Does that mean the mind is also an abstraction? — Benj96

Good question... We argue about that kind of thing here all the time. I'll take a swing at it - the mind is a non-physical manifestation of a physical process, i.e. our nervous system's functioning. If you squish an important part of the nervous system, there is nothing left to manifest the mind.

you can't be, strictly speaking, a Kantian and claim that neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and the like are telling you things about the causes of the structure of experience. For Kant, the natural sciences can only ever tell you about the world of phenomenal awareness, not what lies prior to it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't consider myself a Kantian and I can use those of his ideas I find valuable without having to accept everything he says. As Lorenz wrote in the quote I included in my post - "What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers." Besides that, as I noted, the idea of a priori knowledge being a manifestation of biological processes developed by Darwinian evolution is much broader than just Kant's formulation. I like to use Kant because it makes me seem all smart and stuff.

So I see the position you are advocating as:

A. Dropping core elements of Kant's thought;
B. Largely revolving around ideas that are neither unique to Kant nor new with him. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As for A, I don't have to accept everything Kant says to find his thoughts valuable. And B - I don't see how this makes any difference.

the claim that it is impossible to say that space and time exist fundamentally (but not actually) in nature — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't say it is impossible or unreasonable to see time and space that way, only that it is reasonable to see them otherwise. As I noted, I used Kant's vision of time and space as an example, not the only instance of the phenomena I am describing.

It's both for many animals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, but I never said experience didn't have a role. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

The genes of a fern or flower will never produce a functioning eye regardless of the environment. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Some plants respond to light with movement and growth. There's no reason that mechanism couldn't eventually evolve into an eye if there were an evolutionary reason to do so.

The mind does not varry between individuals the way your initial post implies, which is why for Kant we can discover laws of nature that are universally applicable for all observers across phenomenal awareness. — Count Timothy von Icarus

While it's true that the biological and genetic phenomena I'm describing are present for all fully-functioning humans, humans are not the only perceivers and, possibly, not the only conscious perceivers.

there is a relationship between relativism and subjectivity — Jack Cummins

I agree, although I think in the context of this discussion, the difference is important.

the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics. — 180 Proof

Why do you say that? Isn't truth a metaphysical concept?

The problem with asserting a completely relativistic notion of truth is that such an assertion is straightforwardly self-refuting. Such a claim will itself only be "true" relative to some social context, "language game," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... — 180 Proof

I don't understand the logic of this. Of course a relativistic position is relativistic. Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. 180 Proof, I know you have an understanding of metaphysics similar to mine. Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions.

The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else). — noAxioms

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "relativism" here. "Universe" means everything. We only have access to this scope of being, dimension or whatever you want to call it. If we ever gain access to some other hypothetical world, the meaning of "universe" will change.

I never found Kant's arguments here particularly convincing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm with Kant on this. A broader perspective recognizes the nature and extent of a priori knowledge applies to more than just space and time. Perception of color begins in the eye itself and grows to include a big piece of real estate in the brain. Babies are instinctively attracted to human voices and faces before they have had a chance to learn to make the categorization. There is also strong evidence that infants in the first months of life have inherent moral and numerical senses. If you have any interest in this subject, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." Its much shorter than the book I referenced. Here's a link.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

What things are outside of all interaction with anything else is not only epistemically inaccessible, but also makes no difference to the rest of the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If our a priori knowledge is dependent on our biological makeup, what could be more relativistic than that. As Lorenz shows, it has a profound impact on what we know and how we learn - all of our psychology.

Now some object changes its position or “moves in space”, and the mind remembers where the local motion began, sees the course of the movement, and notes where it terminates: the rabbit, for example, came out of that hole and ran behind that tree, where it is “now” hidden. The motion was not a “thing”; the rabbit is the “thing”.

There is evidence that perception of motion is also affected by instinctive, genetic mechanisms in the nervous system. It's not learned after birth.

I do not understand why he is frequently credited like this with the idea that our sense organs/minds shape how we experience the world. This is a very old intuition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm confused. Given this understanding, I don't see why you reject the position I'm describing.

