↪Cheshire Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively. — 180 Proof

I see the validity in raising the issue, but the difference in the rate of progress in rebuilding society would come as a result of access. If there was a building full of ink and paper that could shoot us forward in technology a thousand years you wouldn't ask what type of ink or paper.

Popper brings up the example of the knowledge to construct a modern aircraft. No one person knows how to fully assemble a 747 or airbus or whatever; so in this example they remain as separate intangible existing things.

But, I see the merit in the objection. I can't burn an idea for heat.

I can't burn an idea for heat. — Cheshire

Precisely. 'The metaphysical' is not real, rather an idea / ideal is a speculative tool by which we attempt to orient ourselves with respect to the (encompassing) real – naively invisible to us for being too close (i.e. transparency of water to fish) – and thereby, once the real is made explicit / visible, it can be used as the most general abstract criterion for composing alternative frameworks for interpreting (promixal) reality. Thus, like 'prescription lenses' – eyewear, microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc.

Precisely. 'The metaphysical' is not real, rather an idea (ideal) is a speculative tool for orienting us with respect to the (encompassing) real – naively invisible to us for being too close (i.e. transparency of water to fish) – and, once made explicit (visible), thereby the most general abstract criterion for composing alternative frameworks for interpreting (promixal) reality. Thus like 'prescription lenses' – eyewear, microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc. — 180 Proof

Bit of trap that was in retrospect. I mean if I haven't read the book that I'm burning, then in a sense I can. I'll read it again tomorrow. Sometimes I have to shake the etch a sketch.

:up: (Previous post edited for clarity.)

I can't burn an idea for heat — Cheshire

Without the idea of 'fire', you couldn't burn anything for heat.

Thank you both for your replies. Illuminating in their own way.
I have no wish to disrupt this thread any further, so I won't comment on everything mentioned.
Just this - about repetition and weariness.

It is inevitable that repetition happens within decades of discussions about same topics.
Some simply refer back to previous posts, others take time to explain. It can be frustrating if only 'canned' responses are produced. Others can be dismissive of newcomers' questions and lose patience.
Whatever.

There's also the repetition of ongoing personal issues; continuing attacks on the person because of a major and basic difference in worldview. Particularly obvious when there is strong atheism v theism.

Sometimes, I feel that warring with or active dislike of a person can overtake the love of philosophy.
It's difficult not to be aggravated - that is par for the course.
I'm not saying anything unusual here.

It becomes tiresome when people repeat the same phrases - like 'peddling woo'.
What is that all about ? Meant to insult.
But most want to set out a stall of ideas - who will buy or pass on...
For some, higher stakes are involved.

Most times, I enjoy the diversity of characters and topics on TPF.
Agreements/disagreements showing creative thinking and genuine interest.
The passion or 'eros'. The continuation of enquiry.

Repetition of a certain kind can be extraordinary. Just like our lives. Our different paths.
In art, music, bird songs. In philosophy.
I think Plato and a few other philosophers have something to say on the subject.
They might even have repeated themselves...

Most times, I enjoy the diversity of characters and topics on TPF.
Agreements/disagreements showing creative thinking and genuine interest.
The passion or 'eros'. The continuation of enquiry. — Amity

:up: Thank you Amity, that is a great comment.

It becomes tiresome when people repeat the same phrases - like 'peddling woo'.
What is that all about ? Meant to insult. — Amity

Would it be, in your opinion, more appropiate or agreeable to say 'bullshitting' than "peddling woo"? Speaking for myself, I object emphatically to anyone insisting that unwarranted claims (magical thinking, evidence-free discourses) be accepted on par with warranted claims (defeasible thinking, evidence-based discourses) and taken just as seriously to justify their position in a discussion or argument. Exchange of ideas is, I think, what we're here for but active critique goes with the principle of charity and that includes separating wheat form chaff calling "bullshit" whenever it's thrown against the wall just to see what sticks.

