| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,856 Last seen: 16 minutes, 23 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: maybe, I'm open to that -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 10 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: Yo its the theory of order..of lesser things..being encompassed creating more/higher order..so that life is of a higher order than say the mineral kingdom..and then maybe plants..to small insects/rodents..(these are metaphors) and then larger animals of all kinds..and finally the Homo species..in which we then create larger order with our tools..making houses and infrastructure..in roads and buildings, Tall rises. And then we create data in virtual environments like the internet for example..which is the greatest concentration of order that we have created..unless you look on the grand scale..of informational structuralism, which says that mines and quarries with the great creations of huge tractors and trucks.. Thinking about it..Likely, the infrastructure is likely the greatest collection of information out there to date.. I think you can sometimes find higher order in one segment or Kingdom..and then the next time you think about it..the highest order is something different;
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
Very well.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
Quote: I would like to add a little more to the fun. I would also like to hit this on the head and propose in complete clarity that the question of evolution as a theory should suggest looking to natural philosophy again rather than just scientism. Richard Dawkins is a good example of how an empirical conjecture may hedge itself much beyond an ostensibly technical constraint of sensory experience, observation, or trial based experiment. It is not even just a modern ideology but for Dawkins, even seems like a myth of persecution for him. He is the kind of person to tell this story that a naturalist's observation is something locked away and repressed in some tower of a midieval Christian church, like Galileo, and again and again, has to be battered and impinged upon and freed... in our day and age. A naturalist's observation could be more conservatively suggested, as less of a reaction, and that is my position. What is more or less inflated today as the value of sense experience or empirical observation, is the idea that such an observation must in principle be found as a particularly arbitrary alterior impingement to what we reason or stand to think, as individuals or as a culture. As opposed to Dawkin's battering approach of reactive heterodoxy as the basis of observation, I'd say an endoxic approach of the naturalist as philosopher is more appropriate. Darwin was a natural philosopher, even if he also satisfies the criteria of a modern empiricist as well. (Maybe Darwin was the last natural philosopher, indeed as in his time William Whewell coined the term "scientist" over the "natural philosopher" in the mid 1800s) In any case, as The Origin of Species entails, the insight into natural selection Darwin had was clearly the endoxic insight of the philosopher. He observed the way we artificially select familiar breeds of plants and domestic animals, and this guided his observation of nature. Through his key observations, nature as a whole was seen by this analogy to follow a similar mechanism in principle as what was already familiar in artificial selection. This is exactly the sort of insight Aristotle writes of in his physis (Treatise on Nature): Quote: Darwin's manner of observation finds the basis of familiar, endoxa as essential part of the technical suggestion of empirical findings. Endoxic observation is unlike the myth of a hidden, persecuted genius of Darwin, or the myth that sense experience can come from so radically alteriority, that it would seem to impinge out of nowhere. Nor is his insight guided even by any particularly technical theoretical consideration. Why should evolution seem to be an alien impingement? There is the potential lucidity of observation, as sense would seem to follow. This is endoxa, the non-controversial suggestibility of observation which Darwin clearly followed. But although Darwin followed this manner of observation, in an intellectual environment of the debates that followed, including discussion with people who were staunchly unreasonable, such a reasonable approach couldn't stand. Darwin's naturalism as a philosophy became irrelavent in favor of a compelling argumentative approach, vouching less for the particular analogy from the familiar (when everyone was touchy about anything familiar) but evidence of what is. My question is why haven't we returned to endoxic philosophical approach of naturalism? To this day, Darwin's significant path from the familiar (artificially selected organisms) has become a merely subsidiary technical discussion of a domain of the artificial or domestic entities which are just somehow different than naturally selected organisms, a domain which is "what is" as nature. That is, empirical evidence is appealed to technically and in argument as the consistency of evolutionary theory in a general sense, as what is evident, or what is. ... In response to this thread, I think the theoretical basis of evolution is important, and not merely as controversy of what is. If evolution is true, I think this would be as a manner of speaking. A theory of evolution should be pragmatic, suggesting a basis of understanding, rather than as an absolute to determine. If evolution is "true", to me I am not even sure what this means. It seems to be a statement that is picked up in implied provisions of argument, which are