Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[Demosthenes]

I mean by mysticism assertions, or the formulation of concepts such as Geist, which are are beyond any kind of right/wrong testing.

What do you mean by right/wrong testing?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What do you mean by right/wrong testing?

There are no criteria which we can use to test whether the idea of Geist is right or not.

 

[Demosthenes]

As far as I know there are no criteria by which we can test whether the idea that something is music is true or not. I'm glad to say that that hasn't stopped me from thinking that music exists.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think that's true - it's certainly not a useful analogy.

But, sorry, I'm not prepared to go through this kind of reasoning. You'll have to decide for yourself.

 

[phildwyer]

How is it not arbitrary if there can be no empirical evidence for it?

It is rational. Thus the opposite of arbitrary.

 

[Jonti]

You could cite reasons or evidence for believing a work is musical; and those reasons, although arguably a matter of opinion, could be tested empirically. For example, if you said "That's not music, there are no harmonies" the claim that there are no harmonies in the piece can be empirically checked. A piece of music is enough of a "thing" for other people to check it for you in that way, given your criteria.

Poetry too, can be assessed in that sort of way. Poems are things too! So there are ways to assess the properties an instance of poetry may have. We can assess the work for things like rhythm, scan, alliteration and rhyme. So if you say "That's not poetry, there's no rhyme or rhythm to it" other people could check whether or not your reasons held.

Of course, they may also dispute your notion of poetry; but that's another argument! As long as you can say what qualities a piece of writing must have to qualify as poetry rather than prose, then other people can work out what you'd consider to be poetical.

I'm not sure the same is true of Geist. How does anyone tell if something to hand is an instance of "Geist" or not?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

@pd But it's backwards reasoning, which leads to a mistake in drawing the boundary between what is and isn't knowable.

 

[phildwyer]

How does anyone tell if something to hand is an instance of "Geist" or not?

"Geist" is what makes our experience of the world possible. It is the sum of conditions of possibility for human experience. Thus, everyone "believes in" it. The issue is not its existence but its characteristics.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"Geist" is what makes our experience of the world possible. It is the sum of conditions of possibility for human experience. Thus, everyone "believes in" it. The issue is not its existence but its characteristics.

My fears have been confirmed.

It is precisely because its characteristics cannot be accessed that even an assertion of its existence is meaningless. This is to say no more than that something exists rather than nothing. I do accept that everyone 'believes' that.

 

[gorski]

If we are name dropping here, it is obvious that you haven't read Schopenhauer, who took Kant and excised the mysticism from his ideas, while Hegel merely embedded it even further.

We can all play that game.

The real trick, and one that you have failed to pull off in this thread, is to explain the ideas you have read to others.

Game? What game? Boy, oh boy...

And how did you "conclude" I did not read Schopenhauer? How on Earth is that "obvious" from the above? By which magical logic did this follow from the thread? Have we even mentioned him? There are Positivist interpretations of Kant - and? What does that tell us "obviously" or "conclusively"?!? And you think this is "intelligent"?

Well, let's see: Hegel has his Left and Right. Both claim they are the real Hegelians. What does that in itself do? Some "argument" that is. Not to mention the measuring of Hegel's speculative [it's a method, too, you know] idea of Geist by "supporting evidence"... Blimey! The next thing I'll hear is that you are a competent philosopher, at least when it comes to the "continentals"...

But seriously: I have explained as much as humanly possible without writing an essay or three. If one is intelligent and interested, not to mention open minded to see the challenge in there, one might see that is quite a lot and be thankful one has made an effort, just like I was when Jonti made an effort to help me out with Linux. I think I made an even bigger effort. The main difference between the two of us is: I know my limits in IT and am quite happy to acknowledge that!

[And I have had enough of this, too!]

 

[phildwyer]

My fears have been confirmed.

It is precisely because its characteristics cannot be accessed that even an assertion of its existence is meaningless. This is to say no more than that something exists rather than nothing.

No its not. It is to recognize an obvious truth: that our experience of the world is conditioned by the nature of our minds. We do not, and cannot, experience the world as it really is. But we do know that there is a world outside or beyond our experience of it. This follows from our recognition of the fact that our experience is specific and perspectival. Recognizing this, we will live and think in very different ways than if we assume, with the naive empiricists, that we can and do experience the world as it really is.

 

[Jonti]

Game? What game? Boy, oh boy...
...

The game of "You must believe me, I'm An Authority", perhaps?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

*Advice for Gorski: if you use up 3 of your 5 smilies in the first line, it leaves you with too few to work with in the rest of your post*

 

[gorski]

It looks very much like "I'm not a fan and I haven't studied it but I am an authority anyway - because I want to be!"

 

[gorski]

*Advice for Gorski: if you use up 3 of your 5 smilies in the first line, it leaves you with too few to work with in the rest of your post*

You gonna do yourself an injury trying so hard to appear intelligent... Sorry, you already have: you are a twat, as I have just demonstarted from your previous "argument"! One of those clowns Phil mentions every so often.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What on earth provoked that?

@ Gorski: I should have left you alone the first time I gave up on you.

@ Dwyer: No time to answer, but I will.

 

[Jonti]

... To justify claims of ... truth, you need not only prove the ... truth of a proposition, but also that (of) the conceptual framework underlying the proposition ...

