One observation that has helped me sort out at least some of the issues is that, stripped bare, there are just three distinct phases of all reality: fact, idea and relation — fact and relation comprising, if you will, the north and south poles that are unified by idea (meaning). You might characterize them as science, philosophy and religion (this latter term referring to the inner experience of contact with divinity, reality, rather than the doctrines that have been formulated to explain such experiences), or as thing, meaning and value (matter, mind and spirit).
The concept of “truth” is naturally a bit muddled, since realities from each of the poles are perceived and evaluated by mind. But an important disjunction may perhaps be illustrated, albeit somewhat crudely, by the distinction between that which sets you free and that which doesn’t (necessarily).
1+1=2 is “true” in a certain, very limited, sense, but can hardly be said to set one free. On the other hand, the truth that you are, and every other individual is, greatly loved and cherished by the Infinite and Eternal Creator and Upholder of all of reality and whose spiritual forces labor for your real (as opposed to perceived) eternal wellbeing, once fully understood, does most assuredly set you free in the domain of value (spirit), irrespective of whatever condition or degree of slavery you might find your material self in.
The problem of knowledge is not really different from that of truth if in our aspiring after knowledge we mean to find truth. Now what I am gaining from the oldest Greek thinkers (in living memory) is that being has to uncover itself to me and does that only of its own volition. Heidegger keeps pointing that out BTW. I cannot go after (non-trivial) knowledge as if it's there for the having. Truth happens so to speak when being discovers itself to me. That's why the first Greek thinkers who were poets at heart calI truth "a-letheia", that which is unhidden. They had this deep understanding of knowledge that subsequently got run over on the highways of medieval and modern philosophy.
To our great western misfortune this whole idea of being discovering itself to us, of its coming out of hiding towards us, has been subverted by the church. We get it now under lables like revelation and apokalyps in Holy Writ. True has its antonym in untrue, both mere markers of correct speech. The real antonym of true should forever be hidden, covered.
Anyway, sorry for being long-winded. I find this fascinating stuff. Just allow me to add that it has finally dawned on me why education has benefited me so little.
Mathew Crawford argues that the purpose of the "occult" is to cause mass confusion. The politicization of everything also causes mass confusion.
Although I consider myself a midwit, I judge –and I reckon I judge correctly,– that these two tactics (occultism and politicization) are branches of the same tree, but not the same branch.
I further say that the people who cannot be confused with one tactic are very likely wide open to be conquered by the other one.
And it is depressing to increase knowledge of any of these two, but it's even more depressing to be always at the mercy of the obsessions of the occultists and the politicizers. Although it's bitter, it's better to learn than to learn not.
Funny thought: many skeptics argue that there is no such thing as a spirit. It follows that there is no attacks on spirit. Only on matter. For these skpetics, occultism would be almost identical to politicization. Yet, they protect themselves from the former, but are beaten to a pulp by the latter.
If we assume that in order to cause mass confusion the tacticians are after the people's weak spots, then they (occultism and politicization) might even be the same branch.
A much quicker way to arrive at truth, at its nature that is, than to waddle back through the convolutions of science and philosophy, is to go straight back to Parmenides, Herakleitos and their contemporaries. Between Plato and the Platonists, between Aristotle and the Aristotelians, much clarity was lost. Aletheia got mixed up with veritas and 'veritas' (polluted old ***) landed us in the church (God help us all). Reading Heidegger has finally made me see why philosophy as we know it is useless except to figure out the pickles we got ourselves into.
Hot off the press: No link between COVID vaccine, cardiac arrest in young people, new CDC study finds! So in this study the CDC used it's own VAERS data (already manipulated) and death certificates(they told Doctors to not put vaccine injury on death certificates) to prove this nonsense!
I appreciate this post, but I also have to say there is a reason why I am an engineer and not a philosopher or a mathematician, I simply don't have the patience for all this arcane abstract philosophy jargon. But I will keep following your plan, I am more interested when we get to symbols and maths.
