GENIUS FORUMS

Alright, alright, that's enough! I think we're saying the same damn thing in different words.

I think the problem is that I wasn't asking you the right questions. Formulating the right questions gets you everywhere, it's just kind of hard to do sometimes.

[laughs]

You know, I hate to say this---BUT:

I think we're saying the same damn thing in different words.

Not if you still hold to the content in your initial posts.

I hope you find the right questions for me. There's plenty that we do agree on, too, you see. Like:

I actually think the complexity of Kant's language is a strength, because it forces you to slow down and think deeply about the questions, at least if you're making a sincere effort to understand the guy.

He's definitely pointing to truth on this subject; whether its the whole truth and nothing but the truth is another matter, since I've not read any of his complete works, but it looks good to me so far.

I will, of course, be giving this more thought to see if I can come up with a few right questions myself.

.

Leyla:

Because logic, reason and truth are not dependent upon (caused by) empiricism.

Their value to a person are caused by empiricism.

If one never sure any predictability in anything, their experiences would be completely chaotic. They would have no way of determining how something might affect them.

Their daily experiences of empiricism, such as a toddler learning that if it cries, it will get attention, accumulate a set of empirically determined valuing programs in the brain. It will form, and continue to develop and reassess, pieces of memory that are referred to constantly as the brain processes current experience data.

If a certain experience matches a set of past observations now stored in the form of memories, then certain emotional signals will occur dependant on the values attached to that set of memories. For many experiences, particularly novel ones, one of these emotional signals is a signal to other parts of the brain that it needs to concentrate (adrenalin is one emotional chemical compound that does this), which is to cut off or dampen emotional cues not directly relevant to the situation. When you are reading Kant for instance, your other senses are dampened. If a TV is going in the background, when reading intensely you will not notice it all the time, only some of the time.

I guess instead of just the word emotions I should be saying feelings and emotions. While awake, some feelings are constantly being generated. I just don't like how people think of emotions and feelings as two distinct sets. Feelings are still emotive to me, in the sense of them being what causes us to take actions of any type.

Physical tiredness would mean a lot less for you in the now, if your brain wasn't telling you that sleep is needed. It is sending chemicals signals that cause you create the thought and to value the idea of going to sleep. In a sense emotions/feelings are the chemicals that change certain pre-existing values. Your empirically based memory "If I go to bed for the purpose of sleep, past experience has shown that I will to sleep" is set to YES-ACTIVATE ME. When you wake up fully it will be reset to NO-DON'T ACTIVATE ME.

What a curious fellow he is, accusing Kant of religiosity over this "pure reason stuff"...

Here is what Nietzsche says in The Antichrist. This is his general impression of Kant, and I do not know what he felt of the Critique of Pure Reason, but he does belittle what comes after it, Practical Reason.

Now I know this as some sort of appeal to authority, but what the hell. It at least gives some basis for me saying what I said about Kant.

Among Germans I am immediately understood when I say that philosophy has been corrupted by theologians' blood. The Protestant parson is the grandfather of German philosophy; Protestantism itself, its peccatum originale. Definition of Protestantism: the partial paralysis of Christianity—and of reason ... One need merely say "Tübingen Seminary" to understand what German philosophy is at bottom—an insidious theology ... The Swabians are the best liars in Germany: they lie innocently ... Why was Kant's appearance greeted with jubilation among German scholars—of whom three-fourths are the sons of parsons and teachers—and whence came the German conviction, echoed even today, that a change for the better began with Kant? The theologians' instinct in the German scholars divined what had once again been made possible ... A path had been found by which one could sneak back to the old ideal. The conception of a "true world," the conception of morality as the essence of the world (these two most malignant errors of all time!), were once again, thanks to a wily and shrewd scepticism, if not provable, at least no longer refutable ... Reason, the right of reason, does not extend that far ... Reality had been reduced to mere "appearance," and a mendaciously fabricated world, the world of being, was honoured as reality ... Kant's success is merely a theologians' success: like Luther, like Leibniz, Kant was one more clog for German honesty, which was none too steady in the first place
...
I except a few skeptics—the decent type in the history of philosophy: the rest are simply unaware of the most basic requirements of intellectual honesty. All these great enthusiasts and prodigies behave like our little females: they consider "beautiful sentiments" adequate arguments, regard a heaving bosom as the bellows of the deity, and conviction a criterion of truth. In the end, Kant tried, with "German" innocence, to give this corruption, this lack of any intellectual conscience, scientific status. With his notion of "practical reason" he invented a special kind of reason for cases in which one need not bother about reason—that is, when morality, when the sublime command "thou shalt," raises its voice