not very well considered on either side of discussion. I would point out in favor of an alternative pragmatic view, that the question of how evolution is true for inorganic and organic matter, ie. the limits of reductive analysis (as in any field of science), suggest in certain ways we don't know, but assume what we mean by life. The bridge to life of course remains a question or theoretical assumption for reductionists, and it cannot be said to be a small matter for them either. Secondly at issue, there is the question of how evolution would hold true in some way for human existence. That is again what opens to a question, in a different way. Human nature is a question, or theoretical variability. So in these ways I would argue it is nonsense to say evolution is true without considering what it is particularly describing. It is a theory. I note that when people say it is true they usually mean they take opposition to people who say it is not true in certain implied provisions or domains. But indeed evolution is not generally true, and just a theory. It stands to reason that we should think about our theoretical possibility, and find practical importance in it. My basic assumption is that endoxa is the theoretical basis of evolution, and should be considered significant, as the natural guidance of observation entailing description. We need less to discuss absolutes and again make the movement from the relative familiar in nature to what is less clear to us. Particularly, humanism.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,828 |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
conduit Registered: 09/17/08 Posts: 2,721 Last seen: 7 years, 21 days |
| ||||||
![]() the evolution of the grass family. the evolution of minerals and rocks I don't usually disagree with Kurt on many things but I find it personally hard to refute that evolution exists. I do find it difficult to pin down the exact terms that most people mean when they use the word. My personal interpretation has very little to do with "life" as most people think of it (in animal terms). If you believe things in physical existence are "alive", the have a structure and defined boundaries to their individual "being". If you define life in these terms then the idea of evolution becomes tricky by most definitions. It makes things quite interesting to think about. The concept of things increasing in order from rocks/minerals > plants > insects/bugs and so on seems almost backwards. Our informational systems we've created like the internet, takes information which is in existence like a blade of grass, and creates an almost infinite amount of information that isn't a blade of grass but is about a blade of grass, ie. millions of photo's, stories, definitions, chemical makeups, electron microscopic evaluations, and the list goes on and on and on, and attaches all these things with a crazy web of digital threads and lines of reference to a blade of grass. Moving from the simple and orderly (a blade of grass) into a shapeless, nameless, amalgamate of information seems from my view at least to be a step towards chaos. The internets view of a blade of grass is incredibly chaotic and disorganized. The simplest version of the most thorough description of an object has nothing to do with any scientific analysis of the object, it is the object itself. To describe a birch tree in absolute completeness in scientific terms would require a complex assembly of thousands of records of observations about that birch tree. The simplest way to convey the concept of a birch tree is then not through scientific examination and presentation of this data. The simplest way is to present a birch tree. Order is about simplicity, a rock is much more orderly by design than a plant ever could be. Plants are transient in structure, constantly in a state of growth or death or both, with complicated chemical processing mechanisms and intricate internal structures. Moving on to animals multiplies the chaos of structure multifold. When you speak of infrastructure (houses, roads, high rises) these are incredibly ill thought out structures that convey a very very limited amount of poorly researched information. The way we build houses is simply put, stupid. Name another species that builds any kind of dwelling or shelter with hard geometric angles that sticks up into the environment in spite of the environment. This stems from mans yearning for conformity, building little cubes that stand in spite of their environment. If we look to nature and observe, then we will see that round shapes, not cubes (which are rare in nature for a reason) dominate the shelter domain. Having curves for wind and water to wrap around, rather than flat walls and hard angles to "stand against the elements", makes much more sense. Burrowing into the earth for natural free insulation and protection from the elements, rather than building highly unnatural shapes protruding into the air. So if you put the phrase "of chaos" after every time BrendanFlock typed the word "order" then it seems to make much more sense to me. -------------------- The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
| |||||||
|
Outer Head Registered: 12/06/13 Posts: 9,819 |
| ||||||
|
You seem to be saying it's one or the other. Can't chaos and order exist together, in a kind of complementarity? It seems to me this dynamic tension is necessary for all evolution in the universe, at every level.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
| |||||||
|
conduit Registered: 09/17/08 Posts: 2,721 Last seen: 7 years, 21 days |
| ||||||
|
I was just taking issue with the idea of order increasing through those steps of rocks>plants>people>internet.
