On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:51, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/3/20 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
On 19 Mar 2013, at 22:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato
sometimes-
?
I see Plato and Aristotle as the most opposite view we can have on
reality.
(To be sure by Aristotle I means its usual interpretation by the
followers. Aristotle himself is still close to Plato, at least that
can be accepted, if only because his treatise on metaphysics is
quite unclear and hard to interpret).
Are you a follower of La Rouche? I do not see such opposition
between Plato and Aristotle . Aristotle believed in essences and
ideas and in the the inner sense of what is right, just like Plato.
he was not an empiricist nor a materialist. its phisics is drawn
both form intuition and observation, not from experiments (and it
was quite right for the range of the terrestrial phenomena that he
studied)
I aml not sure that Arsitotle and Plato differ so much, theologically,
as Aristotle is unclear. But it is generally accepted that we can sum
up "Aristotelianism" by the belief in the existence of a primary
matter, and that this is related to the widespread physicalist belief.
But Plato makes clear in more than one text that the physical reality,
what we see and measure, might be only the shadow of something else.
So a usefulm summary, which might not been entirely fait to the
historic Aristotle is that:
- with Aristotle, reality is WYSIWYG (what you see in what you get)
- With Plato, reality is NOT WYSIWYG. (what you see is not the
reality, but a facet of reality).
I don not share the Occam views.Occam was a nominalist, that is
rejected the existence of universals, he did not like to think in
terms universals, because if universals exist, for example Truth,
Love and Peace then they impose some obligations to God: for
example, God must do Good, and must not do Evil by definition.
Then, why Evil exist?
Nominalist did not like to think about these entitities, and wanted
an omnipotent God. That was the original meaning of the Occam razor.
In the least Occam refer only to the idea that between a simple
(short) and a complex (long) theory, having the same explanative
power for the same range of phenomena, we will choose the shorter,
and this most often (but allowing exception). It is the idea that
the conceptually simple is better than the ad hoc complex construct.
In particular we don't introduce as axiom what is a theorem.
Probalby what Occam said was purely teological and philosophical.
Occam AFIK did not told about scientific theories. What we know as
the Occam Razor is a materialistic version of the philosophical
principle of "not to multiplicate the (philosophical) entities
without need"
It is more general than that. Occam principle has nothing to do with
materialism a priori. It is just the idea that we should use the
simplest general assumption which explain the most.
But the secularization of this principle produced the modern
concept of materialist science,
I am not sure. materialism violate Occam directly. It is bad
metaphysics at the start. No one has ever given a way to test the
existence of primary matter.
materialism ios a bad name. The appropriate name is phenomenalism.
What is know now as "science" is the sole study of the phenomena
(as if they were no concepts beyond that) .
You simplify too much here. By materialism I mean what I call most of
the time weak materialism, and it is the doctrine that primary matter
exist. Its epistemological version is physicalism (physics is the
fundamental science to which all other are in principle reductible).
My point (proof) is that if we are machine, then physics is reduced to
arithmetical truth. Most mathematicians would not catalog the
mathematical truth into a phenomena.
Materialism may be considered as a hypostasization of phenomenalism.
in such a way that "because phenomena are the only thing that I care
for, let´s make them real as "things" outside me, and let´s make the
mind and everithing else , inexistent until more phenomena prove
otherwise.
You can see it in that way, but few materialist would agree. But we
agree that they are wrong. I mean that what you say is consistent with
comp.
separated from philosophy, via an empiricism science and the
negation of the nous of the greek, the common sense and finally the
negation of the possibility of objective understanding of anything
but some phisical phenomena, and in general the negation of
anything that can be not tested by experiments
This is more like Aristotle + a bit of positivism. Positivism has
been refuted, mainly. But most scientist still believe that
Aristotelianism is "scientific". They confuse the physical reality
with the primary physical reality.
I don´t think so. It is not so historically AFAIK. Positivism is the
modern form of the different secularizations of nominalism, a
philosophical movement born to explicitly reject Aristotle and
Aquinas (who imposed logical limitations what God can and can not
do) during the middle ages.
Positiism was still in vogue when I was young, but since a long time I
have never met philosophers of science defending positivism. It is
obviously inconsistent, as to make sense, it needs to be presented as
a metaphysical assumption. Positivism, like relativism are self-
defeating theory. They don't need opponents, and they fall quickly
from their own contradiction.
Although Plato is more radically opposed than Aristotle to what is
comonly know as materialism.
I read Aristotle, and I think he is quite responsible for the coming
back to our animal conception of reality, where milk is an independent
primary substance. This primary matter hypothesis has been without
doubt a fertile methodological assumption, but it is inconsistent with
computationalism, and hard to make clear with current physics.
Bruno
2013/3/19 Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]>
On 19.03.2013 18:37 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
No.
...
Then, to escape the Feyerabend trap, there is necessary additional
criteria, such is the economy of axioms or the Occam Razor as
criteria for theory acceptance. Fortunately it works, because it
seems that we live in a simple, mathematical universe, which is
amazing per se.
I have listened recently to a lecture by Maarten Hoenen about the
philosophy of Occam. Hence the question. What does it mean when you
use Occam's name? Do you share any of his philosophical/theological
positions? Or in your paragraph his name is just an empty token?
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