Leyla Shen wrote:[laughs]

You know, I hate to say this---BUT:

I think we're saying the same damn thing in different words.

Not if you still hold to the content in your initial posts.

I hope you find the right questions for me.

Well, alright. If it hasn't yet descended into cruel and ununsual punishment, then I'm game. But I must insist we start over from the beginning. Our disagreement stems from the passage, right?:

Kant wrote:(1) Now, that in the sphere of human cognition, we have judgements which are necessary, and in the strictest sense universal, consequently pure á priori, it will be an easy matter to show. (2) If we desire an example from the sciences, we need only take any proposition in mathematics. (3) If we cast our eyes upon the commonest operations of the understanding, the proposition, “every change must have a cause,” will amply serve our purpose. (4) In the latter case, indeed, the conception of a cause so plainly involves the conception of a necessity of connection with an effect, (5) and of a strict universality of the law, (6) that the very notion of a cause would entirely disappear, were we to derive it, like Hume, from a frequent association of what happens with that which precedes, and the habit thence originating of connecting representations—(7) the necessity inherent in the judgement being therefore merely subjective.

Here's my summary of the main ideas:

(1) It's easy to see that á priori judgements exist. (2) All of mathematics revolves around á priori knowledge. (3) Such knowledge is even found in the everyday, for example, "every change must have a cause".

Okay, get ready for the big climax here:

(4) This statement is á priori because the definition of "cause" necessitates the concept of an effect in order to complete the definition, so every time you use the concept of a cause, you also, possibly implicitly, use the concept of an effect. (5) Moreover, the concept of a cause involves a strict universality of the law, for reasons I am not going to explain. (6) Therefore, the very notion of a cause (as defined as a thing related to an effect) would disappear if it were a habit formed from repeatedly experiencing similar events arising together and deducing that they are connected, (7) because the logical necessity that comes from the definition of causality would be turned into something based on mere personal preference.


What do you find disagreeable with that? Please be very specific by quoting the sentence and stating what you think is wrong. Or, alternatively, maybe I'm missing a part of the meaning that you could fill me in on. I tried to be very complete this time, though.

I'd better admit that I threw (5) in there as kind of a joke. I know universality pretty much follows from necessity, but it does seem to me that he should have elaborated on it separately in order to better illustrate the value of having not one, but two criteria for knowledge á priori.

There's plenty that we do agree on, too, you see. Like:

I actually think the complexity of Kant's language is a strength, because it forces you to slow down and think deeply about the questions, at least if you're making a sincere effort to understand the guy.

He's definitely pointing to truth on this subject; whether its the whole truth and nothing but the truth is another matter, since I've not read any of his complete works, but it looks good to me so far.

Well, he had some issues that will reveal themselves later. He was anti-semitic and a homosexual. No, I'm kidding, but James is right that he was very religious and he used his metaphysics in dubious ways.

I will, of course, be giving this more thought to see if I can come up with a few right questions myself.

Cool. I'm sick of doing all the work! Kidding.

Matt,

I used to think the same thing, but after reading so many metaphysical discussions on this forum that simply go nowhere, it thought it was about high time to try and resolve of these questions once and for all, so I thought it might help to break out the Kant.

Oh, I believe these opinions after reading Kant, not because I haven't taken him out before. I used to have a lot of respect for Kant. I've taken two courses on him; I've read the Prolegomena, his essay on Enlightenment, and got most of the way through the Critique.