I see I have to do a better explaining why the philosophy must come first, and is the most essential part of probability. You cannot do math without a philosophy. You certainly cannot *apply* math without one.
Well I got your basic points. from 10,000 feet, but for me, personally, I just get bored with it all - my eyes glaze over a paragraph or two. I was academically strong, so while I could have readily done any kind of post-grad studies after my engineering degree at McGill, I chose not to, and got to work right away. I am just more of a practical and applied person. Philosophy always just bored me, so I don't think you have to change, at all, I will just wait until I find it more interesting and directly relevant.
I 've often had the feeling that certified philosophers love being arcane and abstract. Makes them feel they are the deep ones. Really, it's all such a muddle.
This is a technicality related to Minute 18:00-19:00 in the video, but the Peano axiom that specifically says that successors of natural numbers are, themselves, natural numbers -- is a fully-valid inductive inference. You and I may bicker about terms, but I argue that inductive inferences, when fully-valid, constitute "proof."
The so-called "Problem of Induction" rests on an original thinking mistake (the "contingency-of-the-world" doctrine) which got popularized by Hume. In reality, there isn't infinite possibility over the causes of things. But if you mistakenly think that anything could cause anything, then you won't recognize fully-valid inductive inferences.
Once causal possibility is recognized as being finite (i.e., only certain things can ever be the cause of certain effects) -- bringing your thinking into alignment with reality -- then induction can be used in order "prove" things.
Example: It's possible to "prove" that every flea has less mass than every elephant -- without physically examining all fleas and all elephants (and even without physically examining even 1% of them).
I love the philosophy, but I need to wrestle with it. How does this sound?
Idealism is the belief that the mind and its ideas are all, and that the world of "matter" does not exist. That seems to describe Platonism, and my own childhood religion, Christian Science.
Nominalism holds that "external reality" like the material world exists, but that there are no universal essences tying things together. The beings we call 'cats' exist, but there is no universal "cat-ness." Real things exist on their own terms.
Realism believes in external reality as the manifestation of universal essences. Cats exist, as the projection of the universal idea or essence of "cat-ness."
My own philosophy is that reality exists, and that our minds are built for mapping that reality so that we can deal with it intelligently. To navigate reality, we want an accurate map of it, and 'true' means that the mental map or model we create for ourselves is reliable. Truth is a homomorphism of the reality we are trying to represent to the decision-making parts of our mind. Falsehood is when the mapping is not homomorphic, and the resulting model is misleading.
I'm doubtful of universal essences, but would certainly accept basic elements of sameness or comparison, including measures of time and space, and equivalence of distinct subatomic particles. Does that make me a realist or a nominalist?
I have some trouble with the distinction between necessary and conditional/local truth as presented here. I draw a strong distinction between logic/reason/mathematics on one hand, which are of the mind alone, and science/observation/empiricism on the other, which are concerned with mapping external reality. Logic/math is a fine tool that can be used in science, but it is largely tautological and prescriptive. The discussion of necessary truth seemed to rely heavily on the "truth" of logic/math, yet included direct sensory observation as well. Local/conditional truth leaned more toward the domain of science, which might be entirely conditional as far as I know. I would like a few more illustrative examples to understand what the distinction is supposed to be.
Thank you for presenting this series. I'm engaged, struggling, and learning.
Yes, it seems to be a bit of a nominalist take. Wait until you get to the chapter on induction/intuition, to see how perception from the senses become universals.
Very interesting discussion.
One observation that has helped me sort out at least some of the issues is that, stripped bare, there are just three distinct phases of all reality: fact, idea and relation — fact and relation comprising, if you will, the north and south poles that are unified by idea (meaning). You might characterize them as science, philosophy and religion (this latter term referring to the inner experience of contact with divinity, reality, rather than the doctrines that have been formulated to explain such experiences), or as thing, meaning and value (matter, mind and spirit).