The idea that the increased diversity in genetics, species, molecular structure, and so on is a move towards orderliness seems silly. It may beg for more accurate classification, which creates a more convoluted map to navigate, more chaos. But withing those genetic changes are most likely streamlined versions of living things becoming simpler and more efficient. In this way they are becoming more orderly. That seems to happen within closed systems such as genetic lineage, and not so much across the board. -------------------- The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 23 hours, 10 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Dude, I think were both Geniuses..I think one of us is a nihilist..and the other is Optimist;
To see things as they are is the total test of knowledge..I think some things i have read for your post sound like they are dead on.. Maybe this will Help.. E Plurabus Unum; Or out of the many; One.. Or out of the many comes one.. Lets say that the total of everything in existence equals One..which is basically true..if we reach spaces of different order..than we dont have a problem with the grand equation itself..but we have problems with the ideas and material of things that are different..in order for example.. I would quickly Jest and say when we have a problem with order..that the likely output is that we are learning or understanding about Chaos instead.. So the theory goes that we need to understand the easy connection to each of the forces..and all the forces.. I would Jest to say that the first thing was 0, and was pure in consciousness knowledge..and peace..And hence from there the consciousness directed itself and made a universe..which was equal to the number 1.. But the key now a days is to know when to say a specific number..there may be 7 dimensional Intraverses that I just thought of.. And I do have the ability to put them in an order that equals the absolute..which therefore generates peace for me..But before I sorted them..they indeed had a specific amount of chaos..and for me to sort them at all..they needed to have the virtues of being able to be sorted in such a way that you can call it absolute! Lol..as long as Im not including bad spelling..I like using the ... Formula..or Dot dot dot.. Which is the ratio that I feel the words will have most impact..sometimes I think my sentence Isnt as complete as it should be..But I dont really know anymore so to speak..enough that I could make it sound more fluent.. But this is respect to evolution in general..people speak about me...and therefore if the rules are in question im basically forced to Comply.. But if its about something else..I have a chance to listen and than change accordingly in the best way I understand!
| |||||||
|
conduit Registered: 09/17/08 Posts: 2,721 Last seen: 7 years, 21 days |
| ||||||
love you man -------------------- The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
Chaos and order seems to be much too related to how we understand things a priori to talk about at all as general physical law. If we were really consistent, and skeptical of this, we would throw out the idea of something as broad and suspect as chaos and order, as relavent to life.
As the provisions of domains (and as indeed formally related to epistemological pursuits) I'd argue we need to look to a fundamental analytic of nature and nurture, as both the Greeks and Darwin did. The idea that there is some direction to life that would be anything like a mathematical/physical determination, something analogical or even riding waves and crests of laws of thermodynamics, ie. found in chaos and order does indeed seem entirely mistaken. I can understand the notion that order and choas is part of the game life is playing, but there seems to be some basica limitation to that notion and the grounds of investigation seem off. The formal philosophical turn blends in to what we are talking about, when you come to the questions and criticisms of the tendencies and indeed dogmas of modern empirical theory. Seeking the widest swaths of possible empirical inductions as methodological ascription, is something that conventionally, corresponds to matter in a formal way. This is not with anything like a domain of physical law itself. I would stress my point of skepticism that in spite of the way it is expressed as a liberal freedom to enquire into nature itself, it is nonetheless purely a methodological constraint to find entities bouncing around, to be gathered as seemingly random, or to look for them that way. The fact is, even the correspondence of empirical induction to "matter" is conventional. On examination Hume's billiard balls, are ultimately unbound, whether or not they refer to atoms, or substances, modern people just prefer to interpret things that way. Standard Encyclopedia describes this formalism precisely, in a possible interpretability: Quote: The question is if we find things in convenient oppositions. In what is substantive or essential to our modern culture, the question is if we reify space and time, or in other words Cartesian coordinate system that describes in basis from an impossible analogy and aperture into an "external" world, the posited extended substance (res extensa) in terms of a mathematical or analytical language which mechanically determines entities. This is a different philosophical paradigm of materialism or substance metaphysics that is sorted through the philosophical tradition. To delve into what is substantive to substance metaphysics, would be to go back to Aristotle. My own contention to modern epistemology would be that we do not seek an "underlying thing" or the nature or being but in a formal and derivative sense. I think it is possible that we can accept the