I lost my respect for Kant during the course of these readings.

I actually think the complexity of Kant's language is a strength

No, it's not a strength. Kant himself lamented that he was a terrible writer.

His ideas simply do not deserve the complexity that he makes them sound like they deserve by a poor, obtuse writing style. When you get past the language (which I am long past), you realize that he's not saying much. If he wrote his entire idea in the one short paragraph that it was worth, nobody would have read it, though.

In fact, he did write the entire book in one sentence. I'm sure you are familiar with it. In my words: is there any possibility of real ontological knowledge? The entire rest of the book is a very poor attempt at clarifying what that means.

Honestly, it isn't even an attempt to answer the question accurately, so much as to imagine one way to answer it that isn't totally impossible.

... because it forces you to slow down and think deeply about the questions, at least if you're making a sincere effort to understand the guy.

I made a sincere effort to understand him, then I understood him, and realized that I had just let an idiot into my head. In irritation, I finally read Hume to see the passage that he was allegedly up in arms about -- and I almost cried with laughter.

Kant simply cannot take a joke.

...come to think of it, maybe Kant can take a joke, and the entire Critique was meant to be funny (it made me laugh). In which case, Kant would be, hands down, the best satirist I've ever read.

I think that is his contribution to philosophy, just making people think. You can't make a greater contribution to philosophy than that.

Lots of things make people think. Thinking is not, by itself, a great contribution.

Trevor, I have two requests:

His ideas simply do not deserve the complexity that he makes them sound like they deserve by a poor, obtuse writing style. When you get past the language (which I am long past), you realize that he's not saying much. If he wrote his entire idea in the one short paragraph that it was worth, nobody would have read it, though.

(1) Perhaps you could write that paragraph here on his behalf for us to contemplate; and

I finally read Hume to see the passage that he was allegedly up in arms about -- and I almost cried with laughter.

(2) Cite the alleged passage in Hume, please.

~

James & Matt:

Will get to your replies soon.

.

Trevor wrote:

Thinking is not, by itself, a great contribution.

Course not, but making others think is.

I don't think anyone thinks Kant a fully enlightened Buddha.

.

Leyla: gladly.

(1) Perhaps you could write that paragraph here on his behalf for us to contemplate;

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
Preface to the 2nd Edition (Bxlii):
"I have observed, with pleasure and thankfulness, in the pages of various reviews and treatises, that the spirit of profound and thorough investigation is not extinct in Germany, though it may have been overborne and silenced for a time by the fashionable tone of a license in thinking, which gives itself the airs of genius -- and that the difficulties which beset the paths of criticism have not prevented energetic and acute thinkers from making themselves masters of the science of pure reason to which these paths conduct -- a science which is not popular, but academic in its character, and which alone can hope for a lasting existence or possess an abiding value. To these deserving men, who so happily combine thoroughness of view with a talent for lucid expression -- a talent which I myself am not conscious of possessing -- I leave the task of removing any obscurity which may still adhere to the statement of my doctrines. For, in this case, the danger is not that of being refuted, but of being misunderstood."

(2) Cite the alleged passage in Hume, please.

David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
1.3.3 Why a cause is always necessary
"To begin with the first question concerning the necessity of a cause: 'Tis a general maxim in philosophy that whatever begins to exist, must have a cause of existence. This is commonly taken for granted in all reasonings, without any proof given or demanded. 'Tis suppos'd to be founded on intuition, and to be one of those maxims, which tho' they may be deny'd with the lips, 'tis impossible for men in their hearts really to doubt of. But if we examine this maxim by the idea of knowledge above-explain'd [edit: by Hume himself, on the rather general principle that if there is no objection, then he is automatically correct: he re-explains himself in the following paragraph, so I will include it as well], we shall discover in it no mark of any such intuitive certainty; but on the contrary shall find, that 'tis of a nature quite foreign to that species of conviction.

