Today's 'metanarrative' is that the West is (by default) wrong and guilty, and other cultures are always right and wonderful. All the while, Western capitalism is destroying the planet and our common future, and those academics who meekly condemn the West bask in the limelight of it's self-disgust and enjoy the comfort Western culture provides... — Olivier5

:up: There's some truth in that!

As an aside, I also think it's interesting to see what system most convinces you, evidence aside. Which is to say that things like idealism, physicalism, skepticism, determinism etc., can't be refuted (or confirmed) by evidence, only evaluated based on reasoning. — Manuel

I like entertaining any and all of those positions to see where they logically lead, but if I was asked to say what I would definitely commit to, I think the one position which is true to our actual situation, epistemologically speaking, is skepticism.

I think overconfidence in one position or another is a prevalent intellectual failing that grows out of the common emotional incapacity to live with uncertainty. In my view the richer intellectual life is "grounded" in uncertainty, because uncertainty opens the mind.

I think philosophical positions generally are not testable; which means philosophy is more art than science.

My own diagnostic is more pessimistic: I believe that any school or tradition of philosophy that captures enough of the public's and academia's attention is liable to degenerescence over time, due to too much security and not enough challenge. Power corrupts. Money, or automatic tenure too. German idealism, English analytic philosophy, 'French theory', they all fell victim to their own academic success. — Olivier5

I think this diagnosis is relevant only to the "populist" followers of the schools you mentioned; it has no bearing on the seminal thinkers.

But I do think it's person dependent, in terms of getting value of certain philosophers. Some get lots of value from Levinas others from Quine or Carnap. Likewise with Derrida or Husserl or Hegel. It's not even that continental is obscure whereas analytic is clear, that's often not true. — Manuel

I agree; it's a matter of personal taste, just as it is with literature. I don't look at philosophy as a whole as one system or conceptual schema refuting others at all, but as a myriad of ways of imagining and understanding things. It is the exercise of Peirce's 'abductive reasoning' to produce theories that may not be able to be tested in the way scientific theories may be.

What I'd be interested to hear is how post-modernism has changed people's thinking or enhanced their experience of art/culture/philosophy/knowledge in any way. — Tom Storm

One significant effect in the arts was to open up the field to a new kind of eclecticism, once the modernist obsession with formal innovation had run its course.

For me, obscurity in literature consists in writings that remain ambiguous no matter how much analysis is applied to them. But ambiguity is not without value; it may lead to insight; think poetry for example. Passages which are merely complex may be explained by breaking them down into simpler units; they can be summarized in other words.

It's probably wiser to tackle complex texts, such as Critique of Pure Reason and Process and Reality by reading secondary analyses first. The latter is also obscure in my view: Whitehead's notion of God has remained ineluctably ambiguous to me. Which is not to say I think it to be without worth.

If some of our great minds, who are sympathetic to the French writers, don't get it right, what chance for the rest of us? — Tom Storm

When reading so-called "obscure" writers such as Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze, Badiou, and so on, I don't think the point is "getting it right", but rather gleaning insight and novel perspectives. If you don't get the latter from reading an author then you will probably not find much motivation to continue reading them.

It is legitimate to say that Schopenhauer said this out of jealousy, there may be some truth to this, but I just think he really disliked obscurity, making a notable exception for Kant. — Manuel

I haven't found Kant obscure. For me his work is complex rather than obscure.

'A physicist', said Neils Bohr, 'is just an atom's way of looking at itself'. — Wayfarer

The relevance escapes me.

here are a whole range of other realities whose reality we can now affirm: interest rates, mortgages, contracts, vows, national constitutions, penal codes and so on. — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

All of which are dependent for their existence on humanity. As to what exists independently of humans. humans and animals share an environment which is not dependent on humans, except insofar as they have changed the environment into the form it currently takes. The environment is not dependent on humans for its sheer existence, though; a fact which is amply demonstrated by the fossil record.