In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective — Cadet John Kervensley

subjective, or relative — Jack Cummins

While objectivism and subjectivism clash — ToothyMaw

It's not clear to me that "relativism" and "subjectivism" mean the same thing, e.g. Catholic Church doctrine is that abortion is absolutely wrong, but many other churches don't agree. The Catholic position is absolute, but only relatively.

Welcome to the forum. A well-written and well thought out OP (original post).

To start... If you hang around you'll see that my arguments very often come back to metaphysics. Objectivism and relativism are metaphysical positions. I'm a fan of R.G. Collingwood who wrote that metaphysical positions are neither true nor false. My own formulation as a pragmatist is to use whichever works best in a given situation.

Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. — Cadet John Kervensley

There is a strong philosophical argument to be made that objective reality does not exist, or rather it is not always a useful way of looking at things. I've started discussions on this in the past and participated in many others over the years.

And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative. — Cadet John Kervensley

It's not just context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives that matter. Here's what Immanuel Kant has to say in "Critique of Pure Reason."

Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all outer intuitions. One can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it. It must therefore be regarded as the condition of the possibility of appearances, and not as a determination dependent upon them, and it is an a priori representation that necessarily underlies outer appearances...

...We dispute all claim of time to absolute reality [absolute Realität], namely where it would attach to things absolutely as a condition or property even without regard to the form of our sensible intuition. Such properties, which pertain to things in themselves, can also never be given to us through the senses. Therefore herein lies the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if one abstracts from the subjective condition of our sensible intuition, it is nothing at all, and can be considered neither as subsisting nor as inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition). — Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

So, according to Kant, space and time are not objective not because of context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives but because of our fundamental nature as human. Konrad Lorenz, the famous ethologist, had this to say.

In... the Critique of Pure Reason [Kant] wrote:

If one were to entertain the slightest doubt that space and time did not relate to the Ding an sich but merely to its relationship to sensuous reality, I cannot see how one can possibly affect to know, a priori and in advance of any empirical knowledge of things, i.e. before they are set before us, how we shall have to visualize them as we do in the case of space and time.

What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers. The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

As I've made clear, I don't live in the US, so my taking of responsibility has nothing to do with it. — Tzeentch

Europeans have their own extensive and continuing history of colonialism and exploitation.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem. — Tzeentch

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise. — Tzeentch

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups. — Tzeentch

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live.

Edited

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes. — Tzeentch

As I've said many times before, white people as a group don't like or trust black people as a group. Claiming the solution is to just treat people like people and behave as if we live in a colorblind society is, to put it as charitably as I can, naive to the point of delusion.

I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit. — Tzeentch

I think this is a good example of one of the reasons paying reparations is a bad idea. There are enough people out there who feel as you do that it will damage relationships between black and white people more than it will help.

Pardon my skepticism. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is one of the most difficult issues in physics right now. It seems unlikely that the approach you’ve described here will resolve that. Are you a trained physicist or do you have other relevant experience or training?

this generational disadvantage will persist for several more generations — LuckyR

I think that's optimistic. I hope not.

I don't trust this generation's recipients to use the funds in such a way to benefit those future generations. — LuckyR

What do you mean you don't trust them? What obligation do they have to use the money to benefit people in the future? If I gave you a windfall, what would you do with it? I suspect you would spend it on something you want or need or put it in your bank account. $470 billion is a lot of money and it would certainly provide an economic boost, but how much long-term impact could it have?

those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want". — LuckyR

This is a very good point. I should have included it in my list of good reasons not to give reparations.

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations. — ToothyMaw

Florida’s teachers are now required to instruct middle-school students that enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”...DeSantis has repeatedly defended the new language — AP - DeSantis is defending new slavery teachings.

The 'more than' our thoughts is ambiguous, — Jack Cummins

As I noted in another post in this thread:

My thoughts (and feelings, memories, perceptions, and a bunch of other stuff) are me. — T Clark

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered? — ToothyMaw

This is another one of those presumptuous, condescending statements we were talking about. You can't set yourself up as a spokesperson for black people.

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions — ToothyMaw

I understand what you were trying to say, but I stand by my judgment it is insulting and demeaning.

it's about justice - due compensation. It doesn't have to fix everything; it is a goodwill gesture towards making things a little righter. If we want to change the plight of people of color - especially those who have it the worst — ToothyMaw

As I said, it won't work and it'll make things worse. We don't need justice, if that's what reparations really is. Is money to middle class black people but nothing for poor whites and Hispanics justice? We need to make things better.