"All certainty arises from the comparison of ideas, and from the discovery of such relations as are unalterable, so long as the ideas continue the same. These relations are resemblance, proportions in quantity and number, degrees of any quality, and contrariety; none of which are imply'd in this proposition, whatever has a beginning has also a cause of existence. That proposition therefore is not intuitively certain. At least any one, who wou'd assert it to be intuitively certain, must deny these to be the only infallible relations, and must find some other relation of that kind to be imply'd in it; which it will then be time enough to examine."

-----

This was obviously unacceptable to Kant, probably for the same reason that it's unacceptable to me. But I can also see that there is a bit of a joke going on here. "Look," says Hume, "you academics are getting sloppy. You don't even take Devil's Advocate seriously any more, so I'm gonna do it for you: not one of you has ever given a proof of causality that's any more convincing than the disproof I offer here."

I find it really funny. It really reminded me of Nietzsche talking about walking over the heads of his fellow professors.

The question is: did Kant see it as a joke, and concoct the really long answer with a ironic grin on his face (all the while bemoaning his terrible writing style)... or did he take it seriously? (Then again, would there be a difference?)

Well, I don't think he was enlightened. I think he did clarify some ideas, though, and had a big influence on pretty much every Western philosopher who came after him. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Weininger were all influenced by him. Weininger in particular.

But I can understand Trevor's point of view. If you're looking for something substantial in Kant, then you're not going to find it. The only reason for raising these discussions is because we've never talked about Kant on this forum before, and I thought it might be interesting to explore a different perspective, especially one that has such a big influence on us, even though most don't realize it. But I don't think it's categorically imperative or anything :-)

By the way, Kant on enlightenment:
http://courses.essex.ac.uk/cs/cs101/KANT.HTM

Judge for yourself whether you think he was enlightened.

I don't think Hume can be summarized with two of his own paragraphs, especially ones taken from the writings he later repudiated. A large portion of is Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding was about cause and effect. That's where he goes into his theory on habits and stuff.

Matt,

I don't think Hume can be summarized with two of his own paragraphs, especially ones taken from the writings he later repudiated.

I'm quite sure, however, that this is the section that Kant was referring to when he talked of waking from his dogmatic slumber. It is incredibly well-written.

I was just out on a walk thinking about this, and I decided that I would have no problem imagining that Hume was fully enlightened. Personally, I would not have written or published a book like the Treatise unless I already had a way to disprove it: unless I did not myself believe it. That Hume later disproved the Treatise is not sufficient evidence, therefore, that this is not the book that Kant was referring to.

I am quite sure it was written for the sole purpose of being disproven. It was designed to grate against the nerves of academically minded people... it's wrong, but it's freaking hard to say exactly how it's wrong other than by lighting the book on fire.

A large portion of is Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding was about cause and effect. That's where he goes into his theory on habits and stuff.

I admit that it's possible that Kant was referring to another of Hume's books. But you might need to defend a particular passage: for instance, I can see all the elements of a really annoying argument in the one I quoted.

As a continuation of what I said earlier, it's less likely that Kant was enlightened than Hume. That he mentioned Hume with fondness, that he hides a few clever jokes here and there in his writings, and that he wrote the Critique so terribly -- almost hyperbolically obtuse -- is all the evidence I have that this entire academic bit was a facade, designed to continue and one-up Hume's tradition. As I said, there is almost nothing of substance in the Critique; if he, however, intended it to be a glorious 800-page satirical mockery of academia, I would have no hesitation considering Kant among the great philosophers.

But there's almost no evidence that he was a jester with a bumbling stage presence, and plenty of evidence he was a sterile old man with nothing to say but lots of words to say it in.

Matt wrote:

I know a lot of thinkers have noted that change is everywhere, eternal, etc., but I think it needs some kind of proof beyond simple observation and I don't think I've ever heard one.

The proof is contained in the truth of non-inherent existence. If all things lack inherent existence, then it means that all things are subject to causal circumstances.

A thing is like a bubble, which can appear fixed for a time due to the tension of its structure, but which can also burst and disappear at a moment's notice. Even space is like this.