But in much of modern philosophy the naturalist attitude is taken for granted, not seeing how this limits the scope of philosophical conceivability to what is 'inside the square', what can be definitely known by means of sense and science. — Wayfarer

It's not the scope of conceivability, but the scope of determinate knowability which is limited. You don't want to admit that the scope of determinate knowability is limited to what can be known by means of sense and science (and you left out logic), and that metaphysics is merely an imaginative activity akin to poetry. That metaphysics is an imaginative activity that cannot yield determinate knowledge doesn't devalue it in the slightest in my opinion, just as it doesn't devalue poetry; in fact that is rather what it gives it value.

It's true that people have lost trust in the medical industry. It is often seen as having become a puppet of so-called "big Pharma". This distrust has increased interest and confidence in "alternative" therapies. Since medicine is the one overtly scientific arena in which a great deal of personal anxiety is invested it is no wonder that it is the area of science and technology that is least trusted. That is not to say that there are not many people who still trust it implicitly, though.

Yes, plastics of course and fertilizers that are killing soils world wide are based on fossil fuels as well as many medicines.

Then there is nothing for it; we must all join the Liberal Party. If they are going to stay in power, the only option is to change their policies. — Banno

Do you really believe change of policy in the Liberal party can come from the bottom and work it's way up, or that any individual can work their way up to gain power without becoming corrupted by the culture?

Manmade climate change's reality has an overwhelming consensus in science, so I expect that scientifically literate people would agree that our use of technology is apocalyptic. — Kenosha Kid

I like to imagine what science and technology, and civilization itself, would have been like absent fossil fuels.I am not one who believes that our salvation lies in scientifically advanced technology. I dislike the whole idea of gratuitous consumerism, but I also recognize that the advances in medicine, prosperity due to scientifically advanced technology made possible by cheap energy (fossil fuels) that we have enjoyed and the rampant consumer economy are all of a piece and codependent; you can't have one without the others. I don't think it would be a tragedy if humanity returns to hunter/ gatherer life.

Cheers Janus. While the anti-vax lunatic fringe might disagree, I think most people would agree. By contrast, would you say that most people agree or disagree with the sentence: Our use of technology is causing a catastrophic global warming event? — Kenosha Kid

I'm really not sure about that one. I'd say anyone who is even passably science-literate and not given to perverse conspiracy theories would agree, but I don't know how many of each of those categories there are. I'd say the conspiracy theory crowd are a fairly small minority, but I don't know about the science-literate.

Seems worth a look. Later... off to work now...

But that's a mortified equine. — Banno

Fully in terred, I hope! :wink:

If memory serves, you asked me how I know that the law of non-contradiction is true. That's a separate issue, and rather than get embroiled in a pointless debate in which you eventually espouse some form of extreme scepticism about the possiblity of any knoweldge whatsoever, or just arbitrarily affirm some kind of empiricism, I asked you how you know it is true. — Bartricks

Yes, you evaded a question with a question. I told you how I know the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion, and that I make no further claim than that. Now, the ball's in your court, since you claim to know the LNC is contingently true (whatever that could mean), to explain how you know that. Your explanation will also, no doubt, explain what it means to say that the LNC is contingently true

Graham Priest's arguments (I have read a little of his work several years ago) do not contradict themselves as far as I remember, so he would seem to be adhering to the LNC while claiming it is not true. That begs the question as to what he means by saying the LNC is not true. Not true in any metaphysical sense, perhaps? It's a while since I read any of his work; perhaps I'll go back and take another look.

The word 'necessity' doesn't have a single meaning, and the meaning it has in 'necessary for rational discussion' does not denote metaphysical necessity of the kind I deny. — Bartricks

Yes, and I already said earlier, a couple times if I am not mistaken, that I make no metaphysical claim beyond saying that the LNC is necessary for rational thought and discussion.

I don't think it is necessary for rational discussion even in that non-metaphysical sense (and this is demonstrable, for there are philosophers who deny the actual truth of the law of non-contradiction and they do engage in rational debate over the matter). — Bartricks

Do their arguments contradict themselves?

