sure there was a fallacy of sorts involved for sure.

But this is as pernicious a question as ‘What sort of entity is a number?’
— Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

A number is simply a concept. There's no difficulty that I can see here. — Olivier5

I don't agree that a number is a concept. However I have a concept of a number, just as I have a concept of a tree, and also a concept of a unicorn.

I see no difficulty either, yet we have a different opinion on this. This gets into the problem of universals.

The mind/body problem is insoluble.
— Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

That sounds both defeatist and strangely preposterous. — Olivier5

A problem can be insoluble if it is badly formulated or has false assumptions. In this case, the mind/body problem has Cartesian assumptions which can be questioned and potentially rejected.

Hacker is pointing out that the Cartesian mind/body conception is broken and offers an alternative
Aristotelian conception:

Talk of the mind is concerned with the distinctive rational powers of human beings and their exercise.

Once this is clear, it becomes evident that the domain of the idiom of ‘mind’ coincides roughly not with that of the Cartesian mind – the domain of consciousness, but with that of the Aristotelian rational psuche. The Aristotelian psuche is not a kind of entity, and the question of whether the organism and its mind are one thing or two is, according to Aristotle, as absurd as the question of whether the wax and the impression on it are one thing or two. The possessor of a mind is an animal of a certain kind, namely a human being. To have a mind is not to be in possession of a kind of entity. It is rather to possess a distinctive range of powers. — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

..

The mind is not an entity that could stand in a relationship to anything. All talk of the mind that a human being has and of its characteristics is talk of the intellectual and volitional powers that he has, and of their exercise.
— Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections - Peter M.S. Hacker, 2007

That is true, but so what? 'The mind is not an object'. Nevertheless we all possess one, or are one. So, 'the mind', which is not an object, is the ground of everything we know, including objects. — Wayfarer

The 'so-what' is that the mind/body problem misleads. We're human beings first and foremost, and our experience and reasoning as human beings is the ground of everything we know.

'I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy' — Tom Storm


:100: — god must be atheist

This quote is the title of a book written and drawn by the cartoonist Ashleigh Brilliant. Some of it is very good—made me laugh anyway!

"Philosophy, after all, is not about truth or wisdom. It's about the love of truth or wisdom." -- Ashleigh Brilliant.

That you disagree with my thinking about numbers doesn't prove I am wrong, though. You don't actually argue a rival category: you don't say what type of entity you think a number is, and thus your disagreement with me could be disingenuous. It is for now mere posture, a declaration of intent, if not a knee jerk rejection. Maybe there's no other rationale for it but internet spite...

I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is disengenous, just that you will need to argue your case if you want to be taken seriously. "Well, I disagree" is not enough.

A problem can be insoluble if it is badly formulated or has false assumptions. In this case, the mind/body problem has Cartesian assumptions which can be questioned and potentially rejected. — Andrew M

Yes, it is possible to prove that a problem, as stated, makes no sense or allows for no solution. Which amounts to solving it, mind you. For instance the problem of how many unicorns live on earth has been solved, at least to my satisfaction, and the solution is zero.

But I find Hacker's attempt at deconstructing the mind-body problem laughable in its casuistry and naivety. To wit:

But the body that a human being is said to have, when we speak of human beings as having beautiful or athletic bodies, is not the kind of thing that could be said to possess intellectual and volitional abilities. For we speak of a human being’s body thus when we focus upon corporeal characteristics that the human being in question has. These characteristics, the very distinctive range of corporeal features of a human being that we assign to the body he has, are not the kinds of thing that could make up their minds, call things to mind or change their minds. — Human Beings – The Mind and the Body: Wittgensteinian-Aristotelian Reflections PETER M.S. HACKER, OXFORD

And yet people also say that a body has appetites, desires, a preservation instinct, and that in this sense the body wants certain things.

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. -- Pascal

The mind a human being has and the body he has are not the kinds of things that could stand in any relationship to each other in the sense in which Jack and Jill (or London and Paris, or a man and his property) may stand in a relationship to each other. The apparent relationship is comparable to the ‘relationship’ between the meaning of a word and the phonemes Into which the word can be analysed – both being abstractions from the meaningful word in use. The English word ‘cat’ has a meaning (it means the carnivorous quadruped Felix domesticus), but does not stand in a relationship to its meaning, any more than I stand in a relationship to my mind.

If the English word 'cat' has a meaning, its relationship to its meaning is one of having... :smirk:

Similarly, my body does not have a mind and does not stand in a relationship to my mind. (I have a mind – and a body; what would my body do with a mind?) One might compare the question of how my mind is related to my body with the question of how the value of five pounds is related to the colour of the paper on which the note is printed. For here too one might explain that the five pound note has a value of five pounds, but the colour of the paper on which the note is printed does not stand in any relationship to the value of five pounds. So the mind-body problem as traditionally conceived simply evaporates.

Again, the color of the five-pound note codes for its value, allows people to quickly spot the note's value, is a proxy for it, so there is a relationship there between color and value.

Likewise, if Hacker has a mind and also has a body, these two entities ARE in a relationship with one another, an indirect one, via the entity called "Hacker". He has both of them so they are two things Mr Hacker happens to have.

One could still validly ask: how come Mr Hacker has a body AND a mind, and how do these two work together (or not) within the entity called "Mr Hacker"? So the problem has not disappeared at all. It was just a slight of hands...