When I object to 'woo-woo' I'm inviting a reasoned, defeasible, defense or acknowledgment that's it's just poetry / fiction; whenever my interlocator insists otherwise, however, that indicates to me that s/he will say anything regardless of whether or not it's true – that's "bullshit" (vide H. Frankfurt). For the sake of decorum I prefer "peddling woo" or related phrases but have called "bullshit" when I've been exasperated by trollish intransigence of pompous oracular whinging.

As for the tiresome recurring 'theism vs atheism skirmishes', I find 'atheist' hurled around as an accusation or term of derision by theists far more often than they are belittled with 'theist'. I get tarred with "atheist materialist" by Wayfarer et al who intend it as an insult, which it's not, just near vague or imprecise enough in my case not to mean anything. Why theists and other supernaturalists always refuse to accept my own oft-stated self-designation freethinker (or antitheist naturalist) escapes me. The lack of good faith most theists (& supernaturalists) usually bring into a 'theism/atheism' discussion never ceases to amaze me.

Anyway, your observations have merit, Amity. And yeah, Plato still has much to say and show us about how dialogues ought to be conducted and proceed. I prefer e.g. Hume, Dewey & Popper, however, for their discursive standards. We can't impose standards on one another, nor should we try to; all we can do is practice what we preach and exemplify our standards as best as we can. A lot of what passes for discussion here is undisciplined or opportunistic point-scoring and vacuous posturing, and no matter one's own discursive standards, contending with shameless trollish bullshit just isn't pretty. As much as I engage, I'm more often silent for the sake of my own peace of mind and when I recognize there is nothing more for me to learn in, or by engaging, a discussion with some members.

Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. — Gilles Deleuze

If there is a more effective way to philosophize in public, then by all means, Amity, explain to me / us.

Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively. — 180 Proof

Prescription lenses cannot be "independent" from us because they are dependent on us for their creation. Since independent means 'not depending on', this would require a special meaning for "depend", one which allows that the created thing does not depend on the creator for its existence..

This leads to a very important metaphysical question. How is it possible, that a being like a human being can be dependent on something else for its existence, yet be free in the sense of free willing, and therefore "independent" in that sense? The simple solution is to deny the Creator, giving the being "independence" in an absolute sense, rejecting the reality of that sort of dependence. But reality is complex, and the simple solution is obviously not the correct solution.

By "independent", in this context, I meant independent of human use and ontologically independent. I guess 'reading in context' isn't your thing?

and ontologically independent. — 180 Proof

As I explained, the glasses are not "ontologically independent". They are dependent on the creator for their existence. I guess misunderstanding is your thing?

I agree but that's not what you wrote previously.

However you look at consciousness, be it materialistically or attributable to some metaphysical stuff, it doesn't resolve pain nor explain it. Though some material called heroin can make metaphysical pain go away. I guess that's why the substitute of heroin is metadone.

I agree but that's not what you wrote previously. — 180 Proof

Right, I did not use the precise terms of jargon which you used "ontologically independent", I explained in common terms how it is incorrect to say that the prescription lenses could be in any true sense, "independent from us", unless we tackle the problem of how a thing might be conceived of as free from dependence on its creator. So your imaginary scenario of prescription glasses independent of us, which was supposed to be analogous to ideas independent of us, is simply incoherent without such an explanation.

You then went on to claim that what you meant was "ontologically independent", so I had to reassert, that the glasses cannot be "ontologically independent" because they are clearly dependent on the creator for their existence.. Such an ontology, would exclude from the understanding of the existence of the object, the fact that it is artificial, created.

Now you seem to agree with me that the glasses are not ontologically independent. So to go back, and correct your original analogy. Do you agree that it is incoherent to even talk about glasses as being independent from their creator, or ideas as being independent from us, unless we posit some other type of being which is independent from us, with ideas, like God? In other words, it doesn't make sense to talk about ideas as independent from minds, nor does it make sense to talk about footprints as independent from the feet which create them, unless we can express an understanding of the process whereby one gains separation from the other.