matter of consistency in skepticism suggested by modern empiricists aside from accepting a dogma of reductionism. Modern pragmatists like W.O. Quine argue for a non reductive empiricism for instance. Particularly what we find in empiricism as a formal philosophy is the contention that any a priori, or formal analysis, including mathematical or logical analyses, would not be describing physical nature, ie. causality. We should stick to not ascribing these causes, and this should throw out the dogma of projecting mechanical determinations as if this were "nature". That is indeed the point Hume himself makes. (If you search Google there is an intereting essay called Hume against the machinists). Yet empiricists today no doubt insist just as much to question intuitive (a priori) concepts, as they do prescribe meaning in such a notion of prescribed causality. Against the phenomenologist's who describe what is found through experience in a kind of opening, empiricists clearly look for a linear determination of mechanism, and that is their own prescription, as commensurate to - but also concealing the essential problematic of Aristotle, ie. materialism. Materialism in truth is a concept Aristotle conceived as a pursuit of underlying things. Aristotle's inclination to reductive analysis, or pursuit of underlying things can be seen in certain provisions which are less susceptible to being found in dogmatic ascriptions. It was clear in Aristotle that matter was a form of analysis, in an certain extent of projected purpose. Modern empiricism, as a materialism, seeks its possibility in determining things in themselves as mechanisms. No this makes the philosophical objection to the "form" of idealism, formal. Thus modern empiricists seek a certain opposition prior to seeking the underlying thing, or subject matter. And what that is to say, finally come to it, (in contradiction and nullity) is "nature" first, is defined as what it is not, as though it were what it is. Modern people dwell in this as meaning, to the extent that it is certainly possible to dwell in their own voidness and nullity, as well as pursuit of the substance of underlying things. For the most part this discussion determines what is substantive or what is nature, in a formal way, as articulating the domain like a vessel which substance fills, by what nature is not. This is where modern thinking lies in its particular oppositions. Mainly science today (at least in America) is fear of humanism, and projection of the (self ascribed) non-existent, as circumscribing a domain of nature. What is nature, "nature in itself" in this sense? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hence Heidegger wrote the following aptly in critique of modern sciences: Quote: I am sure Heidegger's question is controversial enough, to simply pose as rhetorical. It is suggestive enough to anyone who recognizes it, I take it. The only point may be that provisions in dialogue however are not in consistent enquiry. Something which should relate to a question of nature is how we really seek to understand something as nature in its own capacity, or in itself. That attitude is indeed apparently lost, and atrophied for a formal opposition to form. Naturalism continues in a series of gestures which are Evoking and prescribing mechanism. "It works", and I realize dialogue is institutionalized. Consistent thinking will be relagated to some me notion of entrenchment in obsolete philosophy, even christian theology, as the form of Aristotelian naturalism, or on the other hand post modernism, and either way people will not agree. These epistemological provisions, the compulsive quality of an analytic mind and culture, stand not only as the determination of entities in a given domain, but as determined. But it is possible to find any of this suggestive. This question and preoccupation that dictates science as potentially relevant to what we think of as order and chaos in nature itself. What methodological biases (both reductive and hierarchical) we would likely conceive them according to, suggests these formal projections (of matter and form, which are at the same time entirely lost to our culture's conception for mind and matter) would probably play a basic role in what we conceive or speculate of as order and chaos in nature. Again, it seems like the fact is, life as a subject matter is not following any tendency like one that relates to physical/mathematical law such as thermodynamics. There may be significantly crests and waves of order and chaos, (heterogeniety and homogeniety) but no general direction, that sense. How does this occur? I have suggested that there does seem to be a more finite conditional analogy. Darwin employed conditional endoxical reasoning, to articulate these domains of nature and human artificiality or nurturing. In science's reaction to orthodoxy, that is itself orthodox, this endoxic approach is being sorely missed. I have suggested a basis that the way nurturing is providing some direction to life (in artificially selected plants and animals) and is inclusive to a domain of nature, is obviously significant at least in provision (yet again, I think it is mostly that we can't formally exclude it). We need to start talking theoretical variables in modern biological science. For example, aside from the conventional and stupid dogma that animals are determined mechanisms, a human being in a positive sense has a reflexive consciousness, and that is positively significant, and opens to such Variables. Heidegger says we are the being for which being is an issue to it, and that is both what we seek to understand and live through projection. He is coming from Aristotle who reflected on human knowledge as well as ends and means. I think