Anaximander:
The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
1980
- A younger contemporary of Thales
- One remaining sentence from his book: "From what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of the time" (Jones, 11).
- There is one stuff (monism)
- There is a process by which the one becomes many stuffs
- The process is necessary
- For Anaximander, the one stuff was not an element, but something called the 'boundless'
- Anaximander argued that the one stuff couldn't be an element from a logical standpoint. Water can't really become fire because that would be the thing becoming the opposite of itself. Since all the elements would have this problem, his one stuff had to be something entirely different in essence.
- For Anaximander the process was important. The boundless would become something, would return to the boundless and then become the opposite thing. It was cyclical.
-For Anaximander, "The world was still basically disorderly, and that what required explanation was its orderliness" (Jones, 12).
-Anaximander had an interesting theory of evolution that anticipated some basic Darwinian features.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Born around 610 B.C.
- Second of the third Milesian philosophers
- His first substance was infinite, eternal and ageless. It encompasses all the world
- Thought our world was one of many
- His process of the boundless becoming other things and then back to being the boundless has an underpinning of cosmic justice.
- He believed "there should be a certain proportion of fire, of earth, and of water in the world, but each element (conceived as a god) is perpetually attempting to enlarge its empire. But there is a kind of necessity or natural law which perpetually redresses the balance; where there has been fire, for example, there are ashes, which are earth" (Russell, 27).
-The worlds that existed evolved, and were not created
-Believed that man descended from fish
-First man to make a map
-Earth is shaped like a cylinder
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Produced a star map and a map of the world
-The boundless contains all the world
-The boundless is also time
-Eternal motion exists and that brings the heavens into existence
-Earth is rounded like a stone pillar
-The number of worlds is limitless in number
-All things are constantly renewed after destruction (return to the boundless and then processed again)
-At the generation of earth something broke off from the eternal and formed a flame around the earth, like bark on a tree. Then the ball burst and the sun, moon and stars came into being.
- Censorinus - "Anaximander of Miletus says he thinks that from water and earth when they were heated, there arose fish, or animals very like fish, that humans grew in them, and that the embryos were retained inside up to puberty, whereupon the fish-like animals burst and men and women emerged already able to look after themselves" (Barnes, 20). That could be an interesting invasion story for Future Modern Ancient Greeks.
-The boundless is divine, because it is immortal and indestructible
Anaximander might be the best one to model the Future Modern Greek's new planet
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2015
Thursday, February 6, 2014
The Milesians & Pythagorus according to Russell
(Originally written February 6, 2014 on scrap paper)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I
Chapter II - The Milesian School
Thales, circa 585 BC, believed that water was the original substance out of which all other things were formed, magnets had a soul because they moved iron and that all things were full of gods.
Anaximander, born circa 610 BC, slightly younger than Thales, also believed that all things came from an original substance. Unlike Thales, who thought this was water, Anaximander taught that the original substance was an eternal, infinite substance.
Anaximander believed that this original substance was transformed into empirical substances (i.e. fire, water, etc.) and then transformed back again. Each of the empirically observable substances wished to enlarge itself at the expense of others, but a cosmic justice superseded the elements and kept them in check.
Justice - a profound Greek belief, taught that each thing had an eternally fixed proportion and that when things began to overstep their bounds a correction would take place. This justice bound both the natural and supernatural, man and god alike. However, this justice, though being supreme over man and god, was not a supreme god.
Anaximander taught a sort of evolutionary theory. "Man, like every other animal, was descended from fishes" (Russell, 27). Unlike Darwinian reasoning though, Anaximander used a rational argument to support his theory. The length of human infancy is too long for it to have been the original state; otherwise, man would have not survived.
Anaximenes, the third of the Milesians, held that the fundamental substance was air.
The soul is air. Fire is rarefied air. Water is condensed air. Very condensed air is earth.
The Milesian school was, though crude, very scientific in nature. There was limited religious nature in it.
Miletus was a cultural melting pot. Greek religion and thought mixed with successful commercial activity brought in by both Egyptian and Babylonian and fused with the thinking. This blending of culture provided the spark for philosophical thinking to begin.
