Is that what you were saying? It all got a bit muddled.[ — Banno
Midgley is wrong when he says that other people's existence had to be inferred. — Fooloso4
How does Descartes conclude that others exist, without making an inference? — Banno
Will you be defending substance dualism? — Banno
What did Descartes get wrong, and what right? — Banno
The pop story of Descartes — Banno
And it is this story that the aggravating Grandmother is using, — Banno
Rings and Books reads now as a precursor to more recent streams in philosophical thinking such as enactivism and embodied cognition. — Banno
This is at odds with the views offered by Descartes — Banno
we should extend to our predecessors the sympathy and charity that we must all hope our successors will extend to us when their turn comes to assess what we have done or not done. — Ludwig V
- if philosophy is to be a practice based on human life, — Ludwig V
there is no problem conceiving something immaterial that exists by itself unless you are a close-minded physicalist. — Lionino
If the physical is naturally understood to have substantial or substantive existence, and it is upon that idea of substance that the notion of reality is founded, and the idea of a mental substance is untenable, then what justification would we have for saying that anything non-physical is real? — Janus
I recommend Pierre Hadot's "Philosophy as a Way of Life" — Fooloso4
Philosophy in antiquity was an exercise practiced in each instant. It invites us to concentrate on each instant of life, to become aware of the infinite value of each present moment, once we have replaced it with the perspective of the cosmos. The exercise of wisdom entails a cosmic dimension. Whereas the average person has lost touched with the world, and does not see the world qua world, but rather treats the world as a means of satisfying his desires, the sage never ceases to have the whole constantly present to mind. He thinks and acts within a cosmic perspective. He has the feeling of belonging to a whole which goes beyond the limits of his individuality. In antiquity, this cosmic consciousness was situated in a different perspective from that of scientific knowledge of the universe... . Scientific knowledge was objective and mathematical, whereas cosmic consciousness was the result of spiritual exercise. — Pierre Hadot, PWL, pa 273
Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. — Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament
Something needs to give. For my money, it is the neglect of the elementary point that both "substantial" and "real" do not have a determinate sense outside the context of their use. The philosophical search for them does not define a context in which it could ever be successful.If the physical is naturally understood to have substantial or substantive existence, and it is upon that idea of substance that the notion of reality is founded, and the idea of a mental substance is untenable, then what justification would we have for saying that anything non-physical is real? — Janus
This is an alternative to eliminative physicalism, but not to physicalism. We need something more inclusive. Ryle's categories seem to me to offer a way of articulating what needs to be accepted here, without prioritizing the physical.The alternative to eliminative physicalism would be to say that mental phenomena are real functions of some physical existents, and that the only sense in which they are not physical is that they do not (obviously) appear as objects of the senses. — Janus
So?Based on the link to Midgley's Rings and Books, this does not appear to be advice she follows. — Fooloso4
Yes, an interesting reference. Though I find the title more than a little off-putting. It manages to be both portentous and trivializing in two words. But I'm sure that not everyone would be affected in the same way. When I read it, I will try to take it seriously (which includes criticizing it) but sympathetically, which means looking for the good bits.Although it may be somewhat unfair to compare his work to a radio talk. — Fooloso4
I had to read that twice, eventually deciding that "he" must be Descartes - Midgley is, infamously, of the female persuasion.Midgley is wrong when he says that other people's existence had to be inferred. — Fooloso4
Mmm. Perhaps not as clear as was thought. :wink:It is no more necessary for him to conclude that others exist than it is for a child to exist others do. — Fooloso4
Latin has a perfectly good equivalent for ousia, "being" in "esse" — Ludwig V
But in fact the Latins (generally but not uniformly at first, but eventually universally) used "substantia" to translate "ousia" and such terms, and "suppositum" or "persona" to translate "hypostasis" or "prosopon". So sometimes the Greeks were confused when looking at Latin works which used "substantia" and thought it meant "hypostasis", and suspected the Latins of error. — https://lyfaber.blogspot.com/2010/01/substance-and-hypostasis-in-trinity.html
and has its roots in the medieval Latin term ex(s)istere, which means to stand forth, to appear, and to arise." — Ludwig V
«As in body the differences are great, even greater differences exist when it comes to character»ut in corporibus magnae dissimilitudines sunt, sic in animis exsistunt majores etiam varietates — Cicero
«If there had been faith in the king...»si exstitisset in rege fides[...] — Cicero
