On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:11:31 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 5:58:21 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 7:20:18 AM UTC-6, [email protected] >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:21:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 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]> 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 * >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> In today's terms, Spinoza is seen as formulating a type of *panpsychism,* >> and is linked to Leibniz in this context. >> >> >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ : >> >> >> *Spinoza regarded both mind and matter as simply aspects (or attributes) >> of the eternal, infinite and unique substance he identified with God >> Himself.* >> >> *e might say that, for Spinoza, physical science is a way of studying the >> psychology of God. There is nothing in nature that does not have a mental >> aspect—the proper appreciation of matter itself reveals it to be the other >> side of a mentalistic coin.* >> >> *Leibniz’s view is sometimes caricatured as: Spinoza with infinitely many >> substances rather than just one. These substances Leibniz called monads. >> Since they are true substances (able to exist independently of any other >> thing), and since they are absolutely simple, they cannot interact with >> each other in any way. Yet each monad carries within it complete >> information about the entire universe. Space, for Leibniz, was reducible to >> (non-spatial) similarity or correspondence relationships between the >> intrinsic natures of the monads.* >> >> *Leibniz’s monads are fundamentally to be conceived mentalistically—they >> are in a way mentalistic automatons moving from one perceptual state (some >> conscious and some not) to another, all according to a God imposed >> pre-defined rule. It is highly significant for the development of >> contemporary forms of panpsychism that Leibniz could find no intrinsic >> nature for his basic elements other than a mentalistic nature—the only >> model he found adequate to describe his monads was one of perception and >> spontaneous activity. This view has been highly influential on the >> emergence in recent times of Russellian monism, discussed below.* >> >> ... >> >> - pt >> > > I admit to not being the brightest bulb in the Cosmos, but I don't see > anything intelligible in these formulations of "God", or whatever. AG >
Aspects of the Leibniz monad (e.g. *each monad carries within it complete information about the entire universe*) has made its way into programming terminology (continuations, etc.) -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.