This seems a little glib. — ToothyMaw

It's not glib, it's vague. I wasn't trying to provide a list of possible solutions. Here are some - Universal Basic Income, political support for labor unions, changes in tax policy, political action to get rid of racial reactionaries. Most efforts should be aimed at class differences, not racial ones. Improving workers finances won't solve the problem, but it will make it a different problem.

And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness. — ToothyMaw

Wokeness isn't spooky and it isn't a term I like, but it's the term typically used these days and you know what I mean. What's the right word? If you think it isn't a real thing, then you don't really understand what's going on. Trying to make white people feel guilty gave Ron DeSantis the opening to claim that slavery benefited blacks.

And, your protestations of innocence non-withstanding, reparations is part of the same package.

I mean, clearly no one living today is at fault for slavery, but yeah, that kind of was white peoples' fault, wasn't it? Just not yours or mine? — ToothyMaw

I acknowledge my share of responsibility, not for slavery, but for the way black people and other minorities are treated today.

I'm thinking you're an engineer; thus am surprised to see what seems to me a defeatist attitude. — tim wood

Engineers are allowed to have a defeatist attitude, we're just supposed to justify it rationally, which I think I've done.

My original statement was.

Russell's paradox is considered identical to the liar's paradox and some mathematicians think it undermines the basis of all mathematics. I've never understood that. — T Clark

That's all I was trying to say, not that I personally thought it undermined mathematics, just that some mathematicians think, or thought, that way. As I mentioned, I'm skeptical, but I am not qualified to make substantive arguments to support that skepticism.

To my way of thinking, Americans of African decent (and members of other minority groups in different ways) have been systematically and institutionally screwed since day one. — tim wood

It's not that they've been screwed from day one, it's that they are being screwed right now.

The only reasonable accommodation that comes to mind is to mandate compensatory and complementary (i.e., that balances) access to everything that has been denied or deflected, to those who can benefit - call it extended affirmative action maybe on steroids, and to last for as long as the cause exists. — tim wood

Well, it hasn't worked so far and recently the government's ability to implement even existing affirmative action programs has been reduced by legal decisions and changes in law. I don't think there is currently any possibility of expanding it. Besides that, just like reparations, it will just increase white resentment.

I still think the only reasonable conclusion is to implement reparations. — ToothyMaw

I strongly disagree. For the record, I am a 72 year-old, white, liberal American. Am I correct in assuming you are also white?

According to most commonsense ideas of justice put forth in modern society, the assumption would be that reparations should be done in the absence of strong arguments against it — ToothyMaw

Presumptuous - how are you the spokesman for commonsense or justice?

since modern society treats people of color fairly, they don't deserve reparations. — ToothyMaw

Apparently most Americans think black people are treated fairly now, which is ridiculous. That's not a good reason for not paying reparations, but there are good reasons.

That one cannot draw a crisp, unambiguous causal line from the plight of a former slave to that of one of their descendants, a crack-addicted prostitute living in a ghetto for instance, is not evidence of a lack of such a line; — ToothyMaw

Outrageous. If nothing else, this statement shows the lack of seriousness of your argument. I think most black people would be angered by using crack whores as representative of their race in modern America.

Do you think you would have done better than the disproportionate number of people of color living in poverty? — ToothyMaw

No, I definitely do not. I am very fortunate to have been born middle-class and white. I have trouble enough living in the world of advantage where I currently find myself.

The legacy of slavery and the continued oppression of people of color in the United States is a blotch, and if one has any sense of justice one would want to do whatever one could to try to make it right, regardless of any perceived distance afforded by time. — ToothyMaw

It's not the distance in time that matters, it's the fact that white people don't like or trust black people now and that dislike is reflected in our laws, attitudes, customs, and traditions.

That undoubtedly includes some form of reparations. — ToothyMaw

No, it doesn't.

Now, my thoughts on reparations.