All of which reinforces the point that medieval Latin is a dialect of Latin and very different from the language of ancient Rome. — Ludwig V
I find it curious that folk are so defensive of Descartes. — Banno
Granny Midgley is obviously using him as a rhetorical device. — Banno
Isn't that what practically any sound person believes? — Wayfarer
You don't need to be charitable. I knew it was not quite right when I wrote it. But I couldn't think of anything better. Still can't, for that matter. "Dialect" and "language" are very slippery, unless one relies on a gun-boat.The idea that it is a "dialect" is not quite accurate, but I am not going to be uncharitable. — Lionino
Clearly, I put my faith in the wrong king. Thanks for the corrections. All very interesting.If there had been faith in the king... — Lionino
It certainly is of interest. One might as well try to organize a herd of ferrets.I imagine you are referring to essentia. That is also one of the translations of usia. It is in fact the literal translation of usia to Latin, coined by Cicero. Substantia is in fact a post-classical translation of hypostasis, but later it came to be often used to translate usia. This comment might be of interest: — Lionino
It isn't so curious. Philosophers are great parricides, and often resurrect their grandfathers - or great-grandfathers, if they want to be especially rebellious. It's because philosophy thrives on disagreement and is most at home in chaos.I find it curious that folk are so defensive of Descartes. Granny Midgley is obviously using him as a rhetorical device. — Banno
This move is really very problematic. With one breath I am reminded of an experience that is not available to me; with the next breath, I am faced with a universal conclusion. The only solution must be that the presentation of the experience is in fact supposed to convey what it is like. Midgley's discussion works well to establish her conclusion, but whether her description is "correct" or not is another question. It would be easy to suggest that perhaps not all mothers experience their pregnancy in the same way. But I'm not sure whether that's enough to refute the argument.If so, you must be making the same point as Midgely about motherhood. Are you pregnant? — Lionino
But I'm not sure whether that's enough to refute the argument. — Ludwig V
H'm. It depends on what you count as an argument. I probably have a more relaxed view of what constitutes an argument than you.But I'm not sure whether that's enough to refute the argument.
— Ludwig V
Banno himself said Midgely is using Descartes as a rhetorical device. If that is the case, there isn't really an argument. — Lionino
Midgely recognizes some good reasons for choosing Descartes' model, but thinks that a different model will avoid some big issues with Descartes' solution of the problem he sets himself — Ludwig V
Compare the existentialists' shift to focus on the human condition - the world as we are thrown into it - as opposed to Descartes' search for a clean sheet and an indubitable foundation - probably modelled on Euclid. — Ludwig V
I'm afraid I didn't take that comment - or the poll - at all seriously. — Ludwig V
Thanks for the overview of Aristotle. It does make sense overall, doesn't it?
Your version makes him seem much closer to Plato than some others that I have seen. — Ludwig V
Ok? — Lionino
A good example here would be the well-known fact that that physics reveals a physical world that is almost completely insubstantial. "Substantial" and "real" have a meaning in the context of physics, but not one that meets the demands of this philosophical wild-goose chase. Berkeley was wrong about many things, but about this, he was right. — Ludwig V
I had to read that twice, eventually deciding that "he" must be Descartes — Banno
It is no more necessary for him to conclude that others exist than it is for a child to exist others do.
— Fooloso4
Mmm. Perhaps not as clear as was thought. — Banno
I may be making too much of it. However, I'm sure that Midgley did not think that this piece was in any way a replacement for Descartes' writings.I think you are making out more than there truly is in this article. It is a silly, poorly-written article. It is not a treatise, nevermind philosophy, the editor is correct. It does not offer in any way an alternative to Descartes' six Meditations, or to his Principles, or to his Discource. It is not rigorous. — Lionino
Well, people try to find fault with everybody else. Why would Descartes be an exception?Even after Descartes' extensive writings on his method and replies to objections, people still try to find fault within him. It would be fine if they happened to find actual faults. Let's apply that amount of scrutinity to Mary's article then. — Lionino
That's probably right. Perhaps it would be better to say that they were changing the subject. Though I suspect that Sartre was unduly influenced by him.Afaik, existentialists are not arguing against Descartes, Descartes not against what would be the existentialists. — Lionino
Not to speak of that horrible last paragraph in the article. Whatever college it was she lectured at, I will be far away from it and its professors. — Lionino
is certainly horrible. But Midgley is quoting someone else and expects us to find it horrible. She worked at Reading University 1949 - 1962 and then Newcastle University 1962 - 1980 but I would think that there has been considerable staff turnover since then.Expect no logic from a pregnant woman.
Yes. That's valid. Her idea of adolescence is not much to write home about, either.My concern is that it advocates for a one size fits all standard - a mature person will marry. There are various reasons why someone does not marry, most of them having little or nothing to do with philosophy. — Fooloso4
You are right about celibacy in athletics, and I wouldn't think that it was particularly important in philosophy either. For me, Midgley's argument is reminiscent of the argument that priests need to practice celibacy. What she may be trying to express, though rather badly, is that philosophers, however transcendent their thought, ought not to disengage from the mess and muddle of ordinary human life. I think that's true and important.I find the discussion on celibacy to be similar to old school thoughts on celibacy in male athletes. It was commonly thought that male athletes ought to practise celibacy to improve performance. That sort of nonsense has been thoroughly debunked and we could call it a "trivial, irrelevant intrusion of domestic matters into [athletic] life". — Metaphysician Undercover
So Berkeley was wrong to think that sense observation doesn't imply the existence of matter?However, there is a fundamental problem, science understands through sense observation, and sense observation instills "matter" into the phenomena. This produces what Wayfarer likes to call the blind spot of science. — Metaphysician Undercover
What she may be trying to express, though rather badly, is that philosophers, however transcendent their thought, ought not to disengage from the mess and muddle of ordinary human life. I think that's true and important. — Ludwig V
So Berkeley was wrong to think that sense observation doesn't imply the existence of matter? — Ludwig V
A good example here would be the well-known fact that that physics reveals a physical world that is almost completely insubstantial. "Substantial" and "real" have a meaning in the context of physics, but not one that meets the demands of this philosophical wild-goose chase. — Ludwig V
Perhaps mess and muddle is an inescapable part of human life? And then, the attempt to escape also becomes an inescapable part of human life. Perhaps the best thing to do is to embrace mess and muddle - but then, what would become of philosophy?Yeah, and when philosophers disengage from ordinary human life, that's when their own lives become a real mess and muddle. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, the first half of that is a bit unorthodox. But the second half is at least defensible. It's just that his understanding of the reality of independent things doesn't involve the concept of matter. Right?I believe that Berkeley did not claim that sense observation doesn't imply the existence of matter, he showed that the concept of "matter" is not required to understand the reality of independent things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps so. However, I've always thought that Kant essentially accepts Berkeley, especially his argument that the distinction between primary and secondary qualities doesn't hold up, so that time and space are mind-dependent, as well as colour, etc. Including matter in that argument makes sense. Once you have accepted the distinction between reality and appearance, ideas and things, phenomena and noumena, that conclusion is more or less inevitable. The only way out is to reject, or at least recast, the distinction.Therefore we can infer that matter is a feature the human system which makes sense observations, just like Kant says space and time are. — Metaphysician Undercover
I avoid commenting on QM. I'm not qualified to do so.It depends on what you mean by 'substantial'; if you mean something like "tangible' then sure. Is mass fundamental in physics, specifically in QM? — Janus
I take it that you mean by "energetic" the concept of energy that is defined by physics? Which, by definition, studies what is physical?If what is is fundamentally energetic, then that is what I would mean by "physical". Is there an alternative view to this? — Janus
In the end, this takes us back to the issue about what it means for a human being to flourish and the desire to let a thousand flowers bloom. The issue is, which of them, if any, count as weeds? It would be easy to talk about balance and proportionality, but we all make choices (subject to certain basic needs, such as food and shelter) and so we all specialize, so that doesn't help very much.My concern is that it advocates for a one size fits all standard - a mature person will marry. There are various reasons why someone does not marry, most of them having little or nothing to do with philosophy. — Fooloso4
I've always thought that Kant essentially accepts Berkeley, — Ludwig V
Perhaps I wrote that sentence a bit carelessly. I would have to read up to respond to your point properly. Thanks for the reference.I have read that Kant was infuriated by those critics of his first edition who accused him of basically re-cycling Berkeley's idealism, — 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.