-

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

Can you imagine someone who had complete sensory deprivation from birth having any knowledge about change? If not, then it would seem to be obvious that our notion of change can only come to us by way of experience.

He would experience the changing nature of his own thoughts, as well as remember that he had only come into existence at a recent point in the past. That is more than enough information to formulate the conception of change as an abstract principle and logically pursue its implications.

In fact, that's the fundamental point of the empiricists: all knowledge comes to us by way of experience.

It may be their fundamental point, but it is incoherent.

To say, as an empiricist, that all knowledge comes to us by way of experience is to immediately contradict the very premises of empiricism. For there is no way that an empiricist has met every intelligent being in the universe, experienced every piece of knowledge that can ever be and explored every possible method of gaining knowledge. And yet for some strange reason, he decides to make a final judgment upon all these beings and activities, despite his lack of experience.

In other words, in making his "fundamental point", the empiricist necessarily has to leave empiricism behind and create instead a logical, universal truth which is deemed to be applicable to everyone. But this only serves to make a mockery of his exclusive belief in empiricism.

This is why empiricism can never be anything more than a joke philosophy. It cannot establish the validity of itself without also contradicting itself.

-

David Quinn wrote:Matt wrote:

I know a lot of thinkers have noted that change is everywhere, eternal, etc., but I think it needs some kind of proof beyond simple observation and I don't think I've ever heard one.

The proof is contained in the truth of non-inherent existence. If all things lack inherent existence, then it means that all things are subject to causal circumstances.

A thing is like a bubble, which can appear fixed for a time due to the tension of its structure, but which can also burst and disappear at a moment's notice. Even space is like this.

But how do you know all things actually do this? Wouldn't your argument be refuted if such a bubble never actually was created or burst? If the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, then how could there not be things in it which have no beginning or end as well? Okay, that's mere speculation, but it looks to me like mere speculation the other way as well. How do you derive a "does" from a "can"? :-)

David Quinn wrote:He would experience the changing nature of his own thoughts, as well as remember that he had only come into existence at a recent point in the past. That is more than enough information to formulate the conception of change as an abstract principle and logically pursue its implications.

I think someone in this scenario would be able to recognize that something changed, but it's a stretch to expect someone to logically pursue its implications. Without the ability to learn and apply what is contained within the layers of knowledge acquired since the first mind evolved would make it an impossible task, or a daunting one at least. If all I knew was darkness, and the only contrast in my environment was that I wasn't here at one point in time, and I was the next, I can't imagine being able to conceptualize these things to the point of revealing any major philosophical implications. Especially without being able to organize these thoughts in a more efficient manner through the use of a language. With only a finite amount of time the deck is stacked against them to the point of impossibility. Our senses play a large role in allowing our consciousness to flourish, especially when we are very young and our ability to perform critical thinking as adults depends on us having excerised our mind as a child.

Matt,

DQ: A thing is like a bubble, which can appear fixed for a time due to the tension of its structure, but which can also burst and disappear at a moment's notice. Even space is like this.

MG: But how do you know all things actually do this? Wouldn't your argument be refuted if such a bubble never actually was created or burst? If the universe doesn't have a beginning or end, then how could there not be things in it which have no beginning or end as well? Okay, that's mere speculation, but it looks to me like mere speculation the other way as well. How do you derive a "does" from a "can"? :-)

It comes down to seeing that things cannot exist independently of one another. I went through all these reasonings in my ebook. To exist, an object is necessarily dependent upon the existence of its own parts and also upon the existence of the Universe as a whole. If these things didn't exist, then the object in question wouldn't be able to exist either.

Keep in mind that this is a logical point which either applies to all things, without exception, or else to nothing at all. We can't pick and choose between objects without violating the logic of it.

-

Nick,

DQ: He would experience the changing nature of his own thoughts, as well as remember that he had only come into existence at a recent point in the past. That is more than enough information to formulate the conception of change as an abstract principle and logically pursue its implications.

