Sure, why not?

Thought affects matter and matter affects thought every moment. The event is undeniable. Just because we can't explain is itself no reason to doubt. Since every known force exhibits some form of conservation and reciprocality, thought can only be affected by matter to the exact extent that it affects matter. You get nothing for free. Not even freedom.

Absolutely. We need to be working towards an "inclusive materialism" if anything. Our science should aspire to expand its horizons. Popper's ideas about "metaphysical research programs" would be an example.

it seems clear that scientists have the strongest claim to truth, — Jack Cummins

Science may have the strongest claim to truth...but, the scientific worldview also has to integrate into the overall project of humanity, viz, supply stable normative values around which social and cultural projects can be successfully co-ordinated and operationalized. And it is here that the scientific worldview is failing miserably.

We need to keep scientific validity but somehow also restore normative justifications and legitimations.

:up:

Well, it is an attempt to define what it means to be human across a vast number of domains, ranging from art, history, science, myth, religion, and language, via the theme or motif of symbolic forms. I think that it is intended to be profound.

One of the books I'm currently reading fits in with the broad strokes of your requirements: An Essay on Man, by Ernst Cassirer.

The way I see it, the process of self organization is innately self aware. It possesses a process-centric self awareness: — Pop

I agree

Therefore it is wrong to say that putting two or more people together into a group magically causes the appearance of a special power, — Metaphysician Undercover

The average individual can reach a piece of fruit seven feet high, let's say. By standing on another person's shoulders, they can reach a piece of fruit twelve feet high. Neither individual has the ability to reach twelve feet high. Ergo that is a unique property of the collective....

s. So if your argument is that one person working with another person gives us something more than t — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you assume that is not so? All evidence is that collectives of entities can specialize and cooperate in ways that maximize their mutual benefit.

Yes. I shot speedballs at 4 am with strangers in the late eighties at the height of the AIDS epidemic, so I know something of subcultures myself.

If I want to get a sense of the darker side I just read some Dickens. We live in a utopian paradise compared to those Victorian workers man.

I thought that was a zen buddhist adage.

:up:

You know, speaking of the artistic merits of philosophy, I think it was a seminal system's theorist, von Bertalanffy, who said that what substantiates a metaphysical theory is...its elegance. I thought that was pretty deep.

I read Fritjof Capra's 2014 synopsis of the scope of Systems Theory and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. You can list authors to me anytime. Thank you.

One quote I love is,
'People who live in society have learned to see themselves in mirrors as they appear to friends. Is that why my flesh is naked?
You might say- yes you might say, nature without humanity...Things are very bad: I have it, the filth, the Nausea.' — Jack Cummins

I believe "reciprocity" is the pivotal concept. I think, in the mode of bad faith, whatever limitations you place upon your generosity to "the Other," that is a limitation that you place upon yourself.

Funny thing, I was goaded into taking on Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason last year by way of a fairly heated debate on this forum. And if I hadn't been so "motivated" I wonder if I could have even finished it.

But if it is true that when no one is looking we just do what is convenient what does that say about our innermost, private relationship with ourselves? — Jack Cummins

Isn't this the core of Sartre's concept of bad faith?

This has always been the cornerstone of my beliefs.

:up:

If you enjoy the artistic merits of philosophy then you would really like Henri Bergson's writings I think. And John Dewey's.

I'd like to apologize. I got a bit hot under the collar when you implied that pragmatism somehow was a slippery slope to scientism. However I do respect your commitment to a metaphysical purity. But I really do feel that metaphysics must evolve along with the rest of our knowledge. Otherwise, what is the point?

Here's a pretty good survey of "social ontology" including the ontological status of collectives:

https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jso/5/1/article-p1.xml?language=en#ref_j_jso-2019-2001_fn_003_w2aab3b7c17b1b6b1ab1b2b4b7Aa

Naturally, there are pro and con positions presented. But what I want to emphasize is that, there can be and indeed is serious discussion around this topic.

For example, "Social complexes, as entities, have causal powers that the individuals who make them up do not have, either singly or collectively. For example, a university confers degrees."