The concept of “truth” is naturally a bit muddled, since realities from each of the poles are perceived and evaluated by mind. But an important disjunction may perhaps be illustrated, albeit somewhat crudely, by the distinction between that which sets you free and that which doesn’t (necessarily).
1+1=2 is “true” in a certain, very limited, sense, but can hardly be said to set one free. On the other hand, the truth that you are, and every other individual is, greatly loved and cherished by the Infinite and Eternal Creator and Upholder of all of reality and whose spiritual forces labor for your real (as opposed to perceived) eternal wellbeing, once fully understood, does most assuredly set you free in the domain of value (spirit), irrespective of whatever condition or degree of slavery you might find your material self in.
The problem of knowledge is not really different from that of truth if in our aspiring after knowledge we mean to find truth. Now what I am gaining from the oldest Greek thinkers (in living memory) is that being has to uncover itself to me and does that only of its own volition. Heidegger keeps pointing that out BTW. I cannot go after (non-trivial) knowledge as if it's there for the having. Truth happens so to speak when being discovers itself to me. That's why the first Greek thinkers who were poets at heart calI truth "a-letheia", that which is unhidden. They had this deep understanding of knowledge that subsequently got run over on the highways of medieval and modern philosophy.
To our great western misfortune this whole idea of being discovering itself to us, of its coming out of hiding towards us, has been subverted by the church. We get it now under lables like revelation and apokalyps in Holy Writ. True has its antonym in untrue, both mere markers of correct speech. The real antonym of true should forever be hidden, covered.
Anyway, sorry for being long-winded. I find this fascinating stuff. Just allow me to add that it has finally dawned on me why education has benefited me so little.
Mathew Crawford argues that the purpose of the "occult" is to cause mass confusion. The politicization of everything also causes mass confusion.
Although I consider myself a midwit, I judge –and I reckon I judge correctly,– that these two tactics (occultism and politicization) are branches of the same tree, but not the same branch.
I further say that the people who cannot be confused with one tactic are very likely wide open to be conquered by the other one.
And it is depressing to increase knowledge of any of these two, but it's even more depressing to be always at the mercy of the obsessions of the occultists and the politicizers. Although it's bitter, it's better to learn than to learn not.
Occultism attacks spiritually as its primary vector.
Politicization attacks materially as its primary vector.
Funny thought: many skeptics argue that there is no such thing as a spirit. It follows that there is no attacks on spirit. Only on matter. For these skpetics, occultism would be almost identical to politicization. Yet, they protect themselves from the former, but are beaten to a pulp by the latter.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If we assume that in order to cause mass confusion the tacticians are after the people's weak spots, then they (occultism and politicization) might even be the same branch.
branches shmranches lol
A much quicker way to arrive at truth, at its nature that is, than to waddle back through the convolutions of science and philosophy, is to go straight back to Parmenides, Herakleitos and their contemporaries. Between Plato and the Platonists, between Aristotle and the Aristotelians, much clarity was lost. Aletheia got mixed up with veritas and 'veritas' (polluted old ***) landed us in the church (God help us all). Reading Heidegger has finally made me see why philosophy as we know it is useless except to figure out the pickles we got ourselves into.
Hot off the press: No link between COVID vaccine, cardiac arrest in young people, new CDC study finds! So in this study the CDC used it's own VAERS data (already manipulated) and death certificates(they told Doctors to not put vaccine injury on death certificates) to prove this nonsense!
I appreciate this post, but I also have to say there is a reason why I am an engineer and not a philosopher or a mathematician, I simply don't have the patience for all this arcane abstract philosophy jargon. But I will keep following your plan, I am more interested when we get to symbols and maths.
I see I have to do a better explaining why the philosophy must come first, and is the most essential part of probability. You cannot do math without a philosophy. You certainly cannot *apply* math without one.
And as for requiring a philosophy to apply math, I must have one, its just unstated and intuitive.