N: I think someone in this scenario would be able to recognize that something changed, but it's a stretch to expect someone to logically pursue its implications. Without the ability to learn and apply what is contained within the layers of knowledge acquired since the first mind evolved would make it an impossible task, or a daunting one at least. If all I knew was darkness, and the only contrast in my environment was that I wasn't here at one point in time, and I was the next, I can't imagine being able to conceptualize these things to the point of revealing any major philosophical implications.

You wouldn't really be in darkness, as your imagination would be developing and creating a world for you to experience, however strange and impoverished it might be, compared to our standards.

I agree that without the stimulating and regulating influence of the outer world, developing a well-structured mind capable of thinking coherently would be difficult to achieve. But assuming this is able to happen, there is no reason why such a being couldn't use the data from his imaginary world to launch a serious bid for philosophical knowledge. After all, real knowledge only begins when one transcend all forms, real or imaginary.

Bu you may be right that without language and sense-experiences it might be too difficult for such a being to develop that well-structured mind in the first place. But I think it is possible, given some luck. He could create his own structure and language, and subconsciously develop the rules for the world he lives in, and in this way, slowly build up a sophisticated universe for him to live in.

-

James:

Their [logic, reason & truth] value to a person are caused by empiricism.

Yes, and maybe that’s more the beginning than the end.

One may value truth, logic and reason certainly because there is an outward consequence to doing so, such as the propagation of wisdom and sanity. However, you cannot prove, empirically, that wisdom itself is caused by experience (despite what unwise says). How do you measure it, James? You cannot touch, taste, feel or smell wisdom in a wise person. You can’t even fear it or be happy about it for where such is supposed, the fear and/or happiness it is an egoistic (emotional) response delivered as a message to say, “This thing’s bad/good for my corporeal existence/survival, since that is where I feel it.” Wisdom, too, claims it is good for its own sake.

A wise man is wise because of truth and not because he is dependent upon any particular manifestation or experience existing “out there” into which he may deliver it.

His wisdom does not disappear because others do not experience it.

And others who experience him do not necessarily become wise.

Yet most people have more or less the same childhood experiences/learning as you volunteer above.

So, if logic, truth and reason are caused by empiricism, there must be a qualifier: how much empiricism (and of what nature) does one need before one becomes wise? Would a wise man have to know precisely the genetic makeup of all the people he comes across before he can be wise (propagate wisdom) himself?

Point to wisdom for me, James. Then tell me how you are doing it and where it is so that I may experience it and send others to do the same without a single thought (logic), truth or reason.

If one never sure any predictability in anything, their experiences would be completely chaotic. They would have no way of determining how something might affect them.

[emphasis mine]

Well, I think we’re trying to step up a level above that, no?

More later.

[General editing.]

.

Matt,

He pointed out that all knowledge has an a priori component.

You're right, of course. Looks like I need to brush up on my Kant a bit. :)

It's just has to be consistent.

Solipsism tends to be quite consistent, given your willing to place quite a bit into the category of unknowable. In fact, quite a lot of philosophical systems seem quite consistent with themselves to me. I tend to think that truth should require some sort of correspondence with reality, and thus could really be as inconsistent as said reality is (if it is).


David,

He would experience the changing nature of his own thoughts, as well as remember that he had only come into existence at a recent point in the past.

I disagree. I don't think one can remember coming into existence, given that there are no memories of not existing to contrast memories of existing with.

This is why empiricism can never be anything more than a joke philosophy. It cannot establish the validity of itself without also contradicting itself.

I also disagree with this. I think that empiricists can validate their philosophy within the framework set-up by their philosophy. To suggest that someone who doesn't accept a rationalist sort-of absolute knowledge--or at least the human ability to recognize or gain such a thing--must validate their philosophy by claiming it as much, or insist that they are doing so in a contradictory manner, seems to be a rather silly way of looking at things. I don't claim that I'm not guilty of attacking rationalist types on the grounds that they don't have evidence for their claims, but that too is pretty silly. It's one thing to discuss whatever fundamental axioms ground anyones particular philosophical system, it's quite another to call foul on someone for violating an axiom they simply don't accept.

