On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:27:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Dec 2018, at 14:20, [email protected] <javascript:> 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 * > > > > If you are interested in the cosmos, you can study cosmology. This assumes > some cosmos, but is neutral on its nature. > But if you are interested in the fundamental science (metaphysics, > theology) then it is a different domain. >
*These fields are quite distinct from "fundamental science". No testable hypotheses; conclusios not based on empirical data. AG*. In that domain, you can understand that Mechanism is not compatible with > Materialism, and that the cosmos is not the ultimate reality. Its > appearance comes from something else, non physical. > *Play it again Sam. Succinctly, how do you define Mechanism and Materialism, and why are they incompatible? AG * > > The god of Plato and the neoplatonist is by definition the fundamental > reality. > *I read some Plato as an undergraduate. Don't recall any "god" in his writings, or from any source that it defines "fundamental reality". AG * > Today most christians are materialist, and, as I said, materialism is > incompatible with mechanism (in a testable way). > But before 529, many educated christians were still more platonism than > Aristotelian, which are dogmatic on (primitive) matter. > > For a neoplatonist, christianism and atheism is very much alike. > *Then the neoplatonists are totally misinformed and unworthy of trust. AG* Same conception of god > *No way! Christians believe in a personal god who came to Earth to redeem their sins, a form of theism, and atheists don't believe in any god, but for you their beliefs are the same? How ridiculous this is! AG* (even if the atheist uses it only to deny it), and same dogmatic attitude > for the existence of some matter not reducible to immaterial notions (like > in mathematics). > > Bruno > -- 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.
