The concept of stochastic variable (chance or luck) does in fact exist - but not the way we use the concepts we normally call chance or luck - because you cannot have the luck if you do not go to the casino and bet there... now can you? — Iris0

The question of how to deal with luck and necessity are rather crucial in Western philosophy. Necessity is represented by Ananke, the goddess of fate and she was generally feared by the Greeks and even by their Gods. In our language we still have the word fate which has a bad connotation (to seal one's fate). Our fate is to die, dust to dust, ashes to ashes. This has the connotation of, earth, the world below us. there is also a different concept, 'fortuna', Tyche in Greek relating to destiny. Destiny is akin to ananke or necessity but has a much more positive connotation. A destiny is a 'destination' a place to reach. This destination is generally associated with places 'higher'. You 'reach for the stars', 'the only way is up'. You are either higher or lower in the chain of command etc. What the stars in a casino do is to symbolize that through playing with fate; gambling, one may for a moment escape the clutches of necessity and acquire (a) fortune.

In this way actually reason and luck play an interesting double role. also reason is seen as a way to escape Ananke, to 'shape one's destiny'. Reason was actually man's destiny according to Aristotle, the source of its actualisation. Machiavelli thought that by using reason you could play with fate and jump from one thread of fate to another, keeping some sort of control. The difference between reason and luck is that one (reason) believes in self efficacy, the possibility of control and the other (luck) believes that one's destiny depends on outside intervention. This reason, the ability of control, or agency, is currently in twilight. Not that I think it should be though. The casino is the refuge for the unreasonable, both the man of reason and the man of luck shoot for the stars, but they believe in different weapons.

In this way actually reason and luck play an interesting double role. also reason is seen as a way to escape Ananke, to 'shape one's destiny'. Reason was actually man's destiny according to Aristotle, the source of its actualisation. Machiavelli thought that by using reason you could play with fate and jump from one thread of fate to another, keeping some sort of control. The difference between reason and luck is that one (reason) believes in self efficacy, the possibility of control and the other (luck) believes that one's destiny depends on outside intervention. This reason, the ability of control, or agency, is currently in twilight. Not that I think it should be though. The casino is the refuge for the unreasonable, both the man of reason and the man of luck shoot for the stars, but they believe in different weapons. — Tobias

Very interesting! When we view world wars and events there - these contain both these elements - seemingly. But when you follow that thread you will always find someone doing something that will spark something else - so rather than luck or chance it is the human will I would say that initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity.

Read Against Method, re: "context of discovery" in contrast to, or distinct from, the context of justification.

Yes, of course, Feyerabend's rebut to Popper. To wit: "Name the greatest of all inventors. Accident." ~Mark Twain — 180 Proof

Then we agree that Fortuna must give us her blessings if we're to make a breakthrough? By the way, I thought,

Necessity is the mother of all inventions. — proverb

Back to the main page, metaphorically speaking, to bring this discussion back on track. You've probably encountered this interesting phenomenon called Wisdom Of The Crowd - its got its own Wikipedia page, assuming Wikipedia is a reliable source - and if you haven't I offer it to you as a curiosity if that's as far as you're willing to run with it but take note that it's highly relevant to the issue of chance in epistemology and the gist of the OP as an exploration of alternatives to reason as ways of gaining knowledge. See vide infra:

The classic wisdom-of-the-crowds finding involves point estimation of a continuous quantity. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Statistician Francis Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds — Wikipedia

Note the word "estimation", underlined for emphasis above . I know the classic experiment performed by Galton was quantitative (numerical) estimation/guessing but I'm sure we could extend the effect (wisdom of the crowd) to qualitative questions like, is idealism true or materialism true?, is there a soul or not?, you get the idea. If this doesn't quite match up to your views on the matter, we could always find a way to quantify such questions with the objective being to guess the probability each philosophical position being true/not. The fact that the wisdom of the crowd is, surprisingly, reliable and even deserving of the description accurate despite the fact that it doesn't involve any known logical system is precisely the kind of alternative pathways that bypass the rather rigid and even cumbersome logics I'm proposing we keep an eye out for. Thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. :up:

"Mysteries" always beg questions and never answer them. Questions which can only be satisfied by "mysteries" are pseudo. "Faith in mysteries" is a gateway drug. — 180 Proof

Don't be too sure of that, 180 Proof and I don't mean that in a condescending way. You, yourself, once, quoted the following,

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. — Hamlet

Perhaps, I'm misremembering, Mandela effect of some kind, God knows.

so rather than luck or chance it is the human will I would say that initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity. — Iris0

I doubt that for two reasons, at least when you mean with will the everyday conception of free will. First, human will might be directed at a certain result, but there are so many factors that interfere that you cannot oversee the consequences of your actions. When I choose to go to the casino I might win or might lose. When I might win I may become happy, but I might also be robbed of it after I leave because someone saw I won. All these events are beyond my will. Secondly, my choices are to a large extent determined. I might be a gambler who loves the casino and goes or I might be the careful type who does not. I have not chosen my character.

