For one, it seems odd that you'd have the complaints about philosophy that you do--it all went to Hell beginning with scholasticism, for example (have you time-traveled to us from the 11th or 12th century?), that Descartes is useless because "he coudn't even run himself," etc.--yet find Nietzsche worthwhile.

Nietzsche said a lot of insightful things, despite his many other failings. Descartes had no insight apart from quibbling about evil demons and incoherent skepticism. He was purely concerned with the fictive as the source of his philosophy instead of the real.

Descartes had no insight apart from quibbling about evil demons and incoherent skepticism. He was purely concerned with the fictive as the source of his philosophy instead of the real. — Agustino

Would you say that's all he was doing in Passions of the Soul or in the physics sections of Principles of Philosophy, say?

Once again you're merely playing with the meanings of words bending them to suit your own predetermined opinion.

But the truth is intelligibility is only useful when it can predict consequences. — Agustino

Really? I can see no justification for such a conclusion whatsoever.

Perhaps - thus he [Socrates] should have asked himself - what is not intelligible to me is not necessarily unintelligent? Perhaps there is a realm of wisdom from which the logician is exiled?
— Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche disagreed with Plato/Socratic emphasis on the Apollonian, he thought we are comprised of both Apollonian and Dionysian forces, each forming the limit of the other and each necessarily present and equal in a healthy person.

Descartes is known for his coordinate system regardless of his other philosophical achievements.

The invention of Cartesian coordinates in the 17th century by René Descartes (Latinized name: Cartesius) revolutionized mathematics by providing the first systematic link between Euclidean geometry and algebra

Wikipedia

Yeah, but apart from mathematics, and laying the foundation for science, and setting out the foundations of knowledge, what did Descartes ever do for us?

I've read just Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes.

My point is that Descartes took philosophy in absolutely the wrong direction, and many followed suite. And this isn't merely evil demons, doubting mathematical truths, skepticism, but also things like dualism, mind/body separation, homunculus in the brain and so forth. Again, I don't want to quibble over Descartes - it's really not important, that's not the topic of this thread. Descartes served merely as an example - merely as the representative figure for modern philosophy - he's not known as the Father of it for nothing is he?

Nietzsche disagreed with Plato/Socratic emphasis on the Apollonian, he thought we are comprised of both Apollonian and Dionysian forces, each forming the limit of the other and each necessarily present and equal in a healthy person. — Cavacava

Yeah, thanks for lecturing me on Nietzsche, I surely needed that :-}

Descartes is known for his coordinate system regardless of his other philosophical achievements. — Cavacava

Yeah, but apart from mathematics, and laying the foundation for science, and setting out the foundations of knowledge, what did Descartes ever do for us? — unenlightened

How about you guys stop bothering with mere examples and discuss what this thread is about? This thread isn't about Descartes, nor about his achievements or lack thereof. This thread is about discussing the idea that "the unintelligible is not necessarily unintelligent" and what consequences this idea has for philosophy.

Really? I can see no justification for such a conclusion whatsoever. — Barry Etheridge

When else is intelligibility useful?

This thread is about discussing the idea that "the unintelligible is not necessarily unintelligent" and what consequences this idea has for philosophy. — Agustino

How would one know? Stanslaw Lem explores the idea of unintelligible intelligence in Solaris, but apart from engendering a certain humility, I don't see how the unintelligible can have any intelligible consequences.

When else is intelligibility useful? — Agustino

How about when it facilitates understanding? In any case, on what basis is "usefulness" the only criterion for intelligibility (or anything else) to be valuable? How are you defining and distinguishing "intelligible" from "intelligent" in this thread?

Maybe it's about the existential functions of good art, given that Nietzsche was complaining about the decline of Greek tragedy with the rise of the Socratic impulse.

Nearly everything is unintelligible in a supreme sense, until we have to sit and listen to the mind give us a lesson on whatever it is it wants to explain.