as Quine says, empirical conjecture should open to epistemelogical holism, which extends science to philosophy. I will present a few following theses which are closer to a traditional domain and subject matter of biology, which are nonetheless quite relavent to a matter of form. I think these issues are compelling aside from philosophy, as well as in detention to it. In short I think evoluton is quite theoretical in some ways. To begin with, just because we don't know the principle, or just because it has not been asserted, or found on an "appropriate" empirical basis, clearly doesn't mean that human goals can't have anything to do with evolution. We are part of nature, even if we established a domain of natural entities in opposition to nurture. This is the same in Aristotle (physis vs nomos) which has indeed defined epistemelogical approaches such as empirical falsification, as it is in Darwin. First thesis: something which ordinary is considered a philosophical domain, in reflexive consciousness can elsewise be ascribed, and not as so much a problem or issue that will be reacted to as idealism. The linguist and social philosopher Noam Chomsky suggests that "recursion" (as a linguistic construct) is an essential part of natural language if not as such (as many have speculated) the human brain. If such a mechanism were to be found this would strongly suggest a rather arbitrary unboundedness of human thought. For example as a function of consciousness recursion could be explanatory both of the categorialism (an idea of embeddedness, of form containing truth) which we have philosophically acheived but upon a material basis, it would transcend that as well, as something that we just "do". Hence we would do our embeded categories, but on a material basis (signified by the mechanism in language) this would go beyond the intuitive value of a hierarchy of concepts. This unbounded embeddedness, is highly suggestive in more than one way, and stands up so far to empirical enquiry. (I don't particularly think that looking for a structure of the human brain is important but some people might.) Quote: Second thesis, adapting a view to nature vs. nurture, without falling into typical epistemological dogma: "You can't teach a monkey to fear a flower: (source)" Quote: If propensities of learning, can be found significantly in monkeys, they could also be found embedded in human existence. This is no determined contingency, but an opening and clearing for such phenomena we live with: E.O Wilson argues thusly for the "Biophelia Hypothesis": Quote:
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
What essentially all Greek thinkers posed as physis or nature, should be sought as the basis informing all sciences, but particularly, biology. It was found particularly in the presocratics thinking, as well as in Aristotle's discussion which technically determines a base in matter and form. Both the technical and the essential discussion is forgotten or dervitavely covered over by branches of dialogue. Physis was seen as nature itself, and not as a synthetic determination, but in an inhering conception which we would gloss (rather than achieve as our technical interpretations) as organic "growth" or "becoming". The Greeks maintained a radical disclosure of physical cause, by opposing it in principle to nomos, or what we would call nurturing or convention. That is nature, or physis, and Aristotle thought about it in a technical sense which opened the world to epistemological pursuit of nature. By confusion of theologians, and sciences, nature as found in itself, as physis, is no longer sought or seen. We dwell between two nurturing institutions; a liberal and progressive one and an older conservative one each mainly in opposition to the other.
| |||||||
|
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer. Registered: 11/26/14 Posts: 1,688 |
| ||||||
|
This is for reference, to anyone who is interested. I am done here. I figured I'd try to be exhaustive, if anyone, ever wondered what I've meant. This is my last post. If you follow the last two, then you will understand alot of what I have been about.
I have some health issues I need to focus on, so actually I have to give up what I am doing now. I have to change focus. Its a spinal thing and writing is not good for my posture. So anyway I always wanted to try to articulate this thing I have about greek philosophy, as an organic mode of thinking. That's what I'll try to do here. The first historically recorded mention of physis or nature is purported to be found in Homer, in The Odyssey. As the story goes Hermes Argeiphontes, (who went by many names including mercury) delivered this idea of physis to humans. Rough Translation: "Hermes Argeiphontes gave me the herb, drawing it from the ground, and showed me the way it waws (φύσις, physis). At the root it was black, but its flower was like milk. 