Is this lack of explanation a detriment to materialism? — RogueAI

No, not in the least. It's a conceptual paradigm (i.e. methodological coarse-graining filter), btw, and is N O T itself a scientific model (i.e. explanatory hypothesis). Yeah, materialism is also the least adequate paradigm ... except for all of the others (i.e. 'immaterialisms' ...) ever tried.

the existence of mind and ideas can't be doubted. — RogueAI

Sure it can. "Mind" and "ideas" are just words. Why not simply start where Descartes does, with conscious awareness?

But here again we're back to dualism, a subject/object distinction (or "mind/body"), which may be fine when reflecting on the world abstractly, but which doesn't tell the entire story.

Also, we cannot say whether or not materialism has a problem until someone explains what "material" means. Or "physical," for that matter. No explanation has been given for hundreds of years. There was one, and it was destroyed by Newton. There hasn't been one since. So the so-called problems of mind vs. body is essentially meaningless, because dividing the world up dualistically is derivative and because no one can tell us what "body" means.

The entire tradiitonal emphasis on truth (as correctness, as certainty) and knowledge in which you pose this question is itself questionable, and worth studying historically. You go back to Descartes, and the beginning of modern science, and the picture becomes clearer. Most of the questions just fade away. If you go back to the origins of Western thought even prior to Descartes, in the ancient Greeks, even more insights get revealed. For example, that this entire Western tradition has inherited the ontology of Plato and Aristotle.

"The greatest enemy of Truth and Wisdom (philosophy) is the Tooth of Wisdom. If it aches, you can't think straight." - Ashleigh Brilliant

Thank you Heidegger

"The greatest enemy of Truth and Wisdom (philosophy) is the Tooth of Wisdom. If it aches, you can't think straight." - Ashleigh Brilliant — god must be atheist

This guy is err... brilliant.

"Mind"? "Body"? "Subject/Object"? "Physical"? ... Will you please study Spinoza ... (& Thomas Metzinger & Ray Brassier). :confused:

This guy is brilliant. — Olivier5

I looked up his website. Apparently "Brilliant" is his last name by birth. He changed to Ashleigh from Imbecilius, though.

"Mind"? "Body"? "Subject/Object"? "Physical"? ... Will you please study Spinoza — 180 Proof

"Will"? "You"? "Please"? "Study"? (Excellent argument, yes?)

Your obsession with Spinoza is your own. Putting quotation marks over those words explains exactly nothing -- especially considering that you've not demonstrated that you've understood anything I said. If you want to explain, do so. Otherwise I'm really not interested in your recommendations -- you've not earned being taken seriously.

PS -- for others who haven't settled upon their philosopher-guru: Spinoza is still operating on the basis of Greek ontology, and was influenced by Descartes. This appears in his references to "substance," of which he discusses at length. Even ideas of "nature" date back to Greek ontology. So while Spinoza may be worthwhile in many other ways, referencing him has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Might as well recommend Sinclair Lewis.

Ditto.

Good -- so next time spare me your incoherent blathering. I have no interest in it. Go read more Spinoza.

:up: Good advice from an incorrigible Heideggerast.

Right -- stick with Spinoza. Doing so has clearly benefited you. :yawn:

He sure did! Spinoza has cured me of any Heideggerasty I might've contracted from getting a little too familiar with the old Black Forest bugger back in my wasted, wanton youth. :mask:

Yet still incoherent. :lol: Can't expect miracles!

:lol:

Will you please study Spinoza ... (& Thomas Metzinger & Ray Brassier). :confused: — 180 Proof

I think Thomas Metzinger should study Shaun Gallagher, Matthew Ratcliffe and Dan Zahavi for a more enlightened approach to cognition

I know -- funny because it's true. I wonder what Spinoza would say? :lol: Perhaps you should go study him.

Sure it can. "Mind" and "ideas" are just words. Why not simply start where Descartes does, with conscious awareness?

"Conscious awareness" is words too. More to the point, do you seriously think you might be "mindless"?

They are just words as well, yes. But I’m not claiming they’re beyond question. As I went on to explain.

Before we decide if we’re mindless, tell us what mind means. Otherwise it’s like discussing God. Are you Godless?

They are just words as well, yes. But I’m not claiming they’re beyond question. As I went on to explain.

Before we decide if we’re mindless, tell us what mind means. Otherwise it’s like discussing God. Are you Godless?

But first, what do you mean by "means"? I don't care to go down this rabbit hole.

But first, what do you mean by "means"? I don't care to go down this rabbit hole. — RogueAI

But if you want to get anywhere, you really should. Same as in the sciences. When we talk about mind, or body, or tree, or anything else in everyday life, of course I know what you mean. I have a good sense of what most people mean by God, too, But this is a philosophy forum, in which you ask a question about materialism and oppose it to the mental. The answer is simple enough: your question is meaningless. Not simply because mind hasn’t been explained, but because there hasn’t been a scientific notion of material for centuries, since the destruction of the mechanical philosophy and notions of contact action.

True, you can go on debating if you’d like. But we can debate the weight of ectoplasm as well. What’s more of a rabbit hole?

Regardless— only my opinion. You’re welcome to continue.

the existence of mind and ideas can't be doubted. — RogueAI

Not by minds and their ideas, in any case.