Likewise, as I suggested, a species has a cumulative effect on the biotic environment which in turn affects the evolution of other species. Species inter-evolve all the time. Think of symbiosis. I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like you have an antiquated anthropocentric conception of individual identity. I will just emphasize, one last time: what constitutes an identity is directly related to the context of inquiry. So if you are asserting that only entities of type X can constitute an identity, then you are likewise asserting that "inquiry is only valid within certain contexts." Which would be where we disagree.

Maybe read some evolutionary biology. The notion that what constitutes an entity is relevant to your frame of inquiry seems to elude you. A genetic population can been analyzed as an entity, and exhibits unique characteristic properties, as well as being attached to a specific organic extension. No different from you my friend. A rock is a rock only for a specific duration of time, then it is just a bunch of atoms, which themselves only exist as entities for limited times. If you want to do metaphysics, you need to go "beyond" science, and you can't do that if you don't actually understand what science is showing you.

I suggest you change your handle from "Metaphysician Undercover" to "Buried in Metaphysics." You seem to forget, Metaphysics is only relevant if it can be made integrated with the comprehensive context of the life-world.

I am trying to look at the whole issue of the competing truths of the sciences and arts for the paradigm underlying the the bias of many philosophers. — Jack Cummins

Isn't this really an established fact? I have pretty much always assumed what you are proposing is the defining dialectic of human culture. The schism between materialism and idealism is as old as time. I guess you could say that art is the paradigmatic product of the mind, so idealism in its most basic material presentation.

I tend to focus on discovering the underlying unity of these views. Here's an excerpt from the book I just started reading:

"...man lives in a symbolic universe. Language, myth, art, and religion are parts of this universe. They are the varied threads which weave the symbolic net, the tangled web of human experience. All human progress in thought and experience refines upon and strengthens this net."
~Ernset Cassirer, An Essay on Man

Popper is also someone who tends to bridge the competing paradigms. His "third world" aligns with this "symbolic universe". In the symbol, the material and the mental are united.

This is not true. The cells in your body are united and supported in their existence by physical systems like the blood system, the respiratory system, and the nervous system. The cells in your body cannot exist without the support of these physical systems. There are no such physical systems which are required to maintain the existence of the individuals within a species. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dude. Seriously, take some science classes.

Strictly speaking, I was not referring to the humanities when speaking of the arts, but art, literature and music. Of course, it is a whole spectrum with humanities and the social sciences. In this respect, I think that psychology is fighting its way to claim its places in the realm of hard sciences.

Having written my post, I kept seeing more 'scientific' posts popping up. Then, the one on liking music sprung up like again. The arts cannot be suppressed.

What I am really saying is that it sometimes appears that the sciences are seen as superior. Are the arts just relegated to the domain of pleasure. I am querying the scientists claim to a monopoly upon truth.

Are the perspectives of Shakespeare, Salvador Dali to be thrown into the bin of human culture, along with the creative thinkers going to be dismissed as inferior in the search for wisdom and truth? — Jack Cummins

Ah ok. My degree is in literature, so I certainly appreciate Shakespeare, and I am also a musician. I guess I didn't think of the fine arts as strictly comparable with sciences as their objective is purely creative. However they are undoubtedly cultural artefacts; in that sense, I guess all products of the human mind, including science, are comparable. I haven't read a lot of aesthetics, but Gadamer presents some interesting ideas about art in Search for a Method.

the reading of Practical Reason is done in a very strong American accent, which is a little off-putting, — Wayfarer

I bet.

Mine is a Kindle, so it is read by a computer-generated voice (Alexa). Oddly enough, I actually prefer this to Audible's human narrators!

Well, the humanities in general tend to be viewed as "less scientific" compared to the traditional scientific domains (physics,chemistry,biology) but even in those domains you can see a progression from the inert towards the organic. So for me, the humanities just lie further along the continuum bounded by objectivity and subjectivity. Wilhelm Dilthey (repeatedly) attempted a comprehensive survey which was inclusive of the "human sciences". He just never seemed to finish. I believe he was known as "the man of first editions" or something to that effect, because he was constantly starting over....