There are approximately 47 million black people in the US, including those of mixed race. How much are we going to give each of them? $10,000? That would cost a total of $470 billion dollars. How much difference would $10,000 make? Sure, it would make a big difference for many people and a very big difference for some. Would it change the racial atmosphere for the better? Would it erase the racial disadvantage? No. We'd end up back in the same world we started in with a vast well of white resentment added to what is already there.

And that's the main reason not to pay reparations - the only way to effectively address the problem is to change white people's attitudes. To give white people and black people a common purpose. Reparations will do just the opposite. We've already seen much of America kick-back against what they call "wokeness," the essence of which, as I see it, is that everything wrong is white people's fault and it's ok to treat them with contempt. Maybe that's what you call justice - give them a taste of their own medicine - but it won't work.

It's not about slavery, it's about how black people are treated now. Reparations won't work, they'll make things worse.

Since we are our will, and that is the agency part of us, it doesn't make sense to expect that part also to be determined by us, by itself. We are free to act on our will, not to choose it. — ChatteringMonkey

This is an interesting way of looking at it, but I think many would say if we don't determine our will, we don't have free will. You've defined the problem away, but are we automatic programmed machines or aren't we?

Truly metaphysical free will would be impossible under determinism, but that shouldn't really concern us as that particular concept of free will is incoherent to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't know what you mean by saying the concept is incoherent. On the other hand, I think the whole free will vs. determinism controversy much ado about nothing.

As meta-physics is by definition not constrained by anything physical/empirical, it usually ends up being shaped by our moral/religious beliefs, which is typically what we are really after. — ChatteringMonkey

This is not true at all, but it's outside the scope of this discussion, so let's leave it at that.

To say that Russell’s paradox undermines the basis of mathematics is overstatement since it is not required to base mathematics on unrestricted comprehension, and I don't know who has made that overstatement. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is certainly nowhere near my area of expertise, so I'll punt:

From the principle of explosion of classical logic, any proposition can be proved from a contradiction. Therefore, the presence of contradictions like Russell's paradox in an axiomatic set theory is disastrous; since if any formula can be proved true it destroys the conventional meaning of truth and falsity. Further, since set theory was seen as the basis for an axiomatic development of all other branches of mathematics, Russell's paradox threatened the foundations of mathematics as a whole. This motivated a great deal of research around the turn of the 20th century to develop a consistent (contradiction-free) set theory. — Wikipedia - Russell's Paradox

Also, this is from an article that describes a more radical interpretation.

Alan Turing appeared to be interested in the Lair paradox for purely formal reasons. However, he did then state the following:

The real harm will not come in unless there is an application, in which a bridge may fall down or something of that sort [] You cannot be confident about applying your calculus until you know that there are no hidden contradictions in it
On the surface at least, it does seem somewhat bizarre that Turing should have even suspected that the Liar paradox could lead to a bridge falling down. That is, Turing believed — if somewhat tangentially — that a bridge may fall down if some of the mathematics used in its design somehow instantiated a paradox (or a contradiction) of the kind exemplified by the Liar paradox. — When Alan Turing and Ludwig Wittgenstein Discussed the Liar Paradox

Who are some of the mathematicians you have in mind? — TonesInDeepFreeze

If I remember correctly, Russell, Wittgenstein, and others.

I don't know what to tell you then, I've explained this as clearly as I can. — Echogem222

Alas.

I understand how it fits into our system of classification of truth and falsehood just fine since my solution provides that answer. Really think about how words are mirrors from my post, how they're just symbols we decided to represent the meaning that they do... If you have done this, I believe you should understand just fine that the statement, — Echogem222

As I noted, I don't see how the fact that word meanings are matters of convention, symbols, is relevant in this context.

But which direction is right and which is left can only be established by a conscious, embodied being. — SEP on Leibniz

Sure. But this is true of everything - everything expressible as a concept.

Yes, the question is whether or not space has mind-independent directions. That question doesn't appear to be answered by noting that we have hands. I think you're agreeing that space does not have any innate directionality (in the same way there is no unmoving reference point out there). Adding more objects doesn't fix that. — frank

I'm not sure how this fits into this discussion, but there is a physical property - chirality - the technical term for handedness.