'Moly' the gods call it, and it is hard for mortal men to dig; but with the gods all things are possible." I find it less significant that Hermes was a god, but the messenger. His name is the basis of hermeneutics, or the interpretative approach to philosophy. To that, I would recommend looking to Aristotle, particularly his physis You can find his discussion of causes, are not in metaphysics, actually. You also find there that, that when Aristotle sought a material analysis, it was in bearing things as they are found in themselves, "in their own cause", or physis. This was a bearing of entities as present. Aristotle not only suggests what a material analysis is, but at the same time, the principle of what is physical nature. He wrote that "some things" were of physis, like rocks trees and streams, because they were found in themselves, or in their own cause, in themselves, or in essence (all these things in various iterations) while other things like chairs and tables, were not, but were found according to techne, the craftsman's hammer. The way a chair or table stood was not found in itself, or its own cause, or in essence, because the way it was was imposed on it (namely the formal, and efficient causes). This, is the basic meaning of the principle of physis as cause, or what is found inclusively to a domain of nature. It is clearly prior to evoking matrices of "space and time", and their phenomena. Namely, in the background of Aristotle's discussion (and again not in metaphysics) there was the particular negation, or principle of contradiction directed at human imposed forms, which distinguished nature as it was in itself. Of course, that is an open contingency, when you examine the notion. Chairs and tables were not found in themselves, or in nature in essence, but they were still found in nature at the same time. They still stood on their four legs, for instance, in their own physical causes, and human beings didn't need to stand by and hold them up. Hence Aristotle found a way to establish concelience of the things which are included in nature, in this way, and that is what can be appreciated in his work. Namely through analysis (analuein, to unloosen) the chair is found according to its own causes once again. Granted there is a context to this, as just entailed, but whether it is in our head or in actual physical gestures (no controversy there) by analysis or analuein, by tinkering with these things, we unloosen them, and can take the chair apart until it stands in its principle cause. We find the chair is made up of wood, is something that stands in itself, ulike the chair which has an imposed form. We break it down. Wood, is what stands in its own cause, as a material or substance. This concept came to prominence in Aristotle. It was also interpreted and translated at the same time by the latin scholastics. Mater in latin, literally meant "wood", thanks to this technical analogy it was derived from. But as for this particular discussion, we speak of the specific theoretical notion substantia which is how the latin scholastics interpreted Ousia. Ousia as Aristotle used it, was greek, and simply means the present participle of being. This interpretation of what was natural to greeks (or at least in a natural expression of language) to something special changed the way we think of things. Aristotle was suggesting the presence of the thing as it "is", as in a simple manner of speaking. The wood, for instance, was seen "in itself" or as it "is", much as the tree was seen in itself. This was not some particularly special thing, other than that it suggested by prejudice a priori, there was something concealed somehow in the form of the table or chair. This is why the chair or table "needed" to be unloosened, so it could be found in itself. Yet for instance, the tree was already essentially found in itself. This notion that was gathered and gave a technical value of substantia, was basically in this way suggesting the essential value of substance. Hence in Aristotle's own materialism, the way he was speaking in a technical sense, Matter or substance was arguably not supposed to be such an "essential" or "synthetic" claim, as we have found it. He was indeed saying something like this, that the wood was found in itself, but not in the way it was gradually embedded as essential in language. Obviously this can't be worked out in such a spare expression of his idea. Aristotle, found Ousia important, but in a different way. What can be said, just in terms of the ideas, is that it is entirely a matter of disposition, and self responsibility, to suggest you feel that something is concealed by the chair or table, or say the laptop that sits on it, and need to analyze it, and show what it is made up of. In a word, Aristotle referred to that as Ousia. All in all, what happened, is latin scholastics interpreted a technical discussion into language, and the terminology aristotle used became fetishized or inflated as a technical term. Latin scholastics also completely changed the conception of cause, and sought something behind nature, causing its cause, in some essential sense, and that's basically where it all went. Material analysis, or substance (say wood) may be interpreted, or helped along by translation, as being essential, taken out of context. As a matter of fact, wood, as much as trees, as well as chairs and tables all stand as part of nature "essentially" we could say. The question is of principle, and assuredly the fundamental basis of all reason is principle of contradiction. That is easy to find with tables and chairs, but analysis can be applied to anything. Aristotle indeed suggested finding the most basic elements and principles of nature, and had no problem not only unloosening tables and chairs, but say for instance, analyzing trees to understand their underlying process, or ecosystems through material analysis. This is to say, his approach was finding parts and wholes, in the most common sense. But analysis is a technical incentive, which is guided by elucidating things in their essence, as they are in themselves, in context. This context, is particularly suggestible when things are in a way, somehow not found in themselves, or in essence or nature. Today we follow the principle of contradiction, only derivatively, and in a contrived way, that is void of any essential basis. While seeking the underlying thing in nature, what Aristotle first suggested, in the context of his thought, (which originally distinguishes nature and physis) nowhere suggests that a material substance inherently has any basis over the tree as a