Philosophers that interest you, and why (Jazzfanz Philosophy Thread)
- Thread starter Sandy Braille
- Start date
The Cartesian theater is a very simplistic and unconvincing concept, and the mind-body duality is just about the worst thing about Descartes' philosophy. So it's no surprise that it was easily dismissed from objective natural philosophy once modern scientific thought began to mature.
scootsy
Well-Known Member
understood, but this revelation came more from the misunderstanding of the predicate. in quantificational logic it goes like this:
(∃x) Tx
∴ (∃x) Tx
(sorry subscripts aren't working) this is to say, there exists some x and that x participates in the concept of thinking (i.e. I think). but the problem is that existence is not a predicate. descartes uses thinking as the predicate in the original proposition, but existence is a quantifier and not a predicate and therefore cannot be used as such in the conclusion. so when he moves to the conclusion and once again has only moved to, there exists some x and that x participates in the concept of thinking (i.e. therefore, I am) cannot be properly drawn. the same works for the anselm's ontological argument.
God is all good things.
Existence is good.
Therefore God exists.
Existence is being used as a predicate when it can only be used as a quantifier.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, most of western civilization in general still accepts a subject-predicate ontology. While it is undeniably convenient in everyday language to speak of the world as a collection of static things that have certain properties, this worldview has had a lot of negative consequences, particularly because it obscures the constitutive interrelatedness of the things we call "beings." There is nothing that "exists by itself and does not need anything else to exist." This is a big part of why I like Whitehead's process philosophy. Process thinkers see becoming/process as primary, and substance/being as a secondary phenomenon which is abstracted from becoming. For instance, in this way of thinking it is not the case that I am one and the same person throughout my life, that I have an essential core that is me, and that any changes in my personality or physical body are "accidental." Instead, we would say that I am a different person every moment, and the person I think of as "myself" is simply the abstract sum of these moments. Change is primary and being is secondary. When you accept this idea and fully flesh out the implications, the world makes a lot more sense.
Beautifully put. It's amazing how pervasive that is in general society. You hear it in every misunderstanding of biological evolution (but when did monkeys turn to men?). You see all the time in pop-philosophy (is <blank> making us less human?). I'm thinking it's the 'default' paradigm with which people understand the world around them (not just a Western thing), and that process oriented understanding requires breaking the natural inclination.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Everyone understands the concept of a continuum you freaking eggheads.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Exactly. In fact, the examples you give nicely illustrate one of the fallacies which Whitehead was most adamant about combating, what he called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
But again as you say, we almost can't help speaking about things this way. It is simply too convenient for everyday discourse, no matter the fact that it makes no sense at all in modern physics. It is no wonder that so much of philosophy in the last hundred years has focused on language problems.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
This falls in the "self-promotional" category, but I was commissioned to re-write the Wikipedia article for John B. Cobb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb
Basically he's the foremost living thinker in process philosophy, the school of thought associated with philosopher/mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. I'm currently doing my PhD in Process Studies at Claremont Lincoln University, and I'm working at the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, which is the leading Whitehead-related institution in the world. Clearly, I'm invested in this stuff. It was decided that the staff at the Center needed to take some time to update Wikipedia articles on some key process-related people and subjects, and this article is the first product of that decision.
Anyway, thought I'd post the finished article in case anyone was interested. Cobb's a pretty remarkable guy. And of course, as it's a Wikipedia article, feel free to make edits or corrections, I'm not perfect. I will probably be going back in a few weeks and making more small changes myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb
Basically he's the foremost living thinker in process philosophy, the school of thought associated with philosopher/mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. I'm currently doing my PhD in Process Studies at Claremont Lincoln University, and I'm working at the Center for Process Studies in Claremont, which is the leading Whitehead-related institution in the world. Clearly, I'm invested in this stuff. It was decided that the staff at the Center needed to take some time to update Wikipedia articles on some key process-related people and subjects, and this article is the first product of that decision.
Anyway, thought I'd post the finished article in case anyone was interested. Cobb's a pretty remarkable guy. And of course, as it's a Wikipedia article, feel free to make edits or corrections, I'm not perfect. I will probably be going back in a few weeks and making more small changes myself.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This^. The Genealogy of Morals is a philosophical masterpiece. The Birth of Tragedy is also great yet I personally find the subject matter a little less interesting.
![[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]](/data/avatars/m/2/2497.jpg?1511131091){kind=avatar}
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Just a big fat LOL at anyone who can flippantly say Nietzsche's "actual" philosophy isn't "interesting." That's one of the most confounding statements in the history of the General Discussion forum.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Wow... Serious coincidence! I was just reading the quote from the post above mine! Damn!!! I guess I miss NAOS!!!