So again, how do you know the law of non-contradiction to be true? I think it is true and I have my own answer to the question, but I want to know what your answer is. — Bartricks

I don't know what you mean by asking your question here. I haven't said the LNC is true, but merely that it is necessary for rational thought and discussion. Forget the LNC, if it makes it easier to understand, I'll just say that not contradicting yourself in your rational thoughts and discussions is necessary for the sense and integrity of those thoughts and discussions.

Haha, I just meant that according to dogma God gave us free will. So, although God is seen as a lawgiver, he is not understood to force us to do the "right thing"; that is left up to us. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES !

Well, I think most people place their hopes in improvements of human life due to medical science and science;based technology.

And it is you who is confused: you seem to think that there are necessarily necessary truths - how do you make that case without begging the question?!? — Bartricks

Although this is not directly addressed to me, it goes back to your last response to a post of mine which I did not in turn respond to. Recall that I said that the LNC is necessary for rational discussion to be possible; so the necessity of the LNC is relative to, contingent upon, the possibility of rational discussion, well actually to the possibility of any rational thought. I was not proposing any more absolute necessity than that. I hope this clears the point up for you.

Yes, but even God allowed that; he gave us free will after all.

But the question and your answer don't pertain to philosophers: what you're suggesting here is that people in general are as committed to the modernism project as ever, right? — Kenosha Kid

I don't see postmodernism as being all that pervasive in philosophy, actually. Insofar as much of contemporary philosophy is scientistic, I think it would still qualify as modernism. And yes I do think people in general are as committed to the modernist project as ever.

Within philosophy you'll find people who haven't really moved past Plato. — Kenosha Kid

That's true, and is probably due to a reaction on the part of a few to the very idea of modernism, a kicking back against what is seen as an unwanted incursion of science into philosophy. Or they may just be fascinated by ancient ideas. :wink:

How would you describe that?

"Everything is permitted" because there are no deities, or no transcendent lawgiver. This, however, "does not mean nothing is forbidden" by mortals who, mostly as strangers, must live together — 180 Proof

That's a good point. "Everything is permitted" refers to humanity as a whole, freed from the constraints of a deity imposing moral law from above. But of course many things, namely those which create egregious social disharmony, will not be permitted by persons.

The 'postmodern condition' was coined to describe the fall of metanarratives after the two world wars (or between them, depending on what you count). — Kenosha Kid

As I see it the meta-narratives only "fell" among a select group of academics. Outside of that "circle jerk" the meta-narrative of modernism is alive and kicking hard.

Perhaps there has been a postmodern movement (as opposed to a Movement) in the arts; where the mania for formal innovation has been surrendered in the face of vacuity, and an eclectic spirit that can find ideas and inspiration in past works has become accepted.

But there's more to language and reason than can be explained in terms of pattern recognition. It is simple-minded reductionism. — Wayfarer

I haven't said there isn't more to language and reason; obviously there is a semantic element too, which is encoded in the arrangement or patterned order of the symbols, but which is obviously not merely the pattern, but is also the response the pattern evokes.

Patterns have a repeating structure. — Wayfarer

This is where your confusion lies: some patterns have repeating structure.

The word has a wide range of uses. From the Cambridge Online Dictionary:

Pattern
noun
uk
/ˈpæt.ən/ us
/ˈpæt̬.ɚn/
pattern noun (WAY)
B2 [ C ]
a particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens:
The pattern of family life has been changing over recent years.
A pattern is beginning to emerge from our analysis of the accident data.
In this type of mental illness, the usual pattern is bouts of depression alternating with elation.
Many behaviour(al) patterns have been identified in the chimp colony.
More examples

Recent months have seen a pattern of tit-for-tat killings between the two sides.
It is difficult to discern any pattern in these figures.
Damage to the ozone layer has caused a change in weather patterns.
Changing patterns of agriculture are threatening the countryside.
Genetic engineers should not be allowed to play God, interfering with the basic patterns of Nature.

SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases


Want to learn more?