Leyla

Me: Their [logic, reason & truth] value to a person are caused by empiricism.

Leyla: Yes, and maybe that’s more the beginning than the end.

This sentence means nothing to me.

One may value truth, logic and reason certainly because there is an outward consequence to doing so, such as the propagation of wisdom and sanity. However, you cannot prove, empirically, that wisdom itself is caused by experience (despite what unwise says).

Lol, I’m sure we can. Take Anna's or Britney's experiences for example.

Nonetheless, there are genetic factors, not related to experience, that will affect a persons wisdom.

How do you measure it, James?

Who says measurements are of any import.

You cannot touch, taste, feel or smell wisdom in a wise person. You can’t even fear it or be happy about it for where such is supposed, the fear and/or happiness it is an egoistic (emotional) response delivered as a message to say, “This thing’s bad/good for my corporeal existence/survival, since that is where I feel it.” Wisdom, too, claims it is good for its own sake.

Umm, your point?

And it is crap anyway. A wise person can sense another wise person by their manner and tone.

A wise man is wise because of truth and not because he is dependent upon any particular manifestation or experience existing “out there” into which he may deliver it.

Bullshit. A wise man is wise because he has been caused to be wise. Not that the term wise means anything much. What is wise to one may not be wise to another.

His wisdom does not disappear because others do not experience it.

True, but Umm, your point?

And others who experience him do not necessarily become wise.

True, but Umm, your point?

Yet most people have more or less the same childhood experiences/learning as you volunteer above.

So, if logic, truth and reason are caused by empiricism, there must be a qualifier: how much empiricism (and of what nature) does one need before one becomes wise? Would a wise man have to know precisely the genetic makeup of all the people he comes across before he can be wise (propagate wisdom) himself?

It may take very little empiricism to create a wise person.

Here is an example.

Pretend I’m 4 years old. Daddy is fucking some slut and I walk in on them. Daddy says I’m just playing games, forget about what you saw. I don’t believe him, because I’ve seen a similar event in Home and Away and in that example they were not just playing games, they were fucking and the wife found out and got angry and killed the daddy. In both cases there was an observation with different outcomes.

At 4 years of age, this experience has the potential to create wisdom.

Will it? Well perhaps, but it will dependant on the totality of all other experiences being experienced at the time, before the time and thereafter. To create wisdom I would have to be caused to question this massive authority called dad, I would have to think for myself. I would personally have to evaluate the logic of what I’d been told.

As it so happens however, it is Christmas time, and other things like presents take my interest. I forget about what I say and don’t evaluate it. I do not form a questioning mindset. I gain nothing from the experience.

Alas then after Christmas, it happens again. I catch daddy with some bird. It is school holidays and I’m bored. My brothers and sisters are all away on camps. In a general sense, Mum has been getting crankier and crankier, and I feel I am to blame. Seeing daddy get all comfy with some bird, who is not mum, is a different experience to my normal ones. There is not much to do so I think about these incidents. I try and work out what is happening. I’m still in an important physical formation stage, so my pondering will have an effect on my brain. New synapses will form, and importantly they will be of a questioning nature, they are memories that ask “why”.

At 4 years of age, a foundation of questioning has been created. This foundation will then EVOLVE to even more questioning, because what is in me has a causal nature. When I experience things henceforth, there will be the combination of my existing experiences, stored as memories that interact and will flavour my REACTION to all experiences henceforth. If I have been caused to question authority figures, then I will do so.

[this is an example, not something experienced by me. I think I my style of mind was mainly formed by failed competitive interaction with my older brother]

In the past I have harped about the Evolution of life being exactly the same as evolution of matter (ie a progression from energy to matter, to complex matter like uranium or diamonds).

People need to apply the same theory to the evolution of each persons mind. Foundations count the most, as they are what causes direction.

There is a thread in Wordly Matters about Insanity. I know the cure to some forms of insanity [only some types of insanity are caused by permanent chemical imbalances in the brain, msot of them are temporary aberrations that become permanent - ie a virus can cause temporary insanity, but viruses pass and the insanity will often continue because the person is not forced back into reality - it does not need to be this way!!!]. The cure is forceful externalities that lead to a habitual change in the manner in which a person thinks. Instead of going to blooming phsyciatric wards they should have been put on boot camps.

Point to wisdom for me, James. Then tell me how you are doing it and where it is so that I may experience it and send others to do the same without a single thought (logic), truth or reason.

A foundation from which Wisdom can grow begins when suffering causes you to deny the authority of others and learn to non-emotionally evaluate experiences for yourself.

It is harder for adults because they assume they are evaluating experiences non-emotionally, when in fact they still are. It is just they feel the emotions so much lesser because their brain is so used to them - but they are still there in the background tainting one's rationality.

I should add that I know I am not wise. I'm not doing everything I can to ensure a long healthy life, which is all that counts, so I cannot be the least bit wise.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

DQ: He would experience the changing nature of his own thoughts, as well as remember that he had only come into existence at a recent point in the past.

EI: I disagree. I don't think one can remember coming into existence, given that there are no memories of not existing to contrast memories of existing with.

Well, I wasn't actually talking about that. I was simply saying that he can look back and see that there was a time when he didn't exist, and he can compare this to the fact that he is now existing, and conclude that there must have been a process of change involved.

DQ: This is why empiricism can never be anything more than a joke philosophy. It cannot establish the validity of itself without also contradicting itself.

EI: I also disagree with this. I think that empiricists can validate their philosophy within the framework set-up by their philosophy.

How?

I say it is impossible. But feel free to give it a go.

To suggest that someone who doesn't accept a rationalist sort-of absolute knowledge--or at least the human ability to recognize or gain such a thing--must validate their philosophy by claiming it as much, or insist that they are doing so in a contradictory manner, seems to be a rather silly way of looking at things.

If an empiricist can validate his philosophy of empiricism by empirical means, then that would be fair enough. But in the example you gave, the attempt was made to validate empiricism by non-empirical means - namely, via the use of a logical truth deemed to be applicable to all. That is, by Rationalist argument.

That is a very big problem for the empiricists - one that is insurmountable, in my opinion.


-

David,

I was simply saying that he can look back and see that there was a time when he didn't exist, and he can compare this to the fact that he is now existing, and conclude that there must have been a process of change involved.

Your view depends upon the idea that it feels like anything at all to be this individual. I don't even think the brain would develop a capacity to reason without sensory input.

If an empiricist can validate his philosophy of empiricism by empirical means, then that would be fair enough. But in the example you gave, the attempt was made to validate empiricism by non-empirical means - namely, via the use of a logical truth deemed to be applicable to all. That is, by Rationalist argument.

I really don't think any empiricists deny reason as a tool altogether. In fact, I'd suggest that there's ample empirical evidence to demonstrate a great deal of effectiveness on the part of reason. What the empiricists rejected was the idea that one could formulate a philosophical system on reason alone. To the empiricist there was no Platonic realm that you could reach into using pure reason to wrangle yourself free some absolute truths. They more-or-less introduced the notion that if you couldn't imagine certain abstract concepts as representing actual imaginable things in the sensible world, then it was to be dismissed off-hand as being about nothing; for how could it be about anything real when all thoughts have an essential foundation in our senses, rather then a Cartesian sort-of mind filled with all possible knowledge?

I'm not doing everything I can to ensure a long healthy life, which is all that counts, so I cannot be the least bit wise.

I am doing everything to ensure a long, healthy and stress-free life. I eat healthy, take my vitamins, go to a gym regularly, watch my weight, do not smoke, drink only occasionally, have never tried recreational drugs, avoid everything that might stress me out (including men), go to the obgyn once a year, and on and on. Does this mean I am wise?

By your definition, it means that I'm at least wiser than you. Nyak, nyak, nyak.

.