> On 5 Dec 2018, at 17:19, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 3:37:13 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 2 Dec 2018, at 21:25, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:02:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 12/2/2018 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 19:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/30/2018 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perspectivism is a form of modalism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nietzsche is vindicated. >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. If you elaborate, you might change my mind on Nietzche, >>>>> perhaps! >>>>> All what I say is very close the Neoplatonism and Negative Theology >>>>> (capable only of saying what God is not). >>>>> >>>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ >>>> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/> >>>> 6.2 Perspectivism >>>> >>>> Much of Nietzsche’s reaction to the theoretical philosophy of his >>>> predecessors is mediated through his interest in the notion of >>>> perspective. He thought that past philosophers had largely ignored the >>>> influence of their own perspectives on their work, and had therefore >>>> failed to control those perspectival effects (BGE 6; see BGE I more >>>> generally). Commentators have been both fascinated and perplexed by what >>>> has come to be called Nietzsche’s “perspectivism”, and it has been a major >>>> concern in a number of large-scale Nietzsche commentaries (see, e.g., >>>> Danto 1965; Kaulbach 1980, 1990; Schacht 1983; Abel 1984; Nehamas 1985; >>>> Clark 1990; Poellner 1995; Richardson 1996; Benne 2005). There has been as >>>> much contestation over exactly what doctrine or group of commitments >>>> belong under that heading as about their philosophical merits, but a few >>>> points are relatively uncontroversial and can provide a useful way into >>>> this strand of Nietzsche’s thinking. >>>> >>>> Nietzsche’s appeals to the notion of perspective (or, equivalently in his >>>> usage, to an “optics” of knowledge) have a positive, as well as a critical >>>> side. Nietzsche frequently criticizes “dogmatic” philosophers for ignoring >>>> the perspectival limitations on their theorizing, but as we saw, he >>>> simultaneously holds that the operation of perspective makes a positive >>>> contribution to our cognitive endeavors: speaking of (what he takes to be) >>>> the perversely counterintuitive doctrines of some past philosophers, he >>>> writes, >>>> >>>> Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such resolute >>>> reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with which the >>>> spirit has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently in this >>>> way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and >>>> preparation of the intellect for its future “objectivity”—the latter >>>> understood not as “disinterested contemplation” (which is a non-concept >>>> and absurdity), but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra in >>>> one’s power, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make >>>> precisely the difference in perspectives and affective interpretations >>>> useful for knowledge. (GM III, 12) >>>> >>>> This famous passage bluntly rejects the idea, dominant in philosophy at >>>> least since Plato, that knowledge essentially involves a form of >>>> objectivity that penetrates behind all subjective appearances to reveal >>>> the way things really are, independently of any point of view whatsoever. >>>> Instead, the proposal is to approach “objectivity” (in a revised >>>> conception) asymptotically, by exploiting the difference between one >>>> perspective and another, using each to overcome the limitations of others, >>>> without assuming that anything like a “view from nowhere” is so much as >>>> possible. There is of course an implicit criticism of the traditional >>>> picture of a-perspectival objectivity here, but there is equally a >>>> positive set of recommendations about how to pursue knowledge as a finite, >>>> limited cognitive agent. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. But I do not oppose perspectivism with Plato, and certainly not >>> with neoplatonism, which explains everything from the many perspective of >>> the One, or at least can be interpreted that way. >>> >>> Pure perspectivism is an extreme position which leads to pure relativism, >>> which does not make sense, as we can only doubt starting from indubitable >>> things (cf Descartes). But Nietzsche might have been OK, as the text above >>> suggested a “revised conception” of objective. >>> >>> With mechanism, you have an ablate truth (the sigma_1 arithmetical truth), >>> and the rest is explained by the perspective enforced by incompleteness. >> >> My reading of Nietzsche is he thought that there are many different >> perspectives and one can only approach the truth by looking from different >> perspectives but never taking one of them as definitive. This goes along >> with his denial and rejection of being a system builder. I think he equated >> system builders with those who took their perspective to be the only one. >> >> Brent >> >> >> Nietzsche is famous for two quotes: >> >> God is dead! > > Yes, he said that. But I think he was talking about Santa Klauss-like notion > of God, not about the Neoplatonic conception of God. > > What is the Neoplatonic concept of God and how does it differ from Spinoza's > concept, which IIUC, is some sort of pantheistic monismt? TIA, AG
Actually, Spinoza is often compared to Neoplatonism, and nobody doubt that his work is influenced by Neoplatonism. I just come back (two weeks ago) of a colloquium in logic and metaphysics where Spinoza was disced a lot. Spinoza describes substance as being self sustained entity, and seems to distinguish from Aristotle primary matter, so that his conception of reality is often described as neutral monism. That being said, his substance is still very Aristotelian, and not much like something in a dream or video games. But then, that is not entirely clear in Plotinus too (by some aspect, mechanism go farer than Plotinus, at least for the motivation). The “god” of neoplatonism is the ONE, which is though as non describable, non definable, and responsible for the Plato world’s of ideas, and then for the soul, and eventually for matter which is defined negatively by what god (the one) is unable to determine. Matter is when god lose control, and is typically associate with evil in the (neo)platonic tradition. You can compare the ONE with the class of all sets, or with the “everything” (if that exists). Plotinus argue that it is not a being, it is only responsible for all beings, but it is out of the reality (somehow, the God of Plotinus do not exist!). With mechanism, the notion of arithmetical truth plays the role of God (it is non definable, and responsible for all provabilities and computability’s notion, including the knower/soul, consciousness, and eventually matter). You might read my PDF on Plotinus, on my URL (on the front page) for more on this. Bruno >> >> There are no facts, only interpretations. > > Facts need interpretation, but that does not mean there are no facts. That I > am about to send you an email,is a fact, for example. It requires > interpretation to be understood and verify. If you are reading this mail here > and now, you get the fact that sending that mail has been realised in fact, > even if there is no universe, and only numbers. > > > > >> >> >> Notebooks (Summer 1886 – Fall 1887) >> Variant translation: Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, >> saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that >> do not exist, only interpretations… >> As translated in The Portable Nietzsche (1954) by Walter Kaufmann >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann>, p. 458 >> [ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche> ] >> >> >> I guess a perspective and an interpretation are pretty much the same things. > > > A perspective might be an interpretation made by one (or a group) of subject. > > Or it can be a mode of self-reference (truth, believe, know, observe, sense). > > An interpretation can be more or less perspectival. I would not identify them. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> - pt >> >> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list >> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