:roll:

I was going to try and sum up the position I believe you are communicating. It's not meant as anything definitive; just a chance to look for misinterpretations on my part mostly. (not a comprehensive description or representation)

Ideas are real, but metaphysical things are not real, so ideas are not metaphysical things.

To me an over-emphasis on gatekeeping could create a bias; one might argue it's a bias for rational threshold criteria, but if there's nothing there it won't get through the gate. I see it as taking place in defense of a philosophical ideal standard. It's one I'm familiar with but let go of after a couple decades. I don't intend to give false support to everything the imagination is capable of; but actively excluding to maintain a cherished position is what Popper was trying to get away from. If 'metaphysical' doesn't describe a state of affairs then so be it; but assuming everything that can be, must be a type of physical inserts a universal - that if correct - demands support.

In contrast I see the point. If I start imagining extra dimensions where only ideas or information lives and travels then I'm so far off the map of reality what's the difference in making up words and clown particles and anything that a fever dream produces. I'm willing to risk it and if I start to believe I'll try to test it. I guess this turned into me thinking out loud. I don't want to debate whether everything is physical, because I know I can't win. But, I don't know if I believe it's the case because I can't win a debate about it. That's how flat earth societies get started, when argumentation proves things.

I can't burn an idea for heat
— Cheshire

Without the idea of 'fire', you couldn't burn anything for heat. — Olivier5

It was meant as a bit of faux concession in hopes I'd have 180 off guard following his acceptance of it. Well, he took the bait and ate it. I don't really know where to steer this iceberg.

Not sure I follow you. My point was / is 'don't forget that maps (ideas (e.g. metaphysical speculations)) are not the territory (reality)', even though mapmakers are –mapmaking is – a constituent of the territory, so try not to mistake one for the other (e.g. reification fallacy, misplaced concreteness, category error).

Interesting, I see your position was more nuanced than my attempt to simplify it. I'll have to reconsider the matter. I think we have different definitions of what can be called a real thing. I acknowledge ideas need a person in order to have an effect on the world. But, I think if all the people died; their ideas could be recorded, and this record of ideas is a real thing. I think I'm closer than it sounds to being in agreement.

Well, 13 pages later and still no consensus on what metaphysics is or what it should be.

But then you notice that debates of this kind has been going on for thousands of years.

Oh well...

↪Cheshire Not sure I follow you. My point was / is 'don't forget that maps (ideas (e.g. metaphysical speculations)) are not the territory (reality)', even though mapmakers (mapmaking) is a constituent of the territory, so try not to mistake one for the other (e.g. reification fallacy, misplaced concreteness, category error). — 180 Proof

To me meta-physical the word implies what you are saying. Something that exist in reference to the physical world, rather than something that exist in it like a physical thing. The difference it seems is I want to place the metaphysical things in reality, because that's where I keep all my things. But, you are suggesting they are not part of reality. Really, it's seems like both in a way. I can have my book of ideas and I can have the conceptual thought of a book of ideas. They aren't the same.

Does reality demand this detail is acknowledged? My dreams contain ideas, are they a different type of idea? I'm willing to consider either at this point; I don't see the need for the distinction unless it satisfies a tangential matter.

Just don't confuse your / anybody's maps with the territory and those "dreams" will be okay. :smirk:

Does that work for blueprints. Where the idea maps a future territory?

I think so.

:up:

Why theists and other supernaturalists always refuse to accept my own oft-stated self-designation freethinker (or antitheist naturalist) escapes me. The lack of good faith most theists (& supernaturalists) usually bring into a 'theism/atheism' discussion never ceases to amaze me. — 180 Proof

The term ‘supernatural’ is the Latin equivalent of the term ‘metaphysical’. They have similar implications, but ‘supernatural’ denotes a category of thought that is rejected generally as a matter of principle in scientific cultures, because it indicates matters outside the horizon of naturalism as a matter of definition. Anything considered ‘supernatural’ is categorically flagged ‘woo’. So the ‘anti theist naturalist’ tag means general rejection of ‘the supernatural’ as a category, would it not? And if arguing against that ‘in good faith’ means that there really is nothing worth considering beyond the horizons of naturalism, or nothing worth bringing to the debate, then to agree with that you’d be giving the game away, ceding it in its entirety.