Chapter III - Pythagorus
"Pythagorus was intellectually one of the most important men that ever lived, both when he was wise and when he was unwise" (Russell, 29).
Pythagorus combined mysticism and mathematics. He was a reformer of Orphic traditions, itself a reformed worship of Bacchus. In this way, Pythagorus took an already mystical transformation of Bacchic rites and made it even more intellectually bent.
Pythagorus put more stock in the otherworldly, relegated the physical world to the illusionary. He taught the transmigration of souls and taught that the soul was immortal.
The body is a tomb of the soul. However, suicide is not an option without permission of God.
There are three classes of men: those who buy and sell (the lowest), the participants, like those at the Olympics and the spectators who simply think on the doings of the participants. These are the philosophers and by doing this, they can achieve release from the wheel of birth.
In Pythagorean thought, because the contemplative life was the achievement of all that is worth achievement, mathematics took on a sort of ecstatic context. Discovery in mathematics was sort of an intoxicating experience - a oneness with god.
Pythagorus embodies two diverging views of religion. Personal religion is derived from ecstasy - union with God; theology is derived from mathematics. Theology is derived from mathematics as it takes the shape of geometry. Geometry (Euclidian) starts with axioms deemed to be self-evident and then derives theorems from deductive reasoning. Theology proceeds in a similar fashion. Pythagorus embodied both personal religion (mystical nature) and theology (a system based on deductive reasoning).
Russell seems to be doing a bit of this geometry when he states "But for him (Pythagorus), Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought a logical proof of God and immortality. But, in him all this is implicit. How it became explicit will appear" (Russell, 37). And now from the axiom that Pythagorus began the long tradition of mathematical theology (an axiom deemed self-evident by Russell we shall see the theorems...)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I
Chapter II - The Milesian School
Thales, circa 585 BC, believed that water was the original substance out of which all other things were formed, magnets had a soul because they moved iron and that all things were full of gods.
Anaximander, born circa 610 BC, slightly younger than Thales, also believed that all things came from an original substance. Unlike Thales, who thought this was water, Anaximander taught that the original substance was an eternal, infinite substance.
Anaximander believed that this original substance was transformed into empirical substances (i.e. fire, water, etc.) and then transformed back again. Each of the empirically observable substances wished to enlarge itself at the expense of others, but a cosmic justice superseded the elements and kept them in check.
Justice - a profound Greek belief, taught that each thing had an eternally fixed proportion and that when things began to overstep their bounds a correction would take place. This justice bound both the natural and supernatural, man and god alike. However, this justice, though being supreme over man and god, was not a supreme god.
Anaximander taught a sort of evolutionary theory. "Man, like every other animal, was descended from fishes" (Russell, 27). Unlike Darwinian reasoning though, Anaximander used a rational argument to support his theory. The length of human infancy is too long for it to have been the original state; otherwise, man would have not survived.
Anaximenes, the third of the Milesians, held that the fundamental substance was air.
The soul is air. Fire is rarefied air. Water is condensed air. Very condensed air is earth.
The Milesian school was, though crude, very scientific in nature. There was limited religious nature in it.
Miletus was a cultural melting pot. Greek religion and thought mixed with successful commercial activity brought in by both Egyptian and Babylonian and fused with the thinking. This blending of culture provided the spark for philosophical thinking to begin.
Chapter III - Pythagorus
"Pythagorus was intellectually one of the most important men that ever lived, both when he was wise and when he was unwise" (Russell, 29).
Pythagorus combined mysticism and mathematics. He was a reformer of Orphic traditions, itself a reformed worship of Bacchus. In this way, Pythagorus took an already mystical transformation of Bacchic rites and made it even more intellectually bent.
Pythagorus put more stock in the otherworldly, relegated the physical world to the illusionary. He taught the transmigration of souls and taught that the soul was immortal.
The body is a tomb of the soul. However, suicide is not an option without permission of God.
There are three classes of men: those who buy and sell (the lowest), the participants, like those at the Olympics and the spectators who simply think on the doings of the participants. These are the philosophers and by doing this, they can achieve release from the wheel of birth.
In Pythagorean thought, because the contemplative life was the achievement of all that is worth achievement, mathematics took on a sort of ecstatic context. Discovery in mathematics was sort of an intoxicating experience - a oneness with god.
