Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:23 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:57 pm According to Heraclitus: “We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own. “

That is true. Still it is better that there are different views than that one dogmatic view prevails.
I noted Heraclitus is anti-Philosophical-Realism with his "no man can step into the same river twice."

Re Logos [reason]
Although he was primarily concerned with explanations of the world around him, Heraclitus also stressed the need for people to live together in social harmony. He complained that most people failed to comprehend the logos (Greek: “reason”), the universal principle through which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of the world.
A significant manifestation of the logos, Heraclitus claimed, is the underlying connection between opposites.
For example, health and disease define each other. Good and evil, hot and cold, and other opposites are similarly related.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Heraclitus
If opposites are related [per Heraclitus] then what is "out-there" cannot be absolutely independent of "in-here".
PR claims what is "out-there" is absolutely independent of "in-here
I would define philosophical realism, as I see it, whether accurate or not in relation to how it is perceived in general, I interpret Kant’s perspective that anything that is phenomenal is not metaphysical. The definition of metaphysics is: after the things of nature. Metaphysics is of the mind, it impacts reality but cannot be reached through the objective study of material reality. The a priori categories, principles of nature, laws, ethics etc. were reinstated by Kant as judgements made by pure reason that occur independently of experience. The a priori categories, through pure reason, are synthesized with the objects of sense.

“No man can step into the same river twice” is PR, as I would define it, as the river moves on but its dynamic equilibrium remains the same. An orderly balance is maintained in nature even when the form changes, the fundamental elements of its structure remains unchanged. A change to ice would be a change in energy but not a change in element.

Logos has been misinterpreted, by the church, which ascribed it to Christ: he was the Logos, not just he was in alignment with the Logos. Obviously no form can be a principle of nature, as any principle of nature cannot be confined to a single form. The church correctly interpreted Logos as intelligence. “Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of their own.” If it meant reason it should read: Yet, although reason is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private reason of their own.

Like metaphysics, intelligence is much misunderstood, currently it means a function of the mind, similar to reason. The Age of Reason put emphasis on reason not on intelligence, or on the understanding that it was a principle of nature, in Kant’s terminology an a priori category. The understanding of the polarity of intelligence and the sensory mind, mitigated by reason, was consequently lost.

Reason was given godlike status after The Enlightenment and the understanding of intelligence as the Logos, a principle of nature. was left to the interpretation of the church as being, not an a priori principle but a Messiah in human form. Today metaphysics has become the (M) word and intelligence has become the (I) word in philosophy and science, both better left unsaid, while reason holds the spotlight. Although if reductive science thinks there is no mind, maybe that would be a death knell to reason as well.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:32 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 12:25 pm
Thanks. Could you possibly provide a synopsis that explains how the idea of the numenous fits in?
Kant's Vision and Mission is summarized as follows'
  • 1. What can we know? epistemology, science, mathematics, etc.
    2. What can we do/act? Morality and Ethics
    3. What can we hope for? Well-being & Perpetual Peace.
What we can know [1] is the phenomena world.

But there is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.
see the reference to CPR Avii in the above post.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion which nevertheless is a useful concept. [a limiting concept of negative employment, B311]

While awaiting to explain the concept of "something-that-appear" as an illusion and that such is illusion is nevertheless necessary for [2 What can we do/act] he temporary agreed to call it the noumena [opp. phenomena].
Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all but nevertheless it can be thought and useful for the purpose of [2].
Thus the noumena should never be reified as real constitutively.

Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].

From [2] i.e. Freedom based Morality and Ethics, Kant demonstrate how that will lead to the well-being and perpetual peace for humanity.

Thus to achieve Kant's Vision and Mission, he linked phenomena [experience] to noumenal, then to the thing-in-itself [Freedom] to ultimately perpetual peace.
Without the noumena is the above context Kant's perpetual peace will not be realized within reality in time [future, not now].
Thanks, Veritas Aequitas.
In the light of your synopsis I wonder if
Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].
is the same as man's aspirations towards transcendent virtues , or towards the transcendent good.
Whilst Kant viewed virtue as positive, he had some reservations with 'virtue' in consideration of his Morality.
Yes, for Kant the basis of Absolute Freedom is necessary support the man's striving towards the impossible-to-achieve transcendent absolute good which is merely a fixed guiding post.

The noumena is a necessary concept in the continuum in justification from experience to the transcendent absolute freedom and absolute Good.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:43 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:50 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:32 am
Kant's Vision and Mission is summarized as follows'
  • 1. What can we know? epistemology, science, mathematics, etc.
    2. What can we do/act? Morality and Ethics
    3. What can we hope for? Well-being & Perpetual Peace.
What we can know [1] is the phenomena world.

But there is a natural tendency for the majority to speculate since the phenomena is appearance, there must be "something-that-appear" which to them is unknown.
see the reference to CPR Avii in the above post.

Kant in covering the completeness of reality [all there is] is confident there is no "something-that-appear" and he is well aware it is an illusion which nevertheless is a useful concept. [a limiting concept of negative employment, B311]

While awaiting to explain the concept of "something-that-appear" as an illusion and that such is illusion is nevertheless necessary for [2 What can we do/act] he temporary agreed to call it the noumena [opp. phenomena].
Since the noumena is illusory, to Kant there is no possibility of knowing the noumena at all but nevertheless it can be thought and useful for the purpose of [2].
Thus the noumena should never be reified as real constitutively.

Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].

From [2] i.e. Freedom based Morality and Ethics, Kant demonstrate how that will lead to the well-being and perpetual peace for humanity.

Thus to achieve Kant's Vision and Mission, he linked phenomena [experience] to noumenal, then to the thing-in-itself [Freedom] to ultimately perpetual peace.
Without the noumena is the above context Kant's perpetual peace will not be realized within reality in time [future, not now].
Thanks, Veritas Aequitas.
In the light of your synopsis I wonder if
Having explained what the illusory noumena is in relation to appearance [experience phase] Kant then explained the noumena in terms of the thing-in-itself which is taken in one sense as Absolute Freedom.
It is on the basis of Absolute Freedom that is one critical ground for Kant's Morality and Ethics [2].
is the same as man's aspirations towards transcendent virtues , or towards the transcendent good.
Whilst Kant viewed virtue as positive, he had some reservations with 'virtue' in consideration of his Morality.
Yes, for Kant the basis of Absolute Freedom is necessary support the man's striving towards the impossible-to-achieve transcendent absolute good which is merely a fixed guiding post.

The noumena is a necessary concept in the continuum in justification from experience to the transcendent absolute freedom and absolute Good.
Thanks VA.
Post Reply