I call any geometrical figure, or group of points, 'chiral', and say that it has chirality if its image in a plane mirror, ideally realized, cannot be brought to coincide with itself. — Lord Kelvin

Certain chemicals - primarily organic compounds - form chiral pairs. Generally, but not always, they behave the same chemically. Chirality is also a property of some subatomic particles, e.g. the spin of an electron.

That doesn't change the fact that deciding which direction you call right and which left is a matter of convention, but it's a convention that makes some sense. 90% of people are right-handed. Left-handed people were sometimes considered sinister, which means "left."

we can consider words and statements as mirrors that reflect our attempts to understand them (by themselves). — Echogem222

I don't understand you metaphor of words as mirrors.

words and sentences have inherent truth values. Instead, it suggests that truth is a product of our interpretation of language, rather than an inherent value of language itself.

This view also highlights the subjective nature of truth. Since truth is dependent on our interpretation of language, — Echogem222

The liars statement is a grammatically correct proposition with a very clear meaning. Our difficulties have nothing to do with problem with our interpretation of language. You and I both know what it means, but we can't figure out how it fits into our system of classification of truth and falsehood.

The Russel's paradox, "a set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves" — Echogem222

Russell's paradox is considered identical to the liar's paradox and some mathematicians think it undermines the basis of all mathematics. I've never understood that. It has always seemed to me both are just tricks - playing around with language. This is a quote I've always liked from Tom Robbin's "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues." I think it's funny, goofy. It just shows how easy it is to come up with sentences which, while easy to interpret, are meaningless.

This sentence is made of lead (and a sentence of lead gives a reader an entirely different sensation from one made of magnesium). This sentence is made of yak wool. This sentence is made of sunlight and plums. This sentence is made of ice. This sentence is made from the blood of the poet. This sentence was made in Japan. This sentence glows in the dark. This sentence was born with a caul. This sentence has a crush on Norman Mailer. This sentence is a wino and doesn't care who knows it. Like many italic sentences, this one has Mafia connections. This sentence is a double Cancer with Pisces rising. This sentence lost its mind searching for the perfect paragraph. This sentence refuses to be diagramed. This sentence ran off with an adverb clause. This sentence is 100 percent organic: it will not retain a facsimile of freshness like those sentences of Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe et al., which are loaded with preservatives. This sentence leaks. This sentence doesn't look Jewish . . . This sentence has accepted Jesus Christ as its personal savior. This sentence once spit in a book reviewer's eye. This sentence can do the funky chicken. This sentence has seen too much and forgotten too little. This sentence is called “Speedoo” but its real name is Mr. Earl. This sentence may be pregnant, it missed its period. This sentence suffered a split infinitive—and survived. If this sentence had been a snake you'd have bitten it. This sentence went to jail with Clifford Irving. This sentence went to Woodstock. And this little sentence went wee wee wee all the way home. This sentence is proud to be a part of the team here at Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. This sentence is rather confounded by the whole damn thing. — Tom Robbins - Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

Most discussion in contemporary philosophy focuses upon the extent to which one generates thoughts oneself. It can be argued that even the wish to change is based upon the flow of thoughts. However, this may sidestep the issue of choice of thoughts and pathways of choice in this process. — Jack Cummins

Our thoughts are us, although there's more to us than just that,

I don't think its usefull because free-will doesn't even make sense conceptually. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The question of free will usually arises when we talk about determinism - if everything is determined by the motion of particles and energy that can (theoretically) be predicted by the laws of physics, where is there room for us to truly act freely.

We are our will, who would be the "we" apart from our will that wants to change the will. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is right and important. It's at the heart of the misconception at the heart of this discussion. Our minds and brains change all the time. Do we make those changes by free will? This turns it into a circular argument - begging the question. Is it I changing me?

Free will is a moral/religious concept. — ChatteringMonkey

No. It's metaphysics, although it might have moral implications.

Don't be fooled by language, it not because there is an "I" in "I think" that there is some consious agent behind the thinking. — ChatteringMonkey

My thoughts (and feelings, memories, perceptions, and a bunch of other stuff) are me.

I am curious about how different forms of stoicism approach aesthetics in general given the common disposition being somewhat oppositional to hedonism? — I like sushi

I don't know much about stoicism, but I thought this might be of interest. It's from "The Principles of Art" by R.G. Collingwood.