This reminds me very much of Godel's result from his study of arithmetic. He proved that one can show a system is coherent, only by considering it within the framework of a larger system that encompasses it!

 

[gorski]

It is the sum of conditions of possibility for human experience.

Phil just gave you the clue to a speculative position... If anyone is intelligent and open minded it should be enough to start understanding Kant and then Hegel's critique from there...

 

[Jonti]

If you had understood these writers, I feel you would be able to answer my questions in your own words. But you don't do that -- you just keep saying (words that sound a lot like) ...

It's all in the good Book, my child. Read with an open mind and you will see for yourself!

That's a cop out. I've asked you please to talk me like an adult, and explain the ideas you want to communicate in your own words.

 

[gorski]

You have just demeaned yourself big time. Certainly in my eyes.

Goodbye!

 

[Jonti]

You'll be back!

 

[Demosthenes]

As far as I know, the idea that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be empirically tested is known as logical positivism or verificationism.

And this seems to be lbj's position basically.

I'm not big on arguments from authority, - but it is worth mentioning that I have read papers by several different analytic anglo-american philosophers in which they defended the analytic approach partly by pointing out that the virtue of their rigorous nitpicking was that they were able to specify a system clearly, (verificationism) test it out in various different formulations, and after about 20 years discussion, universally conclude that the system didn't work.

They went on to say that there are no serious philosophers today who want to defend any variety of verificationism, and those who originally propounded it have all now admitted that they were wrong.
Part of the motivation for logical positivism was to overthrow the idea that there could be meaningful and information-bearing truths, knowledge of which did not derive from experience, (the synthetic a priori) - this attempt having failed, anglo-american philosophers now take Kant and his successors rather more seriously.

 

[phildwyer]

As far as I know, the idea that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be empirically tested is known as logical positivism or verificationism.

And this seems to be lbj's position basically.

Aye. This mode of thought often forms an unholy alliance with the postmodernist appropriation of Nietzsche's critique of reason as oppressive and nasty.

 

[Demosthenes]

Aye. This mode of thought often forms an unholy alliance with the postmodernist appropriation of Nietzsche's critique of reason as oppressive and nasty.

what's the postmodernist appropriation of Nietzsche's critique of reason?

 

[phildwyer]

what's the postmodernist appropriation of Nietzsche's critique of reason?

That it is linguistically constructed and serves the interests of hegemonic power. Bascially dismantling the distinction between logic and rhetoric and claiming that everything is rhetoric. This dovetails with empiricism because it outlaws reason as a means to truth. Hence people who say "God/Geist doesn't exist, where is He then, show us a picture, go on..." and so forth.

 

[Demosthenes]

You could cite reasons or evidence for believing a work is musical; and those reasons, although arguably a matter of opinion, could be tested empirically. For example, if you said "That's not music, there are no harmonies" the claim that there are no harmonies in the piece can be empirically checked. A piece of music is enough of a "thing" for other people to check it for you in that way, given your criteria.

Poetry too, can be assessed in that sort of way. Poems are things too! So there are ways to assess the properties an instance of poetry may have. We can assess the work for things like rhythm, scan, alliteration and rhyme. So if you say "That's not poetry, there's no rhyme or rhythm to it" other people could check whether or not your reasons held.

Of course, they may also dispute your notion of poetry; but that's another argument! As long as you can say what qualities a piece of writing must have to qualify as poetry rather than prose, then other people can work out what you'd consider to be poetical.

I'm not sure the same is true of Geist. How does anyone tell if something to hand is an instance of "Geist" or not?

I don't know about this, but, my suspicion is that you couldn't find any group of criteria that would do the job.

But leaving that aside, - by what criteria can you test whether such a thing as music exists, let whether a specific instance is in fact music.

Lots of people agree that it does, but, so what?

 

[Demosthenes]

That it is linguistically constructed and serves the interests of hegemonic power. Bascially dismantling the distinction between logic and rhetoric and claiming that everything is rhetoric. This dovetails with empiricism because it outlaws reason as a means to truth. Hence people who say "God/Geist doesn't exist, where is He then, show us a picture, go on..." and so forth.

I see, yes, an unholy alliance indeed. But all the same I think Nietzche's critique of reason is well worth coming to terms with, because it makes philosophers focus not on justifying individual propositions, but on justifying their conceptual framework.

 

[Jonti]

I don't know about this, but, my suspicion is that you couldn't find any group of criteria that would do the job ...

Well, it's your music (or whatever), so it's your call.

So you tell me; could you?

 

[Jonti]

... by what criteria can you test whether such a thing as music exists, let whether a specific instance is in fact music.

again, you tell me!

The point isn't that *I* have a definition of what *you* mean by 'music'. The point is (to find out) whether you know what you mean, and that you can articulate what you mean.

I agree that if you can't do that, there's not much use in talking about things.

 

[Jonti]

As far as I know, the idea that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be empirically tested is known as logical positivism or verificationism. ...

The problem with that notion, as stated, is that one would need to know what a proposition means, *before* one is able to devise any empirical test!

I think the general point is that things can *sound* meaningful, but unless there's a real way of telling -- well appearances can be deceptive!