whole. Thus, whereas humans may be deceived by their projected forms in chairs and tables, and it is in a certain way, appropriate to unloosen or tinker with these things, the naturalists sensibility should not, and in a way cannot as easily necessitate this projected principle of contradiction, to delve into the nature of the tree, and its causes. It makes sense to seek the underlying thing, in a natural way, and that is natural philosophy guided by these principles. Aristotle's investigation becomes presenting of nature in itself, in its own cause, as it would stand in itself. It is also, reasonably, but in a different way, an investigation into the causes of nature themselves in their own capacity. But the question is in what principle? As to possible suggestion, people can argue from all the bases they want, when nature today is found in an all inclusive generality. Modern society in other words, finds the principle of nature which distinguished a chair, the wood, and the tree, as all part of nature, by mere inclusiveness, by matter of fact, without thinking of its principles at all. This is why we look for our principle of contradiction, in projected nullities, like self ascribed dead gods or other "non-existent entities", or "metaphysics", or in the statistical stupidity of half of an American populous on every issue, and in seeking out this falsification, as a meaning of nature or naturalism. Nature, is what is opposed to what is not. Our understanding of what is included in nature, what is found in itself in nature, is completely unguided though, because in a positive sense, we dwell in technical analysis and the transmission and dissemination of technical ideas, as essential to the way things are. Not that this notion is false per se, but it doesn't indicate at all what nature is. Clearly we do not seek nature anymore, but the way of packing it with what is inclusive to it, material consumption, technological production, and this laughable liberal sentimentality of nature, and our "values" for being in it. On an individual level, or a level where this discourse on nature is broached, we follow the idea of the compulsive value of analysis of things. For example it is a simple matter to take analysis as essential. A tree stands as it does in itself, but see, by evoking a principle of contradiction, we can rest assured that the wood is not just found in itself, but truly found in itself. That is the turn. We moderners will have truth and nothing other than that, because we seek assurance. We seek what was simply a way of bearing entities as present, in themselves. This fell into a compulsion for western humanity. Each side of it is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me I'd say I am just telling it like it is. We have a liberal institution set on "progress", guided in principle reaction to a conservative theology that is dead, and non-existent. Naturalism is propensity to react... a void and nullity... Oh well.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,828 |
| ||||||
|
evolution in action
| |||||||
|
CS actual Registered: 12/11/07 Posts: 29,591 |
| ||||||
Quote: If evolution is indeed true there is no goal to evolution. You're assumption there is a goal clearly points out you still have some reading to do on the theory. -------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/01/15 Posts: 753 Last seen: 6 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
I didn't come from no damn single celled organism. Lousy Protozoa, reproducing asexually. No sir, nuh uh. Not in my family.
| |||||||
|
conduit Registered: 09/17/08 Posts: 2,721 Last seen: 7 years, 21 days |
| ||||||
|
Kurt I gotta say like always I enjoy thought well informed intellectual posts and views. As someone going into the field of philosophy I am currently reminded how important comprehension of material while being mindful of core concepts rather than easily following previously well trodden thought paths.the need to stay dynamic in thought while actively reading and processing(vs. Passively reading words but not connecting the dots in live time). You also constantly remind me of the diligence in reading and writing that it's required on this path of life I've chosen.
Now I must read much more before I can continue in my thoughts. -------------------- The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
| |||||||
|
Utopia is a state of mind Registered: 05/04/07 Posts: 2,117 Loc: amongst civiliza |
| ||||||
Quote: your right it is just a theory and can not be proven.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/11/03 Posts: 29,258 |
| ||||||
|
What can be proven?
| |||||||
|
Universally Loathed and Reviled Registered: 03/11/15 Posts: 20,855 Loc: Foreign Lands |
| ||||||
|
i exist
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
"This statement is false" True or false? ( |
2,009 | 24 | 07/28/03 10:12 PM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
projecting thoughts (artificial entities) | 1,653 | 11 | 11/12/02 04:59 PM by FreakQlibrium | ||
![]() |
change and the rapid evolution of humaninty... ( |
5,724 | 57 | 09/25/02 04:27 PM by shii-tan | ||
![]() |
Declaration of Evolution | 779 | 7 | 04/08/03 03:38 AM by LostMetropolis | ||
![]() |
Evolution and Society ( |
5,051 | 46 | 03/16/04 11:29 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
The Idea of Evolution is BS ( |
18,802 | 165 | 07/21/02 09:44 AM by whiterastahippie | ||
![]() |
Evolution ( |
8,956 | 61 | 12/08/03 03:34 PM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
The true purpose of humanity ( |
4,647 | 44 | 06/19/03 12:59 PM by c_mathimatics |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 8,876 topic views. 1 members, 14 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