How would one know? — unenlightened

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

I don't see how the unintelligible can have any intelligible consequences. — unenlightened

Perhaps you meant INTELLIGENT, not intelligible. Take Donald Trump. His unintelligible actions had the intelligent consequence of winning him the Presidency. How did he outsmart all the pundits and managed what mostly no one would have thought possible? And think about it - all the big heads, with all the facts backing them up - they all lost, and the baboon who didn't give a shit about any facts won - why?

Take other examples. Someone falling prey to his cognitive biases may consistently perform action X better than someone who doesn't. Yet this seems befuddling and strange - indeed unintelligible. But acting unintelligibly isn't necessarily acting unintelligently. This raises a significant problem. We typically consider our actions, and plan our life whether in mundane affairs, or in more daring goals - at least in modern society - by attempting to be intelligible at all costs. But if what is unintelligible isn't necessarily unintelligent, then does it not follow that we are cutting ourselves off from options which may be intelligent? How must we change the way we operate in order to profit, rather than be harmed from unintelligibility?

Take another final example. Deep Blue is being perfectly intelligible against Kasparov. It checks every single move, and checks every single consequence and into the future. It checks millions of moves. But Kasparov obviously doesn't. His mind doesn't function by checking millions of possibilities. While it is true that skipping millions of possibilities is unintelligible because hey - there may be one which has great future benefits, and how can you know without thinking through it? - what Kasparov's mind does is that it automatically doesn't see 99% of possible moves, and instead focuses on the 1% which actually have a real chance of being winning moves. So here lies the whole thing - it's not about being intelligible - it's not about having the biggest brain. It's about knowing what to focus on. The computer doesn't know what moves to focus on, and thus seeks to check everything, even blatantly stupid moves it will check. This is the unintelligible - what Kasparov's mind does vs the intelligibility of the computer. What his mind does is unintelligible - you can't say HOW he eliminates those 99% worthless moves, and focuses on the 1% which has potential. And yet - it's not unintelligent - it is in fact VERY intelligent, and it is Deep Blue who is being stupid.

In fact, I find it fascinating the difference between how computers function and how human minds function. Computers have a very brute kind of intelligence. Even the more intelligent algorithms, they're not as capable as the human mind is in eliminating possibilities in a flash - they don't have insight. But the human mind follows principles. In chess for example, controlling the centre, developing your pieces, castling as soon as possible, etc. These are principles - dogmas. But the computer has no principles to follow - it's all math and calculation for it. But these dogmas, which seem unintelligible, actually are quite intelligent because they cut through the fluff right away. How is it that the human mind can develop such dogmas? And how does the mind form them?

Consider also you could add many other examples to the pile. Religion is in many regards unintelligible - is it also therefore unintelligent? I don't think so.

How about when it facilitates understanding? — aletheist

And is understanding itself not useful? Don't we become better people the more we understand?

And is understanding itself not useful? Don't we become better people the more we understand? — Agustino

Not necessarily, on both counts.

I will ask again--how are you defining and distinguishing "intelligible" from "intelligent" in this thread?

As I understand it you are saying there are mysteries which can never be made intelligible, and that we ought not, on that account, become closed off to the possibilities inherent in such mysteries. If this is what you want to say then I heartily agree. We should not allow our intelligence to be limited by the limitations of our intellects.

Take Donald Trump. His unintelligible actions had the intelligent consequence of winning him the Presidency. — Agustino

There is little unintelligible about the ducky. Rabble rousing is a well known, tried and trusted technique that is quite well understood. But even if folks found it unintelligible, that doesn't make it unintelligible, just as quantum mechanics isn't unintelligible just because it is a closed book to most of us.

But here's something that you may find unintelligible; winning is not always intelligent.

Again, I don't want to quibble over Descartes - it's really not important, that's not the topic of this thread. Descartes served merely as an example - merely as the representative figure for modern philosophy - he's not known as the Father of it for nothing is he? — Agustino

When your examples fail to exemplify what they are intended to make example of, then it's time to reassess that principle which the example was meant to elucidate. Perhaps the principle was produced from a misinterpretation, if the relationship between the example and the principle demonstrates a misunderstanding.

Take other examples. Someone falling prey to his cognitive biases may consistently perform action X better than someone who doesn't. Yet this seems befuddling and strange - indeed unintelligible. But acting unintelligibly isn't necessarily acting unintelligently. This raises a significant problem. We typically consider our actions, and plan our life whether in mundane affairs, or in more daring goals - at least in modern society - by attempting to be intelligible at all costs. But if what is unintelligible isn't necessarily unintelligent, then does it not follow that we are cutting ourselves off from options which may be intelligent? How must we change the way we operate in order to profit, rather than be harmed from unintelligibility? — Agustino

What you describe here is nothing more than deception, and we should all be very wary of any claim that deception is good. Any time we act intelligently, but our actions are made to appear unintelligible, this is an act of deception. Yes, this procedure is acceptable in strategies of some game playing, and also strategies of war, where there is a real enemy. But the moral status of profiting from unintelligibility in our day to day communion with others is very suspicious, if not downright wrong.

Any time we act intelligently, but our actions are made to appear unintelligible, this is an act of deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is it deception? Why is it that an action is deceptive if it's not intelligible? It's deceptive only for the person who expects and demands that you act intelligibly, but to say so, is merely to assume that one should be the kind of logician Nietzsche criticises.

winning is not always intelligent. — unenlightened

Sure - many people in fact lose because they win the wrong battles. That's what immorality consists in. Winning at the wrong time - that's acting immorally usually. Whenever you act in a way that contravenes morality, you are putting yourself up for a great future loss - for only a temporary and short-term victory.

"intelligible" from "intelligent" — aletheist

Intelligible is something that makes sense according to the prevailing worldview/culture - in other words, an action that others can understand.
Intelligent is something that works - that gets the job done in a way that doesn't create future hidden costs.

As I suspected - that is not how either of those words is normally defined, especially within philosophy.

As I suspected - that is not how either of those words is normally defined, especially within philosophy. — aletheist

Intelligent doesn't have a special philosophical definition. Intelligible on the other hand you could claim has - it follows a logical structure. But even if that's the chosen definition - it's not always intelligent to follow a logical structure.

How is it deception? Why is it that an action is deceptive if it's not intelligible? It's deceptive only for the person who expects and demands that you act intelligibly, but to say so, is merely to assume that one should be the kind of logician Nietzsche criticises. — Agustino

You describe the act as "intelligent". Therefore it is inherently intelligible, even if it is only intelligible to the one carrying out the act. To present this act to another human being as unintelligible, is therefore to misrepresent it, and this is deception.

It is quite clear that what is at stake here is the issue of hiding your true motives from others, in your dealings with these people. Generally speaking (except in situations like I mentioned), this is morally reprehensible.

You describe the act as "intelligent". Therefore it is inherently intelligible — Metaphysician Undercover

How does this follow? Nietzsche and me are challenging precisely this - that something has to be intelligible in order to be intelligent. I disagree - it doesn't.

It is quite clear that what is at stake here is the issue of hiding your true motives from others, in your dealings with these people. Generally speaking (except in situations like I mentioned), this is morally reprehensible. — Metaphysician Undercover

This has nothing to do with hiding your true motives at all. I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion... In fact I do see how it follows. It follows only if we both accept the premise that what is intelligent must also be intelligible.

How does this follow? Nietzsche and me are challenging precisely this - that something has to be intelligible in order to be intelligent. I disagree - it doesn't. — Agustino

I was responding to this:

But acting unintelligibly isn't necessarily acting unintelligently. — Agustino

Along with your examples, what is being described here is deception, acting intelligently in a way so as the actions appear unintelligible.

