Philosophy and Aristotle

[Impenitent]

... and your agreement with the second destroys any semblance of objectivity in the first.

Nope. That would only be logical if one presumes either one or the other, the PNC.

However, that need not be the case. BOTH stances are quite objective. When two opinions are in conflict, either one can be correct, neither one, or both, depending on their premises.

This is the deeper meaning of the fly bottle metaphor. The view from within is not wrong. It is merely on a different scale from the overview from outside, which is also correct.

once again "what exactly do you mean with the statement..."

if the premise is flux and change, what guarantee does it have remaining the same in the next instant?

a previous "slice" is no guarantee of a present "slice..."

-Imp

[YehYeh]

I'm still not sure where you're headed with those distinctions. I'll just take a stab at what I can see.

Metaphysics exist (in a Platonic-Pythagorean universe) to create logical models of some aspects of personal or public experience.

Distinctions such as analytic/synthetic, reality/appearance, appearance/statement, statement/proposition depend on specific metaphysics, where these ideas may or may not be meaningfully defined. Perhaps inside realism the analytic/synthetic distinction collapses due to the structure of realism, but that need not be the case for other metaphysics.

Each metaphysic, in itself, is analytical. The axioms are hypothetical -- best guesses -- derived either from other analytical sources, such as pure logic, or from personal experience.

It is not inconsistent for Parmenides and Aristotle to develop metaphysical systems of the One or of sensible objects based on binary logic with non-contradiction. The advantage of these metaphysics is pragmatic -- they are logically manageable. The disadvantage is that they are far from and severely limited in applicability to experience. Attempts at internal, ontological pluralism to address this shortcoming will fail in the face of logical argument.

Plato's realism does not reject flux from the 'world of illusions' of life. Instead, flux is sampled at points along the way. While time disappears between the points, so that we cannot tell how much "time passed". However, we can still see the consequences of change, when we look at the images at each point. This method is standard in the sciences.

[Impenitent]

I'm still not sure where you're headed with those distinctions. I'll just take a stab at what I can see.

Metaphysics exist (in a Platonic-Pythagorean universe) to create logical models of some aspects of personal or public experience.

Distinctions such as analytic/synthetic, reality/appearance, appearance/statement, statement/proposition depend on specific metaphysics, where these ideas may or may not be meaningfully defined. Perhaps inside realism the analytic/synthetic distinction collapses due to the structure of realism, but that need not be the case for other metaphysics.

Each metaphysic, in itself, is analytical. The axioms are hypothetical -- best guesses -- derived either from other analytical sources, such as pure logic, or from personal experience.

It is not inconsistent for Parmenides and Aristotle to develop metaphysical systems of the One or of sensible objects based on binary logic with non-contradiction. The advantage of these metaphysics is pragmatic -- they are logically manageable. The disadvantage is that they are far from and severely limited in applicability to experience. Attempts at internal, ontological pluralism to address this shortcoming will fail in the face of logical argument.

Plato's realism does not reject flux from the 'world of illusions' of life. Instead, flux is sampled at points along the way. While time disappears between the points, so that we cannot tell how much "time passed". However, we can still see the consequences of change, when we look at the images at each point. This method is standard in the sciences.

private metaphysics, defined by private meaning (as opposed to private language...)

and yes, the method may well be standard in the sciences (as well as everyday existence); however, it falls apart with Hume's problem of induction and the assumption of the future resembling the past...

we are ultimately in agreement of the applicability of these systems to the world of experience...

-Imp

[Kelly]

YehYeh,

I agree with you completely. The misplaced credence given to the writings of philosophers, past and present, has been and is a great impediment to any effort to make "Philosophy" more logical. "Philosophy" is the propositional statements written by philosophers yet none of their statements were grounded on logical arguments. Philosophers have not understood how logical philosophical propositional statements are constructed because they have never understood the "nature of knowledge" itself. It is impossible to construct knowledge, in the philosophical area, with propositional statements, without first understanding the nature of "knowledge" itself. Until there exist a comprehensive definition of "knowledge", that reveals how knowledge is constructed, pseudo Philosophy will be all there is.

kelly