Philosophically though, I think the point is to what this will is directed. When you say, 'in the end it is will', than you take a turn in the history of philosophy, will is opposed to reason, as Schopenhauer was opposed to Hegel. I do not disagree with you there. However, then the question would be what motivates this 'force of will'. Is it free decision making? That I doubt for the reasons laid out above, but other than that, there are many candidates, will to power, drive, love...

Read Against Method, re: "context of discovery" in contrast to, or distinct from, the context of justification. — 180 Proof

Well, yes I have read and there is no such thing as what Twain stated at all. Quite the contrary Feyerabends anarchism is not even in a long shot something that will give at hand that he meant that chance is at work. His critique against Lakatos, and his own "dadaism" and "everything goes" is more of he sort that he deems science to be a project more or less the same as myths and that technique is like magic. But not chance...

In his efforts to refute Lakatos (much based on the thoughts of Kuhn whom he also refutes) he views Lakatos as a sort of anarchist an the criteria that should generate scientific programs are almost meaningless - but no chance here...
Feyerabend --- if you find it quote it - has not said what Twain said... as far as I remember.

:smile:
yes - but without any doubt - if and only if - you actually go (an act of will) you have the chance to win or lose - if you do not go (also an act of will) you can never ever never win nor lose.

yes - but without any doubt - if and only if - you actually go (an act of will) you have the chance to win or lose - if you do not go (also an act of will) you can never ever never win nor lose. — Iris0

Well I either go or not go. Where does my will come in? You seem to hold to the following image: I want to go, than by conscious movement I set my body in motion and I go to the casino. However, there is not a little me within me, there is no 'soul' inside the machine of my body.

What determines whether you go or not? We are not completely free in those choices. In fact neurology considers them by and large predetermined. So whether I go is not necessarily a product of my own complete freedom.

What I would find interesting is to what extent we see 'reason' as influencing these choices, or indeed 'will'. The Mad Fool likes to dim reason in order to make other features visible. I find it an interesting proposal and I think it is exactly what we are doing now. 180 argues forcefully that reason should not be dimmed because there what we see when it is dimmed is distorted and obscure.

no no no no I am pointing out the correlation between the act of actually going in order to make a win - happen...

When you say, 'in the end it is will', than you take a turn in the history of philosophy, will is opposed to reason, as Schopenhauer was opposed to Hegel. I do not disagree with you there. However, then the question would be what motivates this 'force of will'. Is it free decision making? That I doubt for the reasons laid out above, but other than that, there are many candidates, will to power, drive, love... — Tobias

And I fully agree with you on this - this is why I said that "initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity".
I think that sometimes my english fails when I try to convey a thought properly...and now I marked where the emphasis is in that line of thought...

Okay. I quoted Twain (for emphasis), not Feyerabend quoting Twain. In my book 'fortuitious discoveries = accidents'.

okay, see your point - but I put all he said into play - as a whole and did thus jump one small concept
:wink:

And I fully agree with you on this - this is why I said that "initiate and gives the situations its content or opportunity".
I think that sometimes my english fails when I try to convey a thought properly...and now I marked where the emphasis is in that line of thought... — Iris0

Ohh I think it is fine. And anyway, I should be able to look through that. What intrigues me is what you hold to be that will that "initates and gives situations if opportunity" What is the initiative and what is the kind of opportunity that is provided? How is it determined? What content does the will add to the situation? As per Nietzsche 'will to power' for instance, or Spinoza's conatus, drive, or Sarter's 'nothingness' seemingly indicating absolute freedom. On that I wonder where you stand. (Those thinkers are just examples, not that I want to draw them into the conversation or quibble about them).

But they are rarely skeptical of the "reason" they have replaced it with. — Foghorn

They should be, right? That's the whole point of Skepticism

Skepticism (American and Canadian English) or scepticism (British, Irish, Australian, and New Zealand English) is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma. — Wikipedia

A skeptic can't be a skeptic if fae has something fae doesn't doubt.

Reason is a certain way of seeing the world — Tobias

You've picked up the scent. Magnifique! So, are you going to follow it or not or are you already on the trail?

You've picked up the scent. Magnifique! So, are you going to follow it or not or are you already on the trail? — TheMadFool

Are you a condescending prick or merely masking your own insecurity?

Are you a condescending prick or merely masking your own insecurity? — Tobias

Oops! Apologies if what I said was offensive. I'm fond of metaphors, that's all. I took it too far this time. Won't happen again. Promise!

Fine, apologies accepted, hatchett buried :) But would you care to explain what you mean? I would not mind to elaborate, but I wrote quite a lengthy post, trying to unpack the social nature of reason, so what element would you like to explore so I know where you like to spar a bit further?