In order to clear up the ambiguities attaching to the word 'art', we must look to its history. The aesthetic sense of the word, the sense which here concerns us, is very recent in origin. Ars in ancient Latin, like tέxvn [technē] in Greek, means something quite different. It means a craft or specialized form of skill, like carpentry or smithying or surgery. The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft; what we call art they regarded merely as a group of crafts, such as the craft of poetry (πOINTIKη TÉXνn, ars poetica), which they conceived, sometimes no doubt with misgivings, as in principle just like carpentry and the rest, and differing from any one of these only in the sort of way in which any one of them differs from any other.

It is difficult for us to realize this fact, and still more so to realize its implications. If people have no word for a certain kind of thing, it is because they are not aware of it as a distinct kind. Admiring as we do the art of the ancient Greeks, we naturally suppose that they admired it in the same kind of spirit as ourselves. But we admire it as a kind of art, where the word 'art' carries with it all the subtle and elaborate implications of the modern European aesthetic consciousness. We can be perfectly certain that the Greeks did not admire it in any such way. — R.G. Collingwood - The Principles of Art

Like this — I like sushi

Yes, that's all ironic and self-referential and stuff.

Yes, I think that's it. It's happened to me a bunch of times.

What would do — Athena

Despair.

As I noted, if you want to start a new thread, I will participate.

His use of the extended sense of poetry is in line with the way the term was used prior to its modern restrictive sense. Poetry comes from the Greek term poiesis ποίησις. It means to make.They were makers of images, of stories, of what he calls the "paths of the imagination". They were the principle educators of the Greeks. — Fooloso4

This is an odd argument. We're not talking about how "poetry" was used was 2,500 years ago, we're talking about how it is used now. I don't think poetry as it is currently understood is better than prose or any other art, but it's different. It does different things. It's clear Rorty doesn't get that.

Rorty does not claim that we are intellectually and spiritually more advanced. — Fooloso4

I think what he wrote speaks for itself.

In the Phaedo and elsewhere, however, rather than acknowledging our finitude he tells stories of the afterlife, obscuring the possibility of our finitude. This was not because of a limit of Plato's intellectual or spiritual abilities, but a limit of what could in his time be freely acknowledged. — Fooloso4

Many (most?) people today don't "acknowledge our finitude." I'm not even sure what that means. I guess it's a code word for being an atheist. What hubris.

I think we've gone outside the intended scope of this thread. It would be an interesting subject for a new one. I'll put it on my list.

But this is too small a matter and too big a subject for me to venture much further. — Tom Storm

I think you're trying too hard to make Rorty not look like a putz. I'm not a poetry snob at all, but I can see that poetry does something different than other sorts of written works and other artistic works in general.

I've only read a little of Rorty but I don't have anything against him, at least till now.

That's a good line. But does this imply that Rorty has poetry wrong and therefore can't really be valuing it properly? Or are you saying that his way of understanding and valuing poetry is different to yours? — Tom Storm

I think Rorty's explanation of poetry shows he has no real grasp of how it works or what it does. As I noted, he seems like he wants to be open-minded about something he doesn't really think is very important. He says a couple of things in this article that made me laugh:

In that essay, as in previous writings, I used "poetry" in an extended sense. I stretched Harold Bloom's term "strong poet" to cover prose writers who had invented new language games for us to play — people like Plato, Newton, Marx, Darwin, and Freud as well as versifiers like Milton and Blake. These games might involve mathematical equations, or inductive arguments, or dramatic narratives, or (in the case of the versifiers) prosodic innovation...

...I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. — Richard Rorty - The Fire of Life

This is such bullshit. He claims poetry is important and then explains it away as nothing significantly different from other types of intellectual endeavor. And this made me groan:

We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude — to admit that we shall never be in touch with something greater than ourselves. We hope instead that human life here on earth will become richer as the centuries go by because the language used by our remote descendants will have more resources than ours did. Our vocabulary will stand to theirs as that of our primitive ancestors stands to ours. — Richard Rorty - The Fire of Life

This is so arrogant and pompous - to claim that we are, that he is, somehow intellectually and spiritually more advanced than Plato and Aristotle (or for me, Lao Tzu).