Pythagorus embodies two diverging views of religion. Personal religion is derived from ecstasy - union with God; theology is derived from mathematics. Theology is derived from mathematics as it takes the shape of geometry. Geometry (Euclidian) starts with axioms deemed to be self-evident and then derives theorems from deductive reasoning. Theology proceeds in a similar fashion. Pythagorus embodied both personal religion (mystical nature) and theology (a system based on deductive reasoning).
Russell seems to be doing a bit of this geometry when he states "But for him (Pythagorus), Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought a logical proof of God and immortality. But, in him all this is implicit. How it became explicit will appear" (Russell, 37). And now from the axiom that Pythagorus began the long tradition of mathematical theology (an axiom deemed self-evident by Russell we shall see the theorems...)
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 5
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (B)
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Beyond Good & Evil 248-256
(Originally written August 26, 2007 in Notebook 18)
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
248
There are two types of genius:
1) That which wants to beget (man)
2) That which wants to give birth (woman)
These two types of peoples and genius search for one another looking to combine (as with man and woman) but, as with man and woman they often misunderstand one another.
249
"What is best in us we do not know - we cannot know" (Nietzsche 375).
250
Europe owes many things to the Jews, both good and bad.
Above all Europe owes the grand style of morality, infinite demands, infinite meanings; these we owe to the Jews and it is both the best and worst they have offered.
Nietzsche seeks to initiate a revolution process. He uses the Jews as a model on how to do so while disagreeing with the values they have set.
251
The Jews are the strongest and purest race in all of Europe. They prevail in hardships and change when they wish to.
The Jews have a faith that stands unembarrassed in the presence of modern ideas.
The Jews, if they wished, could take over all of Europe.
But rather than conquering the Jews wish only to be admitted and assimilated into a nation's culture.
The task which Nietzsche is serious about is the cultivation of a new caste that will rule Europe.
252
The English are unphilosophic as a race. Bacon is an attack on the philosophical spirit. Hobbes, Hume and Locke have amounted to a debasement of the value of philosophy.
His characteristic of an unphilosophical race is to cling to Christianity. The English need Christianity for its discipline, its power to moralize and its power to humanize.
The English person lacks a musical sense. The movements of their bodies and souls completely lack rhythm and dance.
253
There are truths that are recognized by mediocre minds at best.
The spirit of respectable, albeit mediocre, English minds like Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer is becoming fashionable in middle Europe.
These mediocre minds are necessary at times. For they are knowledgeable, but the higher man is a man who "can"
The disparity between 'know' and 'can' is great. In fact, a high mind must be able to do something starkly new and innovative. Their focus on new and can may demand that he not know as much.
254
The French are a semi-successful blending of the North and South cultures.
255
We must rise above the good and evil, and as the sun sets on the moral world it becomes hospitable and profound enough for fugitives.
256
"Europe wants to become one" (Nietzsche, 386).
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
248
There are two types of genius:
1) That which wants to beget (man)
2) That which wants to give birth (woman)
These two types of peoples and genius search for one another looking to combine (as with man and woman) but, as with man and woman they often misunderstand one another.
249
"What is best in us we do not know - we cannot know" (Nietzsche 375).
250
Europe owes many things to the Jews, both good and bad.
Above all Europe owes the grand style of morality, infinite demands, infinite meanings; these we owe to the Jews and it is both the best and worst they have offered.
Nietzsche seeks to initiate a revolution process. He uses the Jews as a model on how to do so while disagreeing with the values they have set.
251
The Jews are the strongest and purest race in all of Europe. They prevail in hardships and change when they wish to.
The Jews have a faith that stands unembarrassed in the presence of modern ideas.
The Jews, if they wished, could take over all of Europe.
But rather than conquering the Jews wish only to be admitted and assimilated into a nation's culture.
The task which Nietzsche is serious about is the cultivation of a new caste that will rule Europe.
252
The English are unphilosophic as a race. Bacon is an attack on the philosophical spirit. Hobbes, Hume and Locke have amounted to a debasement of the value of philosophy.
His characteristic of an unphilosophical race is to cling to Christianity. The English need Christianity for its discipline, its power to moralize and its power to humanize.
