Mr. Greer: help please
Qexugir
more extensive education, you could help me place them within the
history of published western thought.
It starts with noticing that Nietzsche makes extensive use of
destructive or reductive explanations. (I think "destructive" and
"reductive" can be used interchangeably in this case.) A
destructive/reductive explanation is, provisionally, an explanation that
reduces the stature of something in our eyes; for example, Nietzsche's
claim that the very concept of truth arises out of error. (To be fair
to him, he did argue that we should revalue error as a positive force.)
My thoughts on this are:
1. Reductive/destructive explanation is based on critical realism,
because it posits a "true" substratum in light of which the "appearance"
is false. Inherent in this is the pernicious notion that things aren't
what they seem to be, and that the world therefore lies to us. The
Presocratics may have done human thought a terrible disservice in
suggesting that all the world is made up of air, or fire, or atoms, even
those parts of the world which do not seem to be air, fire, or atoms.
It may be the fatal flaw in western thought.
2. An explanation as such seems to be a matter of relating something to
other things. It seems to me that we understand a thing only in terms
of its relationships, or through its relationships, although we may
*experience* things such as thoughts and emotions directly. This
notion, that we understand things only through their relationships, is
what I most want to place in the published history of western thought;
but as an extension, a destructive or reductive explanation would be one
that associates a thing with other things that have negative
connotations to us (or, if Nietzsche's hedonism is accepted, that give
us displeasure); while a [insert opposite word here - I don't want to
say "constructive" because of that word's technical meaning] explanation
would associate a thing with other things that have positive
connotations or arouse pleasure in us.
Looking forward to your comments.
Qexugir
Michael Greer
Mr. Qexugir, I am happy to be of any assistance on these matters:
> 1. Reductive/destructive explanation is based on critical realism,
> because it posits a "true" substratum in light of which the "appearance"
> is false. Inherent in this is the pernicious notion that things aren't
> what they seem to be, and that the world therefore lies to us. The
> Presocratics may have done human thought a terrible disservice in
> suggesting that all the world is made up of air, or fire, or atoms, even
> those parts of the world which do not seem to be air, fire, or atoms.
> It may be the fatal flaw in western thought.
Two thoughts: The Presocratics are known for their materialism. The
materialism
is really beside the point, since it's the kind of questions they are
asking-whether everything can be thought as one substance, one
underlying reality. This is an impressive thought if you consider that
few people move beyond a vague impressionism.
The second thought has to do with the phrase "critical realism." Kant
introduced the word "criticism" to philosophy, so I must say that Kant
is really the origin of what *we* normally think of as "critique of
appearances." But I would place more of the blame, as Richard Rorty
does in his _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_, on the work of
Locke. Locke's psychology made the theatre of the mind the true site
of knowledge; all knowledge was thought to be representational. Locke,
furthermore, tried to find some correspondence between our inner
representations and the world. With him, the problem of "external
reality" is most dramatic; it is answered in terms of human
psychology. This, I think, is a far more fatal flaw to human thinking.
> 2. An explanation as such seems to be a matter of relating something to
> other things. It seems to me that we understand a thing only in terms
> of its relationships, or through its relationships, although we may
> *experience* things such as thoughts and emotions directly. This
> notion, that we understand things only through their relationships, is
> what I most want to place in the published history of western thought;
> but as an extension, a destructive or reductive explanation would be one
> that associates a thing with other things that have negative
> connotations to us (or, if Nietzsche's hedonism is accepted, that give
> us displeasure); while a [insert opposite word here - I don't want to
> say "constructive" because of that word's technical meaning] explanation
> would associate a thing with other things that have positive
> connotations or arouse pleasure in us.
The desire to explain things sees its first full flowering in the
scientific work of Aristotle. You are right to understand
"explanation" as the effort to find some other thing as the cause for
the way something else is. For Aristotle, the causes reduce to four:
material, formal, efficient, and final. Your interest in
"relationships" as the defining characteristic of something is most
obvious in thinkers such as Spinoza and Leibnitz. IN fact, if
relationship is your game, Leibnitz must be your man. Relations play a
fairly small role in the thought of Aristotle; in modern philosophy,
relation is a very important defining characteristic. This
understanding is pervasive in modern thinking.I'll be happy to point
to sources and passages, should you require further clarification.
a philosopher
Qexugir
Michael Greer wrote:
> Qexugir <ust...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3E40251D...@sympatico.ca>...
>
> Mr. Qexugir, I am happy to be of any assistance on these matters:
Thank you very much. Despite my distrust of pieces of paper that say "B.A.", I do realize
that it's a large world out there and a person can get lost in it without some guidance.
> > 1. Reductive/destructive explanation is based on critical realism,
> > because it posits a "true" substratum in light of which the "appearance"
> > is false. Inherent in this is the pernicious notion that things aren't
> > what they seem to be, and that the world therefore lies to us. The
> > Presocratics may have done human thought a terrible disservice in
> > suggesting that all the world is made up of air, or fire, or atoms, even
> > those parts of the world which do not seem to be air, fire, or atoms.
> > It may be the fatal flaw in western thought.
>
> Two thoughts: The Presocratics are known for their materialism. The
> materialism
> is really beside the point, since it's the kind of questions they are
> asking-whether everything can be thought as one substance, one
> underlying reality. This is an impressive thought if you consider that
> few people move beyond a vague impressionism.
It is an impressive thought until it becomes established. BTW, I have a book somewhere that
quotes translations of the Prescocs' surviving writings and of accounts of what they
allegedly said by other, later writers. My memory of the book is that it makes the Presocs
seem like a puzzle in which about 70% of the pieces are missing. Is your impression the
same?
> The second thought has to do with the phrase "critical realism." Kant
> introduced the word "criticism" to philosophy, so I must say that Kant
> is really the origin of what *we* normally think of as "critique of
> appearances." But I would place more of the blame, as Richard Rorty
> does in his _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_, on the work of
> Locke. Locke's psychology made the theatre of the mind the true site
> of knowledge; all knowledge was thought to be representational. Locke,
> furthermore, tried to find some correspondence between our inner
> representations and the world. With him, the problem of "external
> reality" is most dramatic; it is answered in terms of human
> psychology. This, I think, is a far more fatal flaw to human thinking.
Any particular work or passage of Locke's that you see as relevant here? And which
critiques of this - aside from Rousseau's, which I'm somewhat familiar with - would you say
have been effectively expressed, or are current today?
> > 2. An explanation as such seems to be a matter of relating something to
> > other things. It seems to me that we understand a thing only in terms
> > of its relationships, or through its relationships, although we may
> > *experience* things such as thoughts and emotions directly. This
> > notion, that we understand things only through their relationships, is
> > what I most want to place in the published history of western thought;
> > but as an extension, a destructive or reductive explanation would be one
> > that associates a thing with other things that have negative
> > connotations to us (or, if Nietzsche's hedonism is accepted, that give
> > us displeasure); while a [insert opposite word here - I don't want to
> > say "constructive" because of that word's technical meaning] explanation
> > would associate a thing with other things that have positive
> > connotations or arouse pleasure in us.
>
> The desire to explain things sees its first full flowering in the
> scientific work of Aristotle. You are right to understand
> "explanation" as the effort to find some other thing as the cause for
> the way something else is. For Aristotle, the causes reduce to four:
> material, formal, efficient, and final.
There is a difference between what I expressed and what you attribute to Aristotle: you
introduce (or he introduces) the concept of causation. I see it as possible to explain a
thing in terms of its neighbours or things that follow it as well. Have I not thought
things through as thoroughly as Aristotle did - in other words, does he address that point?
In any case, which of his works (and I understand his surviving works are really collections
of lecture notes) addresses it most directly?
> Your interest in
> "relationships" as the defining characteristic of something is most
> obvious in thinkers such as Spinoza and Leibnitz. IN fact, if
> relationship is your game, Leibnitz must be your man. Relations play a
> fairly small role in the thought of Aristotle; in modern philosophy,
> relation is a very important defining characteristic. This
> understanding is pervasive in modern thinking.I'll be happy to point
> to sources and passages, should you require further clarification.
It may be helpful, but I think it might be better to start a separate thread on the subject,
which I plan to do. I'll call it "understanding and relationships".
Qexugir
Michael Greer
Mr. Qexugir writes:
> It is an impressive thought until it becomes established. BTW, I have a book somewhere that
> quotes translations of the Prescocs' surviving writings and of accounts of what they
> allegedly said by other, later writers. My memory of the book is that it makes the Presocs
> seem like a puzzle in which about 70% of the pieces are missing. Is your impression the
> same?
That's correct. I have the same impression. All we really have are
fragments of works that are no longer extant. For this reason it is
difficult to say something about the Presocs without importing a lot
of latter-day interpretation. Nietzshce's favorite pastime, before he
did his philosophical work, was classical philology.
> Any particular work or passage of Locke's that you see as relevant here? And which
> critiques of this - aside from Rousseau's, which I'm somewhat familiar with - would you say
> have been effectively expressed, or are current today?
Look at the first chapter of Book 2 in Locke's On the Nature of Human
Understanding. *We* take this book to be the founding document of
representationalism.
> There is a difference between what I expressed and what you attribute to Aristotle: you
> introduce (or he introduces) the concept of causation. I see it as possible to explain a
> thing in terms of its neighbours or things that follow it as well. Have I not thought
> things through as thoroughly as Aristotle did - in other words, does he address that point?
> In any case, which of his works (and I understand his surviving works are really collections
> of lecture notes) addresses it most directly?
The simplest way to get a handle on Aristotle is to read his _Organon_
which consists of the Prior and Posterior Analytics, the Categories,
and some other minor works. I would begin with the categories, if I
were you, since there Aristotle presents a theory of predication: how
we talk about things in a logical manner. It also includes a theory of
relations.
> It may be helpful, but I think it might be better to start a separate thread on the subject,
> which I plan to do. I'll call it "understanding and relationships".
So be it. See you there.
a philosopher