I am also not sure I fully agree to what I wrote above myself. I put it in too stark terms. 'Regimes of truth' are social, as per Foucault, but I think there has to be some kind of common understanding, some laws of thought we refer to as 'reason'. I do think formal logic does not get us very far though because of its absence of any content. The challenge for me would than be to shed some light (sic) on what they are. The skeptical practice, yes, but what would that amount to, My ideas on the (post)modern demise of reason though still stands. I am not afraid of too much light, I am afraid we are burying it in rather obscurantist notions of blame and guilt.

But would you care to explain what you mean? — Tobias

Reason is a certain way of seeing the world — Tobias

Alludes to "other ways" of seeing the world. I thought you had something specific in mind, that's all.

As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive.

As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive. As for myself, I'm firing random shots, hoping I might hit something. A few interesting results (see my reply to 180 Proof) but nothing really substantive. — TheMadFool

Alludes to "other ways" of seeing the world. I thought you had something specific in mind, that's all. — TheMadFool

Nahh now you are being too modest again. :) That was not the intention of my remark. I think you like the exploration and so do I. Let's try. Do you know the books of Orhan Pamuk, "the Black Book" and "Foucault's Pendulum" of Umberto Eco?They are both excellent and both have similar theme, the reading into the world of meanings, which somehow relate and form a story. I think irrespective of the light of reason, that we are storytelling beings. Now that you prod me a bit, that other way of seeing might relate to the meaning which we invest in the word. Those are not 'reasonable', in the sense that they are disinterested an 'objective'. As a Dutch poet once said "we are Gods in the depths of our minds", with which he means that we all have the idea that the world is 'my story'.

Maybe those are the shadows you allude to. I do not think though they will ever be eradicated by the light. The "I" is a category of thought, maybe even a necessary condition for knowledge so it will not disappear. The stars in the casino also allude to this theme, they refer to 'us', "You are the stars", they say, affirming that which we hold ourselves to be in the depth of our minds. That way of seeing is as real as the scientific way since waking up from the illusion is impossible. So maybe there is a trail and you were right...

Summer Solstice is upon us, Fool. Days of reason get shorter from here on, with longer nights to leisurely loiter looking up at other stars. Remember, though, even at night the sun still shines brightly, so bright in fact that by its invisible light we're able to see in the dark, even the dim twinkling of impossibly distant, long dead stars... :fire:

I think irrespective of the light of reason, that we are storytelling beings. Now that you prod me a bit, that other way of seeing might relate to the meaning which we invest in the word. Those are not 'reasonable', in the sense that they are disinterested an 'objective'. — Tobias

Awesome! A different side to the issue, one I hadn't thought of. I was focusing on logic, the discipline itself, and lost sight of the bigger picture, rationality/critical thinking. Missed the woods for the tress! That said, in my exchange with 180 Proof and Moliere, the philosophical movement known as irrationalism did come up.

Irrationalism, I suppose, includes our subjective side which, inter alia, manifests as storytelling with each person being the main character in faer own narrative - a story of my life as it were. It's odd, you know, how an individual's journey through life [faer experiences, faer's way of tackling situations/problems, faer's reactions (emotional and otherwise), faer's overall role in the grand scheme of things], though apparently limited by the subjectivity that inheres to it, also provides clues that permit an objective understanding of human nature (hopes, fears, values, etc.) as a whole. In all likelihood that's exactly what we're supposed to steer clear of - stick to a story's main goal, the subjective viewpoint it offers and refuse to take even one more step, fighting the temptation to assume an objective (rational) stance. I guess this can be viewed as suspensiom of rationality to the extent desirable and/or possible. Great!

Summer Solstice is upon us, Fool. Days of reason get shorter from here on, with longer nights to leisurely loiter looking up at other stars. Remember, though, even at night the sun still shines brightly, so bright in fact that by its invisible light we're able to see in the dark, even the dim twinkling of impossibly distant, long dead stars... :fire: — 180 Proof

All I'm willing to say is, rationality may not be the only game in town! To look for and use alternatives to rationality (the pararational) is to be automatically labeled insane/idiotic but I feel this is a knee-jerk reaction - unthinking by its very nature and thus to be questioned and doubted to the fullest extent. Too, insanity/idiocy are relative to the times. To an egyptian in pharaonic times, planes and rockets would be madness/foolishness and yet to people of the 21st century, they're a routine affair. My point? Don't dismiss the pararational out of hand. In fact, it isn't me that's asking for, let's just say, a fairer trial for the pararational in the court of reason; it's reason itself, I acting as its mouthpiece, that's demanding this! Thinking pararationally, if and when possible supposing we're not doing it already, doesn't meaning we swing to the other extreme and completely abandon rationality/reason although I would recommend it if only to test the capabilities of the pararational. What could prove to be of greater value is a joint effort, the rational and the pararational as a complementary pair. We could get the best of both worlds. I'm daydreaming aren't I? :chin:

I'm daydreaming aren't I? :chin: — TheMadFool

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." ~F.N.

:death: :flower:

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." ~F.N. — 180 Proof

:fire: :up: