--- On Sun, 12/20/09, einseele <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: einseele <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 11075] Re: Reifications > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, December 20, 2009, 7:57 PM > Phantasms do not need of existence by > definition, an attribute which > is not of concern to them. In order to learn about > phantasms you dont > care about existence, > To say they do not exist do not end them as objects. > > Attributes rational and irrational are to knowledge the > same as > existence to phantasms. > > I do not see any difference between something being > "empirically > verifiable" and/or "lacking empirical verification", > goodness or > badness are as well attibutes like above. > Knowledge does not care about ethics as well. It goes > beyond distances > and usually does not like limits like good, bad, existent, > rational or > irrational, I believe > > We have to admit yes that lately there is a preference for > irrationalism against rational positions, which is as > biased as the > opposite position. > > What about beauty? > > There is beauty in "E = mc2" and there is beauty as well > in: > > "We the unwilling, > led by the unqualified, > doing the unnecessary, > for the ungrateful"." > > Beauty is also a source of knowledge, and may be one of > its > attributes, much more to me than its verification side, or > pretended > irrationalism, Rational/Irrational are the useless ending > points of a > cord with many intermediate positions ============== G: I have illustrated my stuff with skiing, but it applies to music as well. Having a coda V IV IIIflat I, my intuition posits final harmonies as Isharp9 I9. Empiric verification with the piano shows that it's perfect with a "Mississippi sound" blues, discordant with entertaining blues and idiotic with a Russian tune. BTW, I defined "good", "bad" in the scope of my post as strictly synonymous with "rational", "irrational", having nothing to do with ethics. Cheers Georges. ============== > > On 20 dez, 11:45, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Science, Philosophy, Music, Skiing do not exist, but > are reified phantasms. So are Scientists, Philosophers, > Musicians and Skiers. > > What exists are humans whose existential modalities > encompass certain > > activities called for convenience science, philosophy, > music and skiing. We shall use the reified terms as > linguistic shortcuts, always > > remembering their above signification. Thus we shall > call "scientist" > > a person exercising occasionally "scientific" > activities. > > > > Some activities may be qualified with respect to > various criteria like > > elegance, clarity, coherence or efficiency but all of > them fall into > > two classes: > > > > 1.Rational, i.e. empirically verifiable, which we > shall call "good", > > > > 2.Irrational, i.e. lacking empirical verification, or > "bad". > > > > Irrationality stems usually from the "common sense" > and from the > > laziness to overcome it. > > > > A beginning "skier" traversing a steep slope perceives > the depth as > > danger and the wall as security. His "common sens" > tells him to incline > > the upper body away from the depth and close to the > wall. His weight > > passes on the upper foot, he skids and falls. > > He stays now on crossroads. He may choose to stay > irrational, i.e.to be > > too lazy to overcome his "common sense" and "natural > reactions". > > In that case his skiing will stay bad, clumsy and > inefficient. > > But he may choose the rational attitude, acknowledge > the factual > > falsification of his "common sens" and invest a lot of > effort to > > overcome it and to become a good "skier". > > > > A "scientist" may conceive good or bad philosophy, > with certain bad > > tendency to transpose uncritically his scientific > concepts to the > > more general philosophical inquiry. The quality of his > philosophy > > will be anyway intrinsic and independent of his > science. The same > > applies, vice versa, to "philosophers". > > > > However, unlike "scientists", who cannot afford to be > lazily > > irrational, many "philosophers" elevate laziness to > their principal > > virtue and exalt their elucubrations for being > irrational - not > > verifiable empirically. This attitude is additionally > boosted by > > the establishment, where professional "philosophers" > have to > > "publish or perish" and publishing of a rational paper > would indispose > > the lazy boss. > > > > Georges > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
