I cannot argue with that, because that is your view. Since I regard both views as mistaken, I only have what is written by others who believe in emergence and holism and what used to be called the gestalt, to go by. Other's agree with you that there is a difference between holism and emergence, others see them as variations of the, same perennial "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," thinking, an idea I regard as without foundation.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:28 pmI don't think it does. "Emergence" is a supplementary quality supposed to "leap out of" a certain stage of evolutionary development. That's really hokey. But holism is not like that, because everything that has holistic integrity has it all the time...or, as you would say, has it none of the time. Either way, it's not like "emergence."We're not going to agree on the concept of holism which, to me, has all the same problems as emergence.
I'm sorry you had that impression. The example of aether is not an analogy, only something I think was both understandable and a reasonable assumption at the time. My point was actually meant to explain why I understand the idea that something has to be more than just its qualities. If I had never asked the question myself, "even if a thing is all its qualities, what are they qualities of?" I might not understand. It is because that question seems inevitable to me that I had to discover what is wrong with it, but I do understand it and it is not easy to dismiss.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:28 pmYou might be surprised to know I understand your, "strong intuitive feel," that something is "missing" from the view that an entity is its qualities and nothing more. It was, I believe, the same kind of sense that, "there has to be something more," that led scientist to assume the existence of luminiferous aether to explain the propagation of electromagnetic waves, especially after the wave nature of light was discovered.
I fear that's a rather unfair analogy. I might as easily say, "the strong intuitive feel" that the Earth was round, or that new lands existed to the West, or that the Earth went around the Sun, led to the "propagation" of the view that all these things were true. Which they were, of course.
So the analogy is question-begging here, at best; and at worst, a little slanted against holism.
Ah, the old Kantian false trichotomy: Ontology (Necessary vs. Contingent), Epistemology (A Priori vs. A Posteriori), Language (Analytic vs. Synthetic). You already know what I think of that nonsense.
How do you hold the thought, "your bloody neighbour has let his Alsatian off the chain again," without language. You can only think that, or any other thought, with words. There is only one kind of human knowledge, verbal knowledge gained and held by means of langauge.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:28 pmLet's put it in a little story....or what an, "epistemological response to the presence of an ontological entity," is.
You're walking down an alley. Suddenly, a black shape launches itself at you. Your surprise elicits a response in verbal form.
The ontological fact: in reality, there is a wolf attacking you. Epistemologically, though, you think it's your neighbour's big dog. Linguistically, you yell "Down, boy." Now, the ontological fact is that you are going to eaten. The epistemological perspective you hold, though, is that your bloody neighbour has let his Alsatian off the chain again. And your linguistic response, though sponsored by the ontological facts of being attacked and the epistemological interpretation you have that tells you this is your neighbour's dog, leads you to the absurd act of addressing a wolf in English.
Ontology is not epistemology. Epistemology is not linguistics. Linguistics is not ontology. But in the analogy, all three are still related. Without the ontological fact of the wolf, there would be no epistemological belief in your mind that your neighbour had let his dog out, and you would not utter any linguistic response.
This is so wrong! Nothing, "causes," epistemology any more than rivers and mountains, "cause," geography, or highways cause maps. Even if what you mean is, "the ontological (entities) cause the epsistemological (i.e. knowledge)," it is not true. Knowledge is not something that, "happens to," human beings, all knowledge is learned and learning is something human beings do, and from a very early age must choose to do. It is also impossible to learn anything without language, and language itself is the very first knowledge human beings learn. Language is the method of epistemology. Without language, there is no epistemology.
First of all, you are confusing perception, ("seeing"), with knowledge. Our knowledge is about what we see (and perceive in every other way), but seeing is not knowledge, it is only the direct apprehension of what our knowledge is about. "Seeing a chair," is not, "knowing it is a chair or what chair is."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:28 pm ... I'm saying is that for me, as a human being, my epistemology is always somewhat flawed and imperfect: I see the chair, but only one side of it, at one time. I don't know the chair as it is, in its totality -- I don't perceive the utter and complete truth about its reality. I see it as a bunch of brown lines.
However, God is not limited to that sort of epistemology. He can know the complete truth about the reality of the chair...He can see it from all sides, in all dimensions, all at once. Thus, His assessment about it will be correct, no matter how flawed mine is. There is a reality outside of the partial "reality" I see..reality as it is in the mind of God.