Improve your vocabulary with English Vocabulary in Use from Cambridge.
Learn the words you need to communicate with confidence.
pattern noun (ARRANGEMENT)
B1 [ C ]
any regularly repeated arrangement, especially a design made from repeated lines, shapes, or colours on a surface:
Look, the frost has made a beautiful pattern on the window.
The curtains had a floral pattern.
picture of pattern
Stefan Cristian Cioata/Moment/GettyImages
More examples
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
pattern noun (EXAMPLE)
[ C usually singular ]
something that is used as an example, especially to copy:
The design is so good it's sure to set the pattern for many others.
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
pattern noun (DRAWING)
B2 [ C ]
a drawing or shape used to show how to make something:
a knitting pattern
a dress pattern
Cut out all of the pieces from the paper pattern and pin them on the cloth.

ClarkandCompany/iStock/Getty Images Plus/GettyImages
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
pattern noun (PIECE)
[ C ]
a small piece of cloth or paper taken from a usual-sized piece and used to show what it looks like:
a pattern book
Synonym
sample (SMALL AMOUNT)
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
pattern
adjective [ before noun ]
used in compounds to refer to the way in which a particular type of hair loss occurs, affecting mainly the top and front of the head:
50% of men over age 50 experience some kind of male pattern baldness.
Female-pattern hair loss, which is caused by genetic and hormonal factors, is the most common type of hair loss in women.
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
(Definition of pattern from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
pattern | American Dictionary
pattern
noun [ C ]
us
/ˈpæt̬·ərn/
pattern noun [C] (WAY)
a particular way in which something is done or organized, or in which something happens:
Our weather pattern comes from the northwest.
A whole variety of behavior patterns affect infants.
pattern noun [C] (SHAPES)
a regular arrangement of lines, shapes, or colors:
A human fingerprint can be viewed as a geometric pattern.
A pattern is also a design or set of shapes that show how to make something:
a dress pattern
patterned
adjective us
/ˈpæt̬·ərnd/
a rose and black patterned skirt
(Definition of pattern from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
pattern | Business English
pattern
noun
uk
/ˈpætən/ us
[ C ]
a particular way in which something usually happens or is done:
a pattern of sth A pattern of sluggish consumer demand made growth targets impossibly high.
a pattern emerges A pattern is emerging of a steady reduction in costs and increased sales.
establish/fall into/follow a pattern The decision follows a pattern that has become increasingly common in the food industry.
identify/reveal/show a pattern An examination of official documents shows a pattern of construction cost overruns.
a changing/different/similar pattern changing patterns of employment
a consumption/growth/spending pattern High joblessness and changing consumption patterns will result in moderate sales.
Organizations must address the needs of workers with diverse career patterns and goals.
[ C ]
a way of doing something that other people, organizations, etc. can copy:
set the pattern for sth The talks have set the pattern for trying to solve problems within the industry.
a holding pattern
a situation where there is little activity or change, and people are not doing business, spending money, etc. because they cannot decide what to do next:
be in/go into a holding pattern Several deals went into an immediate holding pattern after the crisis.
pattern
adjective [ before noun ]
HR
uk
/ˈpætən/ us
used to describe an agreement based on similar agreements with other companies:
a pattern agreement/contract The contract was viewed by bargainers as a pattern agreement to be used in negotiations with the car company.
The traditional pattern bargaining that went on in the auto industry has gone.
pattern
verb [ T ]
uk
/ˈpætən/ us
be patterned after/on sth
to be copied from something or to be very similar to something:
The facility will employ 150 people and be patterned after the steel fastener facility in Saint Joe, Indiana.
(Definition of pattern from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
Examples of pattern
pattern
Disaggregation of household results by sources of income and expenditure patterns permits a fairly detailed analysis of likely changes in poverty.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
For the arterial trunks, this is an easy matter, since the pattern of branching permits ready distinction of an aorta from a pulmonary trunk.
From the Cambridge English Corpus
More examples
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.
Collocations with pattern
pattern

These are words often used in combination with pattern.

