Ron said:
It has come to my attention after reading these texts is that dialectiacal
method is an empirical method, collection and division, the is and is not of
the concept, and the dialectic opposition applied to both is only to arrive at
accuracy and precision of meaning. ...
dmb says:
I'm fairly certain that you're using the key terms improperly. Please notice
how the dialectical method relies exclusively on verbal exchanges, logic,
rationality and reasoned arguments. Dialectic is a fancy name for "dialogue".
This is contrasted with and opposed to empirical methods, which rely on
experience and the senses rather than words and logic.
Ron replies:
First you have to keep in mind the context I'm coming from which does change
the perspective of the key
terms because the key terms are mostly underdeveloped in the definitions.
Dialectic relies on the inquirey
into the meaning of terms and the common assumptions made on the accuracy of
those meanings.
Empiricism, is found to be subjective and culturally colored, true empiricism
is a myth an assumption.
I know I'm going to have a devil of a time when it comes to the traditional
points of view and classic distinctions they
represent, but I'm trying to get at the a closer understanding to the original
context.
Firstly these Philosophers understood that reality was mostly generated by
mind, memory, personal history,
cultural assumptions...reality is largely conceptual. (theory of forms)
Secondly accuracy and precision of concepts have consequences in experience,
thats is how accuracy and
precision hold their meaning. (the true)
Thirdly accuracy and precision of meaning (the true) is what is best in
experience, it is the most beneficial.
Now, traditional distinctions aside, doesent this sound like pragmatism?
DmB:
As Wiki says in the article on the "Dialectic", "Dialectic is a method of
argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indic and European
philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece,
and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method
is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a
subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with
reasoned arguments.[1] Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the
debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate,
either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving
the opponent's argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide
who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the
speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take the side of
their argument. Eristic is always
considered the enemy of Dialectia because it argues for the sake of strife and
not to settle disputes. Often causing divisions.
Ron:
What was left out was the method of collection and division with the focus
being a greater understanding
of the meaning of the subject matter in other words it's value. Dialectic never
solved disputes. The key is
the meaning of the term "truth" and how it is conceptualized within the
definition. Truth to Socrates
was precision in meaning and understanding as per the consequences in
experience. "why lead a good
life?"
Dmb:
The Sophists taught arête (Greek: ἀρετή, quality, excellence) as the highest
value, and the determinant of one's actions in life. The Sophists taught
artistic quality in oratory (motivation via speech) as a manner of
demonstrating one's arête. Oratory was taught as an art form, used to please
and to influence other people via excellent speech; nonetheless, the Sophists
taught the pupil to seek arête in all endeavours, not solely in oratory.
Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be
discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates
valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for
persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To
Socrates, truth, not arête, was the greater good, and each person should, above
all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the
Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory
requiring neither logic nor proof.[2] Different forms of dialectical reasoning
emerged from the Indosphere (Greater India) and in the West (Europe), and
throughout history; Socratic method, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian
dialectics, Marxist, Talmudic, and Neo-orthodoxy."
Ron:
Socrates maintained that what the Sophists were doing was a lower form of art
than the art of precision
argueing that the best and most useful arts used precision and accuracy. The
truly excellent holds to
the precise and accurate in experience.
Socrates argued in fact that a true art, for rhetoric to be able to even call
itself an art, it must be based
in precision and accuracy, it must be useful and beneficial. The flip side is
the appearence of art of
statements designed to stir the heart of the hearer, without any root in
practical meaning.
Dmb:
And then you can see this contrasted with "Empiricism". The Wiki article on
that says,...
"Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or
primarily via sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the
study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism and historicism,
empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory
perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or
traditions[1].
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as
discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method
that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the
natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or
revelation. [...]
The English term "empiric" derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which is
cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the
word "experience" and the related "experiment". The term was used of the
Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, who rejected the
doctrines of the (Dogmatic school), preferring to rely on the observation of
phenomena.[2] [...]
Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced
unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience.[3] This view is
commonly contrasted with rationalism, which asserts that knowledge may be
derived from reason independently of the senses. For example John Locke held
that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at
through intuition and reasoning alone. Similarly Robert Boyle, a prominent
advocate of the experimental method, held that we have innate ideas.[4][5] The
main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were also
advocates of the empirical "scientific method".[6] [7]
Early empiricismSee also: Tabula Rasa and Nous.The notion of tabula rasa
("clean slate" or "blank tablet") connotes a view of mind as an originally
blank or empty recorder (Locke used the words "white paper") on which
experience leaves marks. This denies that humans have innate ideas. The image
dates back to Aristotle;
What the mind (nous) thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a
tablet (grammateion) which bears no actual writing (grammenon); this is just
what happens in the case of the mind. (Aristotle, On the Soul,
3.4.430a1).Aristotle's explanation of how this was possible, was not strictly
empiricist in a modern sense, but rather based on his theory of potentiality
and actuality, and experience of sense perceptions still requires the help of
the active nous. These notions contrasted with Platonic notions of the human
mind as an entity that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent
down to join a body on Earth (see Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as
others). Aristotle was considered to give a more important position to sense
perception than Plato, and commentators in the middle ages summarized one of
his positions as "nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu" (Latin for
"nothing in the intellect without first being in the
senses")."
Ron:
We can see the misinterpretation immediately on the theory of forms, Socrates
posited that the forms eternal
are the forms handed to us by the culture. they exist prior to us because they
are handed down to us from
our ancestors. It was considered accepted knowledge by Aristotle that percepts
were changing and in flux
but it's how concepts excercised limit in experience that mattered most,
meaning is what matters most
in empiricism thus precision in measure the laws on non-contradiction ect. the
basis of all scientific method
and classification.
DmB:
The dictionary will say the same thing, of course.
"empiricism |emˈpirəˌsizəm|noun Philosophythe theory that all knowledge is
derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science,
it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John
Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume."
rationalism |ˈra sh ənlˌizəm; ˈra sh nəˌlizəm|nouna belief or theory that
opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on
religious belief or emotional response : scientific rationalism.• Philosophy
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in
knowledge.
I think we can't rightly communicate unless these terms mean the same thing to
both of us.
Ron:
They both mean the same to us only without the either/or exclusive-ness if we
can agree on that.
Both are required, that is the point, it is not an either or within the context
of the conversation
we need to break them down into what we mean contextually. Again, the
traditional definitions
arent going to help at first.
To start, it is the contention of Pragmatism that traditional empiricism also
is prone to cultural assumptions
that scientists often draw conclusions from opinion and build opinion into
their observations.
They tend to rationalize without really understanding they are doing so.
Aristotle and Socrates maintain the same point of view and once this is
understood it really challenges
the traditional exclusive point of view.
To rationalize to Socrates And Aristotle is to form a conceptual understanding
and without conceptual
understanding perceptions are meaningless, without distinction without limit.
Their rationalism is the art of crafting meaning from experience.
Arent we saying the same? are we not expanding rationality? because when you
really look at
what we are saying, contrasted with the traditional view, MoQ is a form of
rationalism that says
true empiricism is a myth. But a Radical empiricism accepts that rationalism is
a neccessity to
experience it makes us human and the best ideas are those that are accurate and
precise in experience.
Thus "The good" the most general concept the most base understanding of all is
also the most
empirical it is the root of empiricism.
....
Thnx Dave
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