Well I got your basic points. from 10,000 feet, but for me, personally, I just get bored with it all - my eyes glaze over a paragraph or two. I was academically strong, so while I could have readily done any kind of post-grad studies after my engineering degree at McGill, I chose not to, and got to work right away. I am just more of a practical and applied person. Philosophy always just bored me, so I don't think you have to change, at all, I will just wait until I find it more interesting and directly relevant.
I 've often had the feeling that certified philosophers love being arcane and abstract. Makes them feel they are the deep ones. Really, it's all such a muddle.
Briggs,
This is a technicality related to Minute 18:00-19:00 in the video, but the Peano axiom that specifically says that successors of natural numbers are, themselves, natural numbers -- is a fully-valid inductive inference. You and I may bicker about terms, but I argue that inductive inferences, when fully-valid, constitute "proof."
The so-called "Problem of Induction" rests on an original thinking mistake (the "contingency-of-the-world" doctrine) which got popularized by Hume. In reality, there isn't infinite possibility over the causes of things. But if you mistakenly think that anything could cause anything, then you won't recognize fully-valid inductive inferences.
Once causal possibility is recognized as being finite (i.e., only certain things can ever be the cause of certain effects) -- bringing your thinking into alignment with reality -- then induction can be used in order "prove" things.
Example: It's possible to "prove" that every flea has less mass than every elephant -- without physically examining all fleas and all elephants (and even without physically examining even 1% of them).
Thanks. Yes. we'll get to inductions and its various types, including Hume, soon. And again very much later when we review David Stove's work.
Lecture is very clear
Thanks for posting excerpt from your book too--enjoyable to read as well as educational
I love the philosophy, but I need to wrestle with it. How does this sound?
Idealism is the belief that the mind and its ideas are all, and that the world of "matter" does not exist. That seems to describe Platonism, and my own childhood religion, Christian Science.
Nominalism holds that "external reality" like the material world exists, but that there are no universal essences tying things together. The beings we call 'cats' exist, but there is no universal "cat-ness." Real things exist on their own terms.
Realism believes in external reality as the manifestation of universal essences. Cats exist, as the projection of the universal idea or essence of "cat-ness."
My own philosophy is that reality exists, and that our minds are built for mapping that reality so that we can deal with it intelligently. To navigate reality, we want an accurate map of it, and 'true' means that the mental map or model we create for ourselves is reliable. Truth is a homomorphism of the reality we are trying to represent to the decision-making parts of our mind. Falsehood is when the mapping is not homomorphic, and the resulting model is misleading.
I'm doubtful of universal essences, but would certainly accept basic elements of sameness or comparison, including measures of time and space, and equivalence of distinct subatomic particles. Does that make me a realist or a nominalist?
I have some trouble with the distinction between necessary and conditional/local truth as presented here. I draw a strong distinction between logic/reason/mathematics on one hand, which are of the mind alone, and science/observation/empiricism on the other, which are concerned with mapping external reality. Logic/math is a fine tool that can be used in science, but it is largely tautological and prescriptive. The discussion of necessary truth seemed to rely heavily on the "truth" of logic/math, yet included direct sensory observation as well. Local/conditional truth leaned more toward the domain of science, which might be entirely conditional as far as I know. I would like a few more illustrative examples to understand what the distinction is supposed to be.
Thank you for presenting this series. I'm engaged, struggling, and learning.
Not bad!
Yes, it seems to be a bit of a nominalist take. Wait until you get to the chapter on induction/intuition, to see how perception from the senses become universals.
Thanks.
This will definitely keep your computer fully awake.
Create a text file in your documents folder named 'refresh.ps' or whatever else you'd prefer. Then paste following into that document and save it.
param($minutes = 60)
$myshell = New-Object -com "Wscript.Shell"
for ($i = 0; $i -lt $minutes; $i++) {
Start-Sleep -Seconds 60
$myshell.sendkeys("{F15}")
}
Open up powershell (x86) and use this command to run the script
cd \Users\YOURNAME\Documents\
powershell -File refresh.ps 240
Thanks.