This has nothing to do with hiding your true motives at all. I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion... In fact I do see how it follows. It follows only if we both accept the premise that what is intelligent must also be intelligible. — Agustino

Your conclusion only follows if there is a form of deceit which is impossible to be determined as deceit. If it is possible that the deceit may be exposed, then the intelligent act which appears to be unintelligible really is intelligible, and your claims are wrong.

And, as I said, the intelligent act is inherently intelligible to the one who is acting or else it would not be an intelligent act. Therefore the intelligent act is necessarily intelligible.

.

Along with your examples, what is being described here is deception, acting intelligently in a way so as the actions appear unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this for real? Is this for example about deception:

Take another final example. Deep Blue is being perfectly intelligible against Kasparov. It checks every single move, and checks every single consequence and into the future. It checks millions of moves. But Kasparov obviously doesn't. His mind doesn't function by checking millions of possibilities. While it is true that skipping millions of possibilities is unintelligible because hey - there may be one which has great future benefits, and how can you know without thinking through it? - what Kasparov's mind does is that it automatically doesn't see 99% of possible moves, and instead focuses on the 1% which actually have a real chance of being winning moves. So here lies the whole thing - it's not about being intelligible - it's not about having the biggest brain. It's about knowing what to focus on. The computer doesn't know what moves to focus on, and thus seeks to check everything, even blatantly stupid moves it will check. This is the unintelligible - what Kasparov's mind does vs the intelligibility of the computer. What his mind does is unintelligible - you can't say HOW he eliminates those 99% worthless moves, and focuses on the 1% which has potential. And yet - it's not unintelligent - it is in fact VERY intelligent, and it is Deep Blue who is being stupid.

In fact, I find it fascinating the difference between how computers function and how human minds function. Computers have a very brute kind of intelligence. Even the more intelligent algorithms, they're not as capable as the human mind is in eliminating possibilities in a flash - they don't have insight. But the human mind follows principles. In chess for example, controlling the centre, developing your pieces, castling as soon as possible, etc. These are principles - dogmas. But the computer has no principles to follow - it's all math and calculation for it. But these dogmas, which seem unintelligible, actually are quite intelligent because they cut through the fluff right away. How is it that the human mind can develop such dogmas? And how does the mind form them? — Agustino

And, as I said, the intelligent act is inherently intelligible to the one who is acting or else it would not be an intelligent act. — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain this to me please. The act may be intelligent to me, but not also intelligible. For example, I don't understand how specifically it will help me, but yet I still believe it will, and hence it appears to be intelligent to me.

Explain this to me please. The act may be intelligent to me, but not also intelligible. For example, I don't understand how specifically it will help me, but yet I still believe it will, and hence it appears to be intelligent to me. — Agustino

This may certainly be true of religious sacraments.

Catholics wouldn't be able to eat Jesus if he hadn't undergone the crucifixion (dismemberment).

The blood and flesh of Jesus were once that of Dionysus (wine representing the spirit of the that god). Maybe Jesus is far more Apollonian now, an formal image emptied of ritual ecstasies or awe with an oppressive cultural entailment, in the light of our hyper rational age.

I wonder if Nietzsche ever talked about the symbolism of Christianity as it relates to these two impulses.

This may certainly be true of religious sacraments. — John

Yes indeed. I have found this to be my relation to many of the Church rituals and practices.

Is this for real? Is this for example about deception: — Agustino

Yes, that's exactly it. Kasparov is capable of deceiving the computer, the computer is not capable of deceiving Kasparov.

Explain this to me please. The act may be intelligent to me, but not also intelligible. For example, I don't understand how specifically it will help me, but yet I still believe it will, and hence it appears to be intelligent to me. — Agustino

If there is nothing to make the act appear intelligent to you, then the act is not intelligible to you. In that case, the act does not appear intelligent to you. If something makes the act appear intelligent, then by the very existence of this thing which you apprehend, the act is intelligible. So any act which appears intelligent to you, must appear so for some reason, and by virtue of this reason the act is intelligible.