this might arouse your interest a bit.... but remember Nietzsche's
critique of Plato is comprehensive and voluminous, utterly
unprecedented in its breath and depth:
How the True WorldFinally Became An Fable:
The History of an Error
1. The true world -- attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous
man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and
persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the
truth.")
2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage,
the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious,
incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but
the very thought of it -- a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The
idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, K�nigsbergian [i.e., Kantian].)
4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being
unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or
obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything,
not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and
superfluous -- consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens [�good sense�] and
cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free
spirits.)
6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The
apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also
abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high
point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA. [�Zarathustra begins�])
On Jul 3, 8:22 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 02 Jul 2011, at 23:10, B Soroud wrote:
>
> > a question I want to pose to the community as well as Bruno is:
>
> > Bruno, have you ever seriously studied Nietzsche... he is probably
> > the single most persuasive critic of Platonism that has ever existed.
>
> By platonism I just mean the idea that ideas are primary and matter is
> generated by the ideas. With comp it can be shown we need only two
> ideas: addition and multiplication of natural numbers (together with
> some tiny amount of classical logic).
> If you get the point you can understand how this is completely
> testable. Meanwhile it explains tha quantum appearance of nature, the
> non booleanity of the observable, etc. I mean the facts seems to favor
> comp and Platonism, and in my opinion, materialism will disappear, and
> taken as a very deeply "Darwinianly" preprogrammed sort of
> superstition. The greek and Indian mystics and rationalist might be
> right, with respect of the coherent mechanist theology.
>
> I read Nietzsche a long time ago, I loved Zarathustra, but find his
> text on Plato non convincing, but I might have been too young.
> I tend to think that many philosophers confuse or are unclear about
> first person truth (Bp & p) and third person communicable truth (Bp).
> Don't mind too much the modal operator, until you read and grasp
> (hopefully) the consequences of comp in the "classical machine
> theology".
>
> You might try to sum up Nietzsche argument against "platonism" so that
> can we see if it is relevant. If it does not appear as an argulment
> against comp, then it might point on a flaw in the UD reasoning, which
> could be something interesting. To be honest I have some doubt
> because, like many, Nietzsche confuses mechanism and materialism.
>
> Note also that comp contradicts Plato's *politics*, but not Plato's
> theology, especially as understood by the neoplatonist and
> neoPythagorean, and then the machines.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:08 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > it just seems to me that mentality might be a better term to use
> > then consciousness...
>
> > this is a notoriously difficult problem....
>
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net
> > > wrote:
> > Hi B,
>
> > Speaking only for myself, I do believe that consciousness is
> > causally effective, in the sense that if it did not exist then
> > certain other features of the world would not exist and that my
> > belief that I (an indicator for inner subjective experience of
> > “being in the world”) is not just an illusion.
> > Is this belief justified? Hard to say, but so far I have not
> > found that the materialist, physicalist, etc. have successfully
> > given me unassailable reasons to believe that by experience of
> > “being in the world” is just some kind of nonsense that we lie to
> > ourselves about., pace Dennett, Churchland, etc.
> > I supposed that I might be considered a dualist, but unlike
> > Descartes, I argue against the notion of substance as an ontological
> > primitive; instead it is proposed that all properties emerge from
> > process ala Bergson and Heraclitus. I see mind and body as a
> > specific instantiations of the Stone duality and the relation
> > between them is an isomorphism. There is no “causal link” between
> > the two, in the Humean sense, needed. For an elaboration of this
> > view see:http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
> > AFAIK, Bruno adheres to an Idealist version of Platonism. We
> > welcome your thoughts and comments.
>
> > Onward!
>
> > Stephen
>
> > From: B Soroud
> > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 3:25 PM
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: consciousness
> > furthermore you seem to conceive of a consciousness apart from its
> > properties... you are making the erroneous distinction of attribute
> > and essence.... you sound much like Descartes.
>
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, B Soroud <bsor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "A property of consciousness is"
>
> > it sounds like you are reifying "consciousness"... consciousness is
> > not a thing in itself, consciousness does not exist in and of
> > itself... it can only be understood within the interdependent and
> > complex framework of sensation, bodies, space.... consciousness of
> > something, in and through something.... inseparable from the system
> > of space, energy, matter and motion... and essential equal to it....
> > not something seperate and distinct from it that can exist
> > independently of it....
>
> > consciousness is not something that exists in itself....
> > consciousness is always embodied consciousness of life.... in and
> > through life and the complex instrument of form and the mystery of
> > sensation and generation. Consciousness is a phenomena of the "body"
> > and its natural system... and is equal to that "body" and "body
> > system".
>
> > it sounds like you guys are reifing consciousness....
>
> > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Pzomby <htra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 4:23 am, selva kumar <selvakr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is consciousness causally effective ?
>
> > In my opinion, yes, if in simple terms, it is logically correct to
> > state: A property of consciousness is….the capacity and ability of
> > individual human consciousness to create intentionally desired
> > physical and mental effects.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> > .
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