Secondly, if we see a chair as it actually exists we must not be able to see all sides and dimensions at once, because that would a perceptual distortion. All that is perceived is always in its total ontological context, which includes all its relationships to all other entities, including the perceiver. If a chair or anything else had the same appearance in all contexts it would be deceptive.
Now I know what, "seeing," is, because I do it, and I know if something actually saw things as though they had no context (relationships to anything else, like being able to see all sides and dimensions at once) it would be delusion.
I'm afraid you've got me. It is a feeling that makes me know I'm certain. I discovered it when I was still in school, and it is the reason I always had a perfect score on multiple choice tests. As I looked at each possible answer my left earlobe would tingle when I read the right answer. It never failed. So now when I have a possible question about anything I just have to think about an answer and the right answer always causes my left earlobe to tingle and I'm certain I'm right.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:28 pmOh, I think that's manifestly untrue. You aren't really certain of anything...unless I am, by accident, speaking to God. You're certainly not warranted in your assertion of certainty, if you're still human. For all humans are merely local to their physical and geographical location, and to the time in which they are found. We are not omniscient: and omniscience is the sine qua non of true and absolute certainty.I know I have certain knowledge of reality and its nature.
I think what you must mean is that you feel certain. Which might be true, but might not be warranted.
Nonsense, right!? So is the idea that any other kind of, "feeling," has anything to do with certainty. In my experience I've had to make choices that I did not, "feel," comfortable making, even when I was absolutely certain they were right, contrary to my feelings. And they were right, because they were based on reason, not feelings.
Now if you want to claim that it is impossible for you to be certain of anything I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it, but you are a bit out-of-bounds when you claim the same defect in others, whose minds you cannot read or know. Which is interesting in itself, because it raises the question, how can you know what God knows if what is in God's mind is impossible for you to know? Since you're not infallible or omniscient how could you possibly know if another mind is?
I think the reason you doubt that certainty is possible is because you have an unusual idea of what knowledge is. You frequently use the words, "omniscient," and, "infallible," as though they were the sole criteria for knowledge. It is not necessary to know everything to know anything and it is not necessary to never make a mistake to have knowledge that is not mistaken. By the time one is an adult one has an almost endless amount of knowledge without which he could not survive a day because everything a human being does must be consciously chosen and no right choice can be made without knowledge.
From the moment you wake up in the morning to the time you finally leave to go to work you have performed thousands of little acts that have required enormous amounts of knowledge all of which are so certain you take them for granted. You have to know what every article of clothing you put on is, how it must be worn, what buttons are, a zipper is, how to tie shoe laces or your tie. If you shower and shave in the morning you must know what a razor is, your shaving cream is, what hot and cold water are and how to adjust them. You must know what soap is, and maybe shampoo, and what a towel is and how to use it. Then you must make your breakfast and know what coffee is and what a coffee maker is and how to set it up. You have to know what a coffee cup is, and what milk and sugar are, if you use them, and where they are. Whatever you have for breakfast, you must know what it is, an egg, cereal, toast, muffin, and how to prepare them. If you're conscientious enough to clean up after yourself, you must load up the dishwasher, and of course know what that is and how to do it. There is so much knowledge required for even the most routine aspects of life most are never aware of it. You have to know what every utensil you use is as well as how to use them, what a closet is, a cabinet, a stove, a burner or heating coil are, and how to adjust them, what a clock is and how to tell time, and ... well you know the list is endless.
Now you can say you are not certain what a spoon is, or that the device you made your toast in is only statistically likely to be a toaster, or that your car, in another universe, might actually be a pumpkin, but to everyone else, that kind of thinking only shows up in fairy tales, insane asylums, Dostoevsky, Kafka, or Kant's philosophy. I know you'll think I'm exaggerating, perhaps, or denigrating your view, but I am seriously only saying that is exactly what you, and every other anti-intellectual anti-certainty philosopher, who claims true certain knowledge is impossible sounds like.
Well, the same to you, of course, though I have to wonder exactly what you are wishing me, if we cannot be certain what happiness is, or what a year is, especially a new one. Well I'm certain I know what they are, and I'll just go with that.
Since I could not possibly wish you anything better, IC, I hope your new year will be as full of joy and meaning as mine.