The English person lacks a musical sense. The movements of their bodies and souls completely lack rhythm and dance.
253
There are truths that are recognized by mediocre minds at best.
The spirit of respectable, albeit mediocre, English minds like Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer is becoming fashionable in middle Europe.
These mediocre minds are necessary at times. For they are knowledgeable, but the higher man is a man who "can"
The disparity between 'know' and 'can' is great. In fact, a high mind must be able to do something starkly new and innovative. Their focus on new and can may demand that he not know as much.
254
The French are a semi-successful blending of the North and South cultures.
255
We must rise above the good and evil, and as the sun sets on the moral world it becomes hospitable and profound enough for fugitives.
256
"Europe wants to become one" (Nietzsche, 386).
Monday, October 23, 2006
Class Notes on Popper
(Originally written October 23, 2006 in Book 8)
Wow, nothing got done on the Bachelor Party day. It was a good day with a horrifying ending, but then my knightess in shining armor saved me and sang me to sleep.
Class Notes
Falsificationism (Popper)
Sophisticated Falsificationism
There is a bit of relativity in this, not found in naive forms of falsificationism.
1. Relativity of falsifiability
2. Ad Hoc Modifications - a modification of a theory which has no testable consequences that aren't also consequences of the unmodified theory
3. Verification in the falsificationist model
-Un-falsified bold conjectures/novel predictions
-falsification of cautious conjectures
Examples of Ad Hoc Modifications
1. Sphericity of the moon - Aristotelians vs. Copernicans (Aristotelians held that the craters on the moon were filled with clear jelly)
2. Phlogiston
3. Punctuated Equilibrium (Darwinism)
Limits of falsificationism
1. Theory dependence of observation - no absolute objectivity in science
2. Falsifications are fallible
3. Falsificationism is not recommended by the history of Science
Wow, nothing got done on the Bachelor Party day. It was a good day with a horrifying ending, but then my knightess in shining armor saved me and sang me to sleep.
Class Notes
Falsificationism (Popper)
Sophisticated Falsificationism
There is a bit of relativity in this, not found in naive forms of falsificationism.
1. Relativity of falsifiability
2. Ad Hoc Modifications - a modification of a theory which has no testable consequences that aren't also consequences of the unmodified theory
3. Verification in the falsificationist model
-Un-falsified bold conjectures/novel predictions
-falsification of cautious conjectures
Examples of Ad Hoc Modifications
1. Sphericity of the moon - Aristotelians vs. Copernicans (Aristotelians held that the craters on the moon were filled with clear jelly)
2. Phlogiston
3. Punctuated Equilibrium (Darwinism)
Limits of falsificationism
1. Theory dependence of observation - no absolute objectivity in science
2. Falsifications are fallible
3. Falsificationism is not recommended by the history of Science
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Metaphysics - Ch. 8
(Originally written July 8, 2006 in Book 6)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 8 - The place of rational beings in the world: design and purpose
What is the purpose of man? What is his meaning?
The church of Scotland: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" (van Inwagen, 132).
The teleological argument does not prove the existence of an all-powerful being, only that there is a designer. And if man has been created or designed, man's purpose or meaning will be found in the designer's intentions. The teleological argument cannot pinpoint what exactly man's purpose is, but it does tell us that he does in fact have some purpose.
If man has a purpose man's existence has a meaning.
While the teleological argument implies that we serve some purpose, does it prove that the cosmos was designed rather than formed by chance?
Some philosophers argue that the chance situation that has produced the life we know should not come as a surprise because it was as equally likely to not have happened by chance. The only difference is that since we do exist by this chance we can comment on how surprising it is that we exists. Van Inwagen calls this "one of the most annoyingly obtuse arguments in the history of philosophy" (van Inwagen, 135).
Another reply to the teleological argument denounces the teleological argument's presumption of many radically different possible cosmos (cosmos - multiple cosmos).
Aristotle, Kant, Descartes and Einstein searched for evidence that this is the only possible cosmos. (Linehan - at this point I am in agreement with these men).
If this is the only possible cosmos then we must have an enormous (seemingly ridiculous and absurd) number of necessary truths.
Van Inwagen contends that the possibility of only one cosmos being life-sustaining is improbable and does not have a solid scientific backing.
Another argument against the teleological argument is that simply because the cosmos is fine-tuned it does not follow that it is fine-tuned for the existence of man. Example: If mice lived in the walls of a house (and were capable of rational thought) they could conclude that the house was created for them even though the humans living in the house had built it for themselves. Man could be wrongly assuming that the cosmos was created for them as the rational mice wrongly assumed the house was created for them.
Sidenote: these mice would then have theologians/philosophers and these theologians and philosophers would be extremely troubled by the Problem of the Cat. That's funny! Actually this could be the premise for a very humorous short story: "The Mice and the Problem of the Cat"
The Darwinian account of evolution or even the possibility of the account being true has been stated to refute the teleological argument. But, van Inwagen claims that this is not true. The teleological argument deals with the cosmos as a whole and not a living being; the Darwinian account deals with living beings and cannot therefore be applied to the cosmos as a whole.
Darwin did show how though how it was possible for chance to produce something that would initially be ascribed to the creation of a rational being. Darwin showed that chance provides a number of situations and necessity eliminated the situations not beneficial enough or outright detrimental to existence.
To disprove the teleological argument demands that one provide an explanation of why the cosmos work in the fine-tuned way they do that is at least as good as the fine-tuned argument.
Here is an 'at-least-as-good' explanation:
1. the cosmos is only one of a vast number of actual cosmoi
2. there are so many actual cosmos that is not surprising that there is at least one capable of producing us (statistically probable)
Van Inwagen claims that this explanation is just as good because it explains the cosmos' existence and does not rest on any known falsehoods.
Interestingly though he claims that the rational beings in any of the individual cosmos would only be able to know the insides of their own cosmos. So if we can only know our own cosmos how does it follow that supposing multiple unknowable cosmos existing is as good as knowing, very partially a designer and our own cosmos? I don't see how unknowable is as good as very partially knowable.
He states that (aside from divine revelation) "we have to regard the following two hypotheses as equally probable: this is the the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings have) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life. [And] This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life" (van Inwagen, 145).
"We do not know whether the apparently purposive fine tuning of the cosmos is reality or mere appearance" (van Inwagen, 145).
The fine tuning of the cosmos has been established by modern physics and cosmology.
The cosmos does not exist on its own. We know that there is an Arche. The Arche (ar-KAY) accounts for the existence of the cosmos. Arche is a Greek word used for the beginning of all things, "or that which is the foundation on which the existence of all things rest" (van Inwagen, 145).
Metaphysicians cannot say anything about the Arche other than that it in fact exists. The most important question it cannot answer is "is the arche a chaos or logos?
Chaos - the origin of the cosmos is due to fluctuation in some pre-cosmic quantum field.
Logos - usually translated as 'word' but means 'that which goes forth fro a speaker' or 'reason'
If the Arche is Chaos our existence has no meaning. If the Arche is Logos our existence has purpose.
The metaphysician might not be able to say anything other than each position mentioned has an emotional appeal to certain types of individuals.
Arthur Hugh Cloud said,
"There is no God, the wicked saith,
And truly it's a blessing,
For what he might have done with us
It's better only guessing" (van Inwagen, 146).
Existence via chaos frees us from the demands of a God or Logos. If we have a meaning assigned to our existence there are necessarily consequence when we do not meet those standards.
If the Arche is Logos then man's existence is not as high as it would be if the Arche is chaos. Man would be lower than the Logos.
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 8 - The place of rational beings in the world: design and purpose
What is the purpose of man? What is his meaning?
The church of Scotland: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" (van Inwagen, 132).
The teleological argument does not prove the existence of an all-powerful being, only that there is a designer. And if man has been created or designed, man's purpose or meaning will be found in the designer's intentions. The teleological argument cannot pinpoint what exactly man's purpose is, but it does tell us that he does in fact have some purpose.
If man has a purpose man's existence has a meaning.
While the teleological argument implies that we serve some purpose, does it prove that the cosmos was designed rather than formed by chance?
Some philosophers argue that the chance situation that has produced the life we know should not come as a surprise because it was as equally likely to not have happened by chance. The only difference is that since we do exist by this chance we can comment on how surprising it is that we exists. Van Inwagen calls this "one of the most annoyingly obtuse arguments in the history of philosophy" (van Inwagen, 135).
Another reply to the teleological argument denounces the teleological argument's presumption of many radically different possible cosmos (cosmos - multiple cosmos).
Aristotle, Kant, Descartes and Einstein searched for evidence that this is the only possible cosmos. (Linehan - at this point I am in agreement with these men).
If this is the only possible cosmos then we must have an enormous (seemingly ridiculous and absurd) number of necessary truths.
Van Inwagen contends that the possibility of only one cosmos being life-sustaining is improbable and does not have a solid scientific backing.
Another argument against the teleological argument is that simply because the cosmos is fine-tuned it does not follow that it is fine-tuned for the existence of man. Example: If mice lived in the walls of a house (and were capable of rational thought) they could conclude that the house was created for them even though the humans living in the house had built it for themselves. Man could be wrongly assuming that the cosmos was created for them as the rational mice wrongly assumed the house was created for them.
Sidenote: these mice would then have theologians/philosophers and these theologians and philosophers would be extremely troubled by the Problem of the Cat. That's funny! Actually this could be the premise for a very humorous short story: "The Mice and the Problem of the Cat"
The Darwinian account of evolution or even the possibility of the account being true has been stated to refute the teleological argument. But, van Inwagen claims that this is not true. The teleological argument deals with the cosmos as a whole and not a living being; the Darwinian account deals with living beings and cannot therefore be applied to the cosmos as a whole.
Darwin did show how though how it was possible for chance to produce something that would initially be ascribed to the creation of a rational being. Darwin showed that chance provides a number of situations and necessity eliminated the situations not beneficial enough or outright detrimental to existence.
To disprove the teleological argument demands that one provide an explanation of why the cosmos work in the fine-tuned way they do that is at least as good as the fine-tuned argument.
Here is an 'at-least-as-good' explanation:
1. the cosmos is only one of a vast number of actual cosmoi
2. there are so many actual cosmos that is not surprising that there is at least one capable of producing us (statistically probable)
Van Inwagen claims that this explanation is just as good because it explains the cosmos' existence and does not rest on any known falsehoods.
Interestingly though he claims that the rational beings in any of the individual cosmos would only be able to know the insides of their own cosmos. So if we can only know our own cosmos how does it follow that supposing multiple unknowable cosmos existing is as good as knowing, very partially a designer and our own cosmos? I don't see how unknowable is as good as very partially knowable.
He states that (aside from divine revelation) "we have to regard the following two hypotheses as equally probable: this is the the only cosmos, and some rational being has (or rational beings have) fine-tuned it in such a way that it is a suitable abode for life. [And] This is only one among a vast number of cosmoi, some few of which are suitable abodes for life" (van Inwagen, 145).
"We do not know whether the apparently purposive fine tuning of the cosmos is reality or mere appearance" (van Inwagen, 145).
The fine tuning of the cosmos has been established by modern physics and cosmology.
The cosmos does not exist on its own. We know that there is an Arche. The Arche (ar-KAY) accounts for the existence of the cosmos. Arche is a Greek word used for the beginning of all things, "or that which is the foundation on which the existence of all things rest" (van Inwagen, 145).
Metaphysicians cannot say anything about the Arche other than that it in fact exists. The most important question it cannot answer is "is the arche a chaos or logos?
Chaos - the origin of the cosmos is due to fluctuation in some pre-cosmic quantum field.
Logos - usually translated as 'word' but means 'that which goes forth fro a speaker' or 'reason'
If the Arche is Chaos our existence has no meaning. If the Arche is Logos our existence has purpose.
The metaphysician might not be able to say anything other than each position mentioned has an emotional appeal to certain types of individuals.
Arthur Hugh Cloud said,
"There is no God, the wicked saith,
And truly it's a blessing,
For what he might have done with us
It's better only guessing" (van Inwagen, 146).
Existence via chaos frees us from the demands of a God or Logos. If we have a meaning assigned to our existence there are necessarily consequence when we do not meet those standards.
If the Arche is Logos then man's existence is not as high as it would be if the Arche is chaos. Man would be lower than the Logos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)