On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:21:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Dec 2018, at 17:19, [email protected] <javascript:> 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]> 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/ >>> 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 >
*Truthfully, these Neoplatonic gods, inclusive of Spinoza, seem pretty bor-ing and IMO don't add anything to our knowledge of the Cosmos. OTOH, Jesus is dramatic but the overall Judao-Christian idea of God seems pretty dumb. This "God" is inconsistent in His behavior and only a delusional fool would trust Him. AG * > > > > > >> *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 ] >> >> >> 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]. >> 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. >> >> >> > -- > 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. > For more options, visit 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.
