I have a different history:
Really the modern rejection of Idealism comes from the defeat of the latter
incarnation of the ldealists: The Hegelianists, both Nazis and Comunists.
The dialectical materialists Marxists were idealists against idealism, but
idealists at last. That defeat happened drastically after the II World
war. with the Nazis, but the second defeat was at the end of the XX century
after the cold war and the defeat of the comunists. Hegel was defeated in
battle. Everithing is defeated in battles.
That supposed the fall in disgrace of every form of idealism, not only
hegelianism. and a form of weak materialism whose main philosophers were
Woody Allen and Homer Simpson. But it is evolving into an strong
materialism with its corresponding totalitatian ambitions in the form of
multiculturalism, ecofascism and feminism. You will be in jail for the
jokes of the past.
But the story goes far back to the time of Aquinas when a group of
proto-protestants questioned the limitations that the Greek philosophy of
mind supposed for the mind of God. God they say, can not follow any law.
Not even to do ever what is good. They, the "nominalists" said that the
mind of man is something not worth to study because is corrupted and can
not know anything except material phenomena. The higher abstractions: god,
evil, consciousness and any speculation of about that, were only bullshit
created by corrupt minds. Just read the Bible and follow word by word what
Yahveh said. That is the only way to do it right in these matters.
And the rest of the history is the change of the Bible and Christ by other
books of philosophy and philosopers , phisics and physicist, economy and
economists and so on.
2013/11/30 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>
> On 30 Nov 2013, at 13:32, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> Russell's abandonment of Leibniz's platonism after his conversion to the
> cult of materialism.
>
>
> Neither Bertrand Russell, nor Wittgenstein, understood Gödel's
> incompleteness theorem.
>
>
>
> Three related definitions of consciousness not possible in materialism or
> analytic philosophy:
>
>
> Analytic philosophy develops tools, but don't use them. It is a priori
> neutral. You shouldn't put it in the same box of materialism.
>
>
>
> 1. Consciousness is experience by the first person singular.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
> 2. Consciousness is self-referential awareness.
>
>
> OK. Coming from both Bp -> BBp and []p -> [][]p, with []p = Bp & p, and Bp
> = provable('p').
> But this is reflexive high order consciousness, not the raw consciousness
> probably shared by all anaimals.
>
>
>
> 3. Consciousness is the acquisition of knowledge by acquaintance.
>
>
> Those are related, but not equivalent.
>
>
>
>
> Ironically, the third definition is similar to one of the two forms
> of knowledge originally proposed by Bertrand Russell, one
> of the founders of analytic philosophy, which he called
> "knowledge by acquaintance" the other being
> "knowledge by description". Knowledge by description
> is that you know from common knowledge that Obama is
> president of the United States, while knowledge by
> acquaintance means that you have met Obama,
> presumably in the White House.
>
> Analytic philosophy deals only with knowledge by description,
> omitting knowledge by acquaintance, despite Russell's
> awareness of this type knowledge, so that Russell's
> omission of knowledge by acquaintance in the philosophy
> of materialism-- a necessity-- was a deliberate omission
> from analytic philosophy, no doubt due to Russell's
> conversion to the semi-religious cult of materialism.
>
> This seems to have occurred during the young Russell's writing of
> "The Philosophy of Leibniz", which expertly treats Leibniz's logic,
> but begins to pull back as he approaches Leibniz's Platonism.
> which Russell does not seem to have understood very much,
> much less accepted.
>
>
> OK. But I recall you that computationalism go far beyond Leibniz. As far
> as the neoplatonists (that you seem unaware of).
>
>
>
> Russell then publicly promoted materialism and analytic philosophy,
> together with the third member of their dark trinity, atheism.
>
>
> That's correct. I mean I can relate this with his book "why I am not a
> christian", if I remember well.
>
>
>
> The rest is history, as they say, in which this trinity became
> de rigeour in the halls of "official" western academe.
>
>
> It is the "official" doctrine since the moderate intellectual christians
> lost the battle with the dogmatics of the Imperial Roman Church, who were
> interested only in power.
>
>
>
>
> Meanwhile because of this dark trinity, western philosophy has
> struggled but failed to explain consciousness.
>
>
> They put it under the rug, and avoid even to address the question, except
> for a very shy more open-mindness arising since the development of AI, and
> the (slow) understanding that the Aristotelian Matter makes not much sense
> with the physical facts, thanks to the quantum weirdness.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