My perspective came out of my pursuit of the ideas I encountered from Eastern philosophy, such as Krishnamurti, Ramana Maharishi (Neo-Advaita) and various Buddhist schools (for instance Sōtō Zen) that I encountered in my youth. Later I studied Comparative Religion and Anthropology. I also did two years of Traditional & Modern Philosophy. I formed the conviction, which I still hold, that there is a coherent thread woven through religious and philosophical traditions, which does point towards something over the cognitive horizons of naturalism. This is not to say they’re all saying the same thing or agree with each other, but they’re all saying something which modern evolutionary naturalism doesn’t encompass.

I’ve also tried to catch up on a lot of the reading I haven’t done in traditional Western philosophy, as I’ve come to realise that Christian Platonism is at least the equal of the Eastern traditions I had studied, and also that I’m in all likelihood carrying those kinds of archetypes due to my cultural background. But they’re the three main philosophical schools that I consider.

The cultural context we’re all in is that ‘neo-Darwinian materialism’ is the ‘official doctrine’ of the mainstream academy; that we’re products of an evolutionary process that is wholly natural and presumably governed by physical laws without reference to anything beyond that.

When I studied philosophy there was a division in the Department at my University between ‘General’ (read: New Left) and ‘Traditional and Modern’ (read: Oxbridge). But the unstated premise of both was the acceptance of Enlightenment materialism - that the real story of the world can only be told by science, that religious views are a private matter and not something of real weight in the public square.

From the ‘sixties’ perspective, however, there was/is something radically the matter with that point of view. That’s why I will often refer to Thomas Nagel’s book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (published 2012, the long sub-title added by the publisher for extra pizazz.) Not that I think that Nagel is a genius but at last here was someone inside the Establishment, articulating in spare and efficient prose the basic idea that has motivated the critical aspect of the philosophy I’ve always studied. He says he’s an atheist, lacks the ‘sensus divinatus’ that he identifies in (for example) Alvin Plantinga, but still with the cool hard gaze of modern philosophical rationalism, diagnoses materialism as self-contradictory. (Although I can’t help but feel he’s heading towards some kind of conversion. Nagel’s earlier essay, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion is also highly relevant to this debate.)

So - the conflict I often find myself in on this and other forums, are basically around this issue. I generally don’t fling pejoratives - sometimes I loose my cool or become sarcastic but I try not to. But what I say often does go ‘against the grain’, I fully acknowledge that.

One more thing - I’m taking September out from this forum, I’ve signed up for the next instalment of a writing class, working on novel, fiction with philosophical overtones, need to get into the zone.

If you were in a Georgia swamp this time of year; I bet you'd understand. You are right there's a western tradition of dismissing a whole host of material off hand like no one could fathom a reason some one might have thought about it for 3,000+ years. Since, we don't generally know what it is we are tossing out it comes across with some undue ease. And what isn't tossed out is herded in religious studies, like a philosophical broom closet. I think if you had a better argument against the scientific position or navigated adjacent somehow then perhaps the position would command more ground. Specifically, what I would call straw-manning science by assuming the grade school structure of one step follows to the next in any predictable way. Science as I can tell is just rigorous subjugation of a matter to logic. Logic doesn't suggest hiring a poet to consult on your project; but maybe it should considering how disconnected society is from the edges of scientific progress. I know some one made a time crystal and it's a big deal. I like the name of the subject and verified it wasn't a joke. How many people were waiting on the time crystal results? Relatively few, so perhaps science is benefiting technology but losing the battle of helping the collective intellect? And there's a bathroom window worth sneaking in just like that...only an example. Best wishes on your endeavors, report back before the leaves fall off.

Science as I can tell is just rigorous subjugation of a matter to logic. — Cheshire

Philosophical rationalism is not scientific, and scientific rationalism is not philosophical.

More compelling already. I got nothing to come back with off the top of my head.

Good luck with your novel. :up: