|
|
Post by joustos on Oct 29, 2020 17:42:18 GMT
There is one diference in when we argue about a concept, and when we realize in our mind that concept. The same for truths in general, but more particulary ethical truths.
There is a difference between mentally conceiving/forming something [wherefore "that which is conceived" = "a Conception" or "a *Conceived/C oncept" or "a Form/Image/Eidos/Idea] and arguing about that which an image is of, such as a physical tree, a physical man, a man's living in the world together with others [the Heideggerian Da-Sein], a movement, the development of an animal [the Anaximandrian Physis], a speaking, a singing, a running, shepherding, car-driving, legislating, sighting, an inspection, an argument, a baseball game, a chess game, a scene, etc. {Likewise: Arguing about that which a name is of, such as a physical/real tree, a dialogue between two real speakers not a mental dialogue), etc. } // Likewise, there is a difference between the knowing of a fact(um), a real *done/deed [a verum/truth], and the arguing about a fact [which, as existing in the mind, is called a truth]. {Vico discovered that the Latin words Factum and Verum are convertible; that is, we call it a fact anything that is accomplished (made, done, or happened in the physical world), and a known/conceptual fact is called a verity.}
About ethical truths I truly dont have now the compreehension, but truths in general, and concepts in general, the rule are the same.
An ethical/moral truth is a Precept/Advice concerning what one ought to/should do. A precept is a thing which is thought/excogitated/conceived; it is mental/conceptual in nature. {Et verbum caro factum est = And the [mental] word was made flash/was real-ized.} A precept is made real/factual/physical by being spoken/voiced in the physical world. Now, what are those things that one is advised to do? E.G.: Worship only one god; honor your parents; don't lust after somebody else's wife; don't do unto others what you don't want to be done unto you (conversely: do unto others what they do unto you, but only more fiercely -- which is contrary to Newton's law that for every force-action [as in billiard-ball playing] there is an equal and opposite reaction], etc. // Well, certainly to know a precept is different from arguing whether one should worship only one god; whether to lust after a woman is, as Jesus said, identical with committing adultery; etc.
When we realize a concept or a truth, we speak with authority, not constrangiment. Certain things is much harder than others to realize, but all can be realized in our mind if we predispose ourselves to accept the truth.
Here I am confused about what you intend to say by "to Realize" since this word can have two meanings/senses: (1) To make/render real [as in "my deam/wish/project has been realized/ Verbum caro factum est] -- which is he sense in which I took your word.(2) As in: all can be realized in our mind, that is: all can be imagined to be realized???? //// "If we realize a concept or a truth...…" = "If we produce/generate a concept/tuth....."??? … then we arethe authors of it and,says Vico,we have true knowledge of it. (one who merely observsa n already-made thing might conjecture what it is but does not know its constitution/nature. he trueknowlege ofsometing , saysPlato, is not an opinion/Doxa/belif, about it. (Wanting true knowledge isnota precondition forbecoming an author; rather, being an autor is the precondition for attaining true knoelge. Bing prediosed to accept/ave truthsmay be a good motive for making/gnerating them. That's what philosophers do. {I need a new typewriter but not in my mind}
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 18:27:19 GMT
Aha, I guess I understand you.
When explaining logic I usually say to students about that the ideas of something is visiting us during our investigation, and that allows us to conclude about some things. However, there's another – analytical one – way to understand the result, or inference, or a mind conclusion. It means that an amount of arguments is being separated into some categories, and a certain part has been picked to be the conclusions. The first is close to induction, the second – deduction.
I think that our conceptual scheme is needed to be deeply analysed and highly studied. At the moment I am reading Davidson's and Quine's work about it. Actually, unlike the Philosophy of Mind I like to get through this theme with semantics and logic, not like
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 18:55:48 GMT
Aha, I guess I understand you. When explaining logic I usually say to students about that the ideas of something is visiting us during our investigation, and that allows us to conclude about some things. However, there's another – analytical one – way to understand the result, or inference, or a mind conclusion. It means that an amount of arguments is being separated into some categories, and a certain part has been picked to be the conclusions. The first is close to induction, the second – deduction. I think that our conceptual scheme is needed to be deeply analysed and highly studied. At the moment I am reading Davidson's and Quine's work about it. Actually, unlike the Philosophy of Mind I like to get through this theme with semantics and logic, not like I think that first comes the creation, and second, the necessary limitations. Logic is invention too in my way of think. It includes the "transcendent", what is beyond my actual rational compreehension. Logic is rationality but it is also "spirit", strenght of will, of character, and it pursues the true with all of the being, and not only with the rational faculty. Ok, it might have. There's that thing may occur: – Aby, do you think logic is being made? – No, Bob, it has some extra properties. – Like connotations, right? – Maybe. – So, you recognise and approve logic, is that right, Aby? – Exactly, Bob. – Then, you have to accept some inferences. – Actually, it's arguable. Which inferences though? – logic may have not any extra properties, and it'll be consistent. – Having spare elements for it is not inconsistent. – And not consistent at the same time. Those elements are attributive. – Ok, Bob, but what makes me think that I can't deny accepting inferences, and I can't think about extra elements either? – ?.. But you know, logic is about how to get some inferences. So, till those "extras" are beyond the proof, you can't insist on it, and you can't be sure. – Bob, you can't "can't" me about logic in such a manner, because doing it is itself a proof that logic has something beyond it... – I'll give up, Aby. However, I won't accept your point either. I wanted to show by it sime difficulties with attempts to ontologize logic. In my opinion similar things occur when solving the chaos problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 19:48:46 GMT
Ok, it might have. There's that thing may occur: – Aby, do you think logic is being made? – No, Bob, it has some extra properties. – Like connotations, right? – Maybe. – So, you recognise and approve logic, is that right, Aby? – Exactly, Bob. – Then, you have to accept some inferences. – Actually, it's arguable. Which inferences though? – logic may have not any extra properties, and it'll be consistent. – Having spare elements for it is not inconsistent. – And not consistent at the same time. Those elements are attributive. – Ok, Bob, but what makes me think that I can't deny accepting inferences, and I can't think about extra elements either? – ?.. But you know, logic is about how to get some inferences. So, till those "extras" are beyond the proof, you can't insist on it, and you can't be sure. – Bob, you can't "can't" me about logic in such a manner, because doing it is itself a proof that logic has something beyond it... – I'll give up, Aby. However, I won't accept your point either. I wanted to show by it sime difficulties with attempts to ontologize logic. In my opinion similar things occur when solving the chaos problem. It's not a problem of words, or conceptions, but freedom of mind and the capacity of acchieving the "transcendent". When we structure our reasoning in words, we lost the essence of the concept, which is based on freedom of thinking and responsibility of thinking. When we attach or though in words, we lost sensibility in our thoughts. Logic is partially based on ethics, and ethical concepts, and there is, for that reason, a element of responsibility in each though we made. But logic is not all our thoughts, but a part of our thoughts. I think you understand now. The truth is, transcendental status logic is arguable. Kant speculations have no absolute impact on logic. When we're finding ourselves thinking it happens most often when we've already known a language, and we can tell about it something. So, it's a discoursive practice. Surely, all your thoughts are close to me, I mean they are acceptable, yet they are beyond of proof. There's a quote from Fyodor Tyutchev ("Silentium", 1930): Speak not, lie hidden, and conceal the way you dream, the things you feel. Deep in your spirit let them rise akin to stars in crystal skies that set before the night is blurred: delight in them and speak no word.
How can a heart expression find?
How should another know your mind?
Will he discern what quickens you?
A thought once uttered is untrue.
Dimmed is the fountainhead when stirred:
drink at the source and speak no word.
Live in your inner self alone
within your soul a world has grown,
the magic of veiled thoughts that might
be blinded by the outer light,
drowned in the noise of day, unheard...
take in their song and speak no word.
There's also John Locke's objections to Aristotle in which he said that before Aristotle people were able to think; Aristotle didn't invent something new. But the authors of the book "Introduction to Logic and Science Method" M. Cohen and E. Nagel deny such a thought saying that we may think thinking that we think, but to think we have to know how to do it. I agree with them, because it's not the same to say that "This set of arguments {A, B, C...} implies that set of arguments {X, Y, Z...}" and to say that the other ways are also true. We might say it till we don't have to deal with logic. The last one can be accepted as a content one, or such a logic that its antecedents and consequents are equal to a cause and an event. Such a logic can be used as a real tool in thinking. But Aristotle had predicted such a decision. He accused Plato in unnecessary doubling the reality. And I think he was right. The words (no matter what do we think about essence or its attributes) are itself the reality of our thoughts. If a word is a series of vowels in a specific order with a range of tones, and so on, and when the word has been uttered all that (those processes) are what show us the thinking itself. There's no need to look for some "thinking". Such pursuit would be a ghost-hunting. Gilbert Ryle was writing about it as a categorical mistake. We are not allowed saying anything about "thinking" in our current language except for linguistic purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by tonymary on Oct 31, 2020 22:55:47 GMT
It is true. There is a difference, but not a substantial one. But, agree. I don't have the pretention of being without errors, but only to show my truth the better way I can do, and in a manner that can be utile for someone that have the interest. Thanks for the coment! Really apreciate! |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 9:48:23 GMT
The truth is, transcendental status logic is arguable. Kant speculations have no absolute impact on logic. When we're finding ourselves thinking it happens most often when we've already known a language, and we can tell about it something. So, it's a discoursive practice. Surely, all your thoughts are close to me, I mean they are acceptable, yet they are beyond of proof. There's a quote from Fyodor Tyutchev ("Silentium", 1930): Speak not, lie hidden, and conceal the way you dream, the things you feel. Deep in your spirit let them rise akin to stars in crystal skies that set before the night is blurred: delight in them and speak no word.
How can a heart expression find?
How should another know your mind?
Will he discern what quickens you?
A thought once uttered is untrue.
Dimmed is the fountainhead when stirred:
drink at the source and speak no word.
Live in your inner self alone
within your soul a world has grown,
the magic of veiled thoughts that might
be blinded by the outer light,
drowned in the noise of day, unheard...
take in their song and speak no word.
There's also John Locke's objections to Aristotle in which he said that before Aristotle people were able to think; Aristotle didn't invent something new. But the authors of the book "Introduction to Logic and Science Method" M. Cohen and E. Nagel deny such a thought saying that we may think thinking that we think, but to think we have to know how to do it. I agree with them, because it's not the same to say that "This set of arguments {A, B, C...} implies that set of arguments {X, Y, Z...}" and to say that the other ways are also true. We might say it till we don't have to deal with logic. The last one can be accepted as a content one, or such a logic that its antecedents and consequents are equal to a cause and an event. Such a logic can be used as a real tool in thinking. But Aristotle had predicted such a decision. He accused Plato in unnecessary doubling the reality. And I think he was right. The words (no matter what do we think about essence or its attributes) are itself the reality of our thoughts. If a word is a series of vowels in a specific order with a range of tones, and so on, and when the word has been uttered all that (those processes) are what show us the thinking itself. There's no need to look for some "thinking". Such pursuit would be a ghost-hunting. Gilbert Ryle was writing about it as a categorical mistake. We are not allowed saying anything about "thinking" in our current language except for linguistic purposes. Beautiful. Tremendous. But it think there is a vality, if not universal anymore, on confronting the reality for strenght the will for make better and better thoughts. Only pain is positive, as says Schopenhauer. I adore that saying. Because it shows that pain is good think, not to evade, but to create a better and better self. Be a better and better person. (I apologize again for not responding in time. Sometimes philosophical or kinda questions use to be so difficult, so for the balance and harmony sake I try not to even think about them. By the way, you also said somewhere not long ago about your tryings to calm down, right? I mean I've got similar symptoms sometimes.) Well, receiving pain could have some forms: formal and physical. If it's no a physical, then I'd say I am afraid of that type of pain. One girl made me suffer for a long time. I had been trying not to revenge her. Instead of this I was as polite as posible (maybe you rememeber one of the wonderful short tales from Edgar Poe "The Cask of Amontiliardo", where the main protagonist dryed to revenge, but he failed, because his actions were absolutely calm and friendly. In my case I didn't want to revenge. Yet I didn't feel pain either.) and I guess it had impacted on me. As one Japan proverbs says: "Adversity only makes the human will stronger". I agree. We must see those pain as puzzles to sovle 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 14:35:21 GMT
(I apologize again for not responding in time. Sometimes philosophical or kinda questions use to be so difficult, so for the balance and harmony sake I try not to even think about them. By the way, you also said somewhere not long ago about your tryings to calm down, right? I mean I've got similar symptoms sometimes.) Well, receiving pain could have some forms: formal and physical. If it's no a physical, then I'd say I am afraid of that type of pain. One girl made me suffer for a long time. I had been trying not to revenge her. Instead of this I was as polite as posible (maybe you rememeber one of the wonderful short tales from Edgar Poe "The Cask of Amontiliardo", where the main protagonist dryed to revenge, but he failed, because his actions were absolutely calm and friendly. In my case I didn't want to revenge. Yet I didn't feel pain either.) and I guess it had impacted on me. As one Japan proverbs says: "Adversity only makes the human will stronger". I agree. We must see those pain as puzzles to sovle 'em. Great. The Cask of Amotilado is a good example. Poe I like a lot The Golden Scarab (The Golden Bug), because it is a kinda of demystification of our projections on the world. I am trying to do not overthink these philosophical problems, because, in some sense, strengthens my pride, and pride thoughts makes me anxious. But it will pass. I do not think that it will last forever, and this idea weakens the symptons. Good ideas and good examples are essential to overcome fear and pain. A good cause, a good ideal makes we do the impossible.   |
|