Saussure, Course in General Linguistics

I just downloaded a 30 hour (!) reading of the Immanuel Kant collection for nothing, by virtue of having signed up for Amazon Audiobook and cashing in my free intro offer. CPR, Metaphysics of Morals, and Critique of Practical Reason (which I’d already started as a separate volume.) Reading plan is to listen while working out. If I can get a compatible waterproof MP3 player, I can also listen while swimming laps. Improve mind and body simultaneously. — Wayfarer

:up:
How is the audio-Kant going? I got the Critique of Pure Reason for free too and listened to the intros last night. I found it pretty decent.

how can those printed marks first represent and then be read as ideas? — magritte

Yes, the whole problem of symbolicity really is the crux of the modern problem of thought I think. Not a simple problem either, there are so many different dimensions (which I think is the point, it is the confluence of these dimensions). I'm focusing on this topic currently, as it happens.

Right, "within its domain" being the key words here. And when people twist the evidence to make it appear like science has answers to issues which are outside of its domain, that is called scientism. Do you recognize, that the proposition that the human species, or that society, or the community, is an entity, is an ontological claim. — Metaphysician Undercover

The proposition that the individual exists is an ontological claim. And it depends on the perspective being taken. The individual cells in your body exist. The species, as an organic entity, exists, in exactly the same fashion as the cells in your body. Whether you ascribe identity to the cells in your body, or your body/brain/ego complex, or the species, depends on which perspective you adopt. If you adopt the perspective of evolutionary biology, then the species becomes the the operative entity (or a genetic population, more accurately). And that entity has its own unique domain of interactions, consisting of the biotic environment, including the systems composed of other species.

The question is, do you understand how all observation is theory-laden? Every perspective is exactly that, a perspective, with antecedent assumptions. Granted, most of the time, these assumptions are deeply buried and prejudicative. But that is certainly one of the challenges of philosophy. So your assuming that the human body-ego is the exemplary ontological entity is just that, an assumption. And, as I've just explained, you can equally apply ontological primacy to a variety of physical entities, depending on which perspective you take. It really isn't complicated. You are making it so.

Thinking and focused rational thinking are not the same, they aren't even done by the same mental facilities. — magritte

Are you suggesting that there are different kinds of thinking? I never really thought about that before. Off the top of my head, however, I would believe that thought is thought, and that, if it is differentiated, it is differentiated by degrees. So thought might be more or less pragmatic, more or less rational, more or less utilitarian. What happens when one kind of thought communicates with a different kind of thought? Is that, then, a different kind of thought again?

Oh my goodness, I wouldn't say so, no. Writing is a unique capacity. You are actually kinaesthetically integrating with words, concepts and ideas, you are getting visual feedback, it certainly adds a modality to thought.

I can't believe that you do not see how this is a false premise. To know how someone else is going to perceive something requires that you have communicated with the person already — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it requires the genetic process of sociation in which concepts are formed. It's basic stuff.

And evidence (evolution for example) indicates that it is the unique and particular features of the individual which provide the meaningful aspects of the "system". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a non-sequitur. Individual features are meaningful at an intra-systemic level certainly.

To understand an activity requires understanding its cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. This is why Mead stipulates that, in order to understand the meaning you are trying to convey, you must first understand the way that meaning is going to be perceived by someone else. Which is why meaning, and ultimately mind, is a social construct.

What terms like "systems theoretical analysis", and "emergence" actually signify is a lack of understanding of the activity being referred to. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they signify that there is a layer of meaning (and a corresponding entity) operating at a different level. Again, your conclusion is a non-sequitur which merely contradicts the principles being invoked.

This is a false premise. If it were true that we rely on "commonly accepted vocabulary" to get our ideas across, nothing new would ever "emerge" in the realm of ideas. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it means that language evolved through actual social interactions. This is so trivially evident I'm not even going to bother amplifying it.

Do you apprehend this contradiction Pantagruel? — Metaphysician Undercover

No I don't apprehend any contradiction. The entire description is consistent, based on my previous clarifications. It is possible that you may misunderstand sociology. Sociology is a very real and valid science.