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.
apparent pattern
The same apparent pattern of impairment can be produced by damage to different loci.
From the Cambridge English Corpus

basic pattern
The basic pattern is alternating odd-syllable stress, with the primary stress falling word-initially.
From the Cambridge English Corpus

behavioural pattern
In the absence of any other knowledge we should design for this behavioural pattern.
From the Cambridge English Corpus

(Although I might concede that this argument is part of a pattern. :roll: ) — Wayfarer

You don't seem to be able to accept that others disagree with you without imputing lack of comprehension or bad faith on their part. You need an actual argument that is cogent to attempt to refute other views or show that they are inadequate; flippant comments like the above do nothing more than make you like you are are not really interested in discussion at all.

I mean, the example you have given doesn't prove your point. That there are 'examples' of algorithm design techniques that refer to patterns, doesn't show that algorithms are simply patterns as such. An algorithm is 'a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.' You can write an algorithm to generate patterns - I imagine that is computer science 101. But it doesn't prove your point. — Wayfarer

All sentences are patterns. Take that sentence and produce a different pattern. Sentences patterns all are. Or, Lla secnetnes era snrettap. Those are still close enough to be decipherable, But consider:
Lasl teen scen raep teat snr; not so easy to decipher that pattern, eh?

Algorthms are sets of ordered instructions, just like sentences. The difference being that if you change the arrangement, the pattern, of the instructions the algorithm will not work at all.

You mean you can't think of anything more to say in defence of your claim that algorithms are not patterns?

Algorithms are also not patterns. — Wayfarer

"Algorithm design refers to a method or a mathematical process for problem-solving and engineering algorithms. The design of algorithms is part of many solution theories of operation research, such as dynamic programming and divide-and-conquer. Techniques for designing and implementing algorithm designs are also called algorithm design patterns,[42] with examples including the template method pattern and the decorator pattern."

From here

This sentence is not a pattern. — Wayfarer

It is most certainly a specific, recognizable. arrangement of letters: a pattern.

So, what is the pattern behind Egyptian hyroglyphs? Is there one?Or behind any language, for that matter? This sentence? Language, generally? — Wayfarer

The letters themselves are patterns, the alphabetic sequential arrangement is a pattern, and unless words were arranged in recognizable patterns, comprehension of language would be impossible.

Indeed. Especially if you are right that ideas do not really exist. — Olivier5

I didn't say that ideas don't really exist; I said that they don't have substantive existence, and that they don't exist apart from the thinking of them.

It's more of a pattern or algorithm given that, unless I am mistaken, you can program computers to generate novel prime numbers; and computers cannot understand concepts.

OK, with such different starting assumptions I guess there's not much to be discussed. :smile:

OK, got it...

And along those lines much more besides! What I am on about is the repeated claim that g/God is real in some material-but-not-material sense. And to that I say prove it, which for any Christian understanding of God cannot be done. It's all belief, which is all real Christians claim, and that's fair enough. But a lot of the believers want in where they do not belong, making whole hosts of insupportable claims. And this in many cases to solicit contributions from the ignorant. That religion unprosecuted fraud. — tim wood

OK, it looks like I misread you. In that case I agree with you; it is incoherent to claim that something is real, as in substantive, and yet not materially existent, if only because we don't know what we are saying in making such a claim.

I have many times taken Wayfarer to task for this, when he claims the platonic forms or universals are real independently of all and any individual mind and yet not material, and the claim is always then that I have misunderstood the "argument". But there is never an argument: it's not so much that such claims are logically impossible as that they are propositionally empty and meaningless.

On the other hand such things are fine to be said in mystical writings, scriptures and poetry where no propositional claims are understood to be made.

I don't know; I'm not religious. Comfort perhaps, or inspiration, or a sense of inter-connectedness or oneness?

OK I've only made two posts in this thread apart from the one saying that I'm not sure which post you were responding to. So, was it the first or second post you were responding to? Or both, perhaps?

Not sure which of my posts you're responding to, 180.

And most religions - all, near as I can tell - have nothing more to offer. — tim wood

You cannot tell very nearly; since you are not near religion yourself they obviously have nothing to offer you. As Bob would have it: "Don't criticize what you can't understand"; better to remain silent than make an ass of yourself by spouting poorly informed opinions.

Placebos do require faith. Without it they don't work.