Alternatively, I'd like to suggest that your conception of metaphysics really amounts to a mass of speculations, loosely attached to some collection of metaphysical notions, not borne out by any significant historical metaphysical thinkers. I reread the introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason last night. Kant certainly never construes metaphysics as contradicting science. Quite the contrary, he maintains the validity of science, within its domain. It just so happens that our current level of science has reached the point where it is able to account for mental constructs and entities, at least to some degree.

Here is Mead's account of how mind and self are social emergents, and language provides the mechanism for their emergence.

In order to express your ideas, you must convey them to an audience. In doing so, you therefore rely upon a commonly accepted vocabulary of "social acts." The social act can be described without introducing the pre-conception of consciousness. (Mind, Self and Society, p. 18)

For illocutionary acts, the intent is to evoke a behaviour from the other. But, in general, communication is an illocutionary act where the intent is to evoke understanding of a specific meaning. So "consciousness of the content and flow of meaning involved depends on...taking the attitude of the other towards [your] own gestures" (p. 47) Gestures become symbols for particular types of responses within communities of understanding. The existence of mind is only intelligible in terms of these symbols.

As Dewey says, meaning arises through communication. In other words, communication is fundamental to identity, not the reverse. The idea that sociation if fundamental to the genealogy of the self-concept is basic to the science of sociology.

Or maybe some genius sat down and, through pure reason, constructed a template of symbolic actions, which the rest of the world then adopted owing to their manifest (although not pragmatic) superiority.

Tell me then, what is your response to the simple logic which I presented. The activities of a group of people cannot be described as the activities of a "system", until the people can be observed to be acting in a specific way — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that is exactly what systems theoretic analysis does, establishes that systems of all types exist and behave according to predictive models.

Therefore it is impossible that the "system" is the cause of the people acting in the specified way, because that type of activity is necessarily prior to the existence of the system. — Metaphysician Undercover

The system doesn't have to be the cause of the actions per se. Only that the actions of the individual components of the system, taken collectively, have additional effects at the (inter)systemic level. That is the essence of emergence.

↪Echarmion

It's fundamentally a personal stabdard,
— Echarmion

I feel that this is one thing a categorical imperative is not. — Brett

Habermas relies heavily on the categorical imperative in his theories on legitimation in discourse theory and deliberative democracy. Certainly he feels that it is a collective principle. Inasmuch as duties and rights reciprocally entail this seems to make sense.

Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture

The very idea that, just because metaphysics is 'beyond physics', it somehow implies that physics (science in general) is invalid or untrue is ludicrous and laughable. That is a patent non-sequitur. I know of no serious philosopher who ever held such a view.
— Pantagruel

Clearly this does not apply to anything I've said. — Metaphysician Undercover

usefulness of a theory does not indicate truthfulness — Metaphysician Undercover

The usefulness of a theory certainly is a better indicator of truthfulness than of falsity. Whereas an utterly useless theory, if not false, is at least unsinn, or meaningless. Unless it is to be interpreted as art. I find yours unredeemed in that respect however.

Oh, and just saying that you have refuted my examples, doesn't make it so. I stand by the fact of the entire science of sociology as validating my evaluation of the scientific status of collective-conceptual thought. And, yes, it has proven useful. I'd say that makes it more true than false. At least I admit of a definable and objective criterion of truth, beyond just opinion.

The very idea that, just because metaphysics is 'beyond physics', it somehow implies that physics (science in general) is invalid or untrue is ludicrous and laughable. That is a patent non-sequitur. I know of no serious philosopher who ever held such a view. Henri Bergson, a personal favourite of mine, was extremely well-versed in the science of his day. The only way to truly go beyond science is first to understand what it is you are going-beyond. Likewise Popper, the prototypical philosopher of science, advocated for "metaphysical research programs", which he conceived as building upon, but extending past, the limits of current science.

There are some metaphysical notions that make sense. Yours...do not.

And pragmaticism is in bed with scientism — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you crossed a line. That's unwarranted and insulting. Clearly you understand neither the meaning of pragmatism, nor scientism.