The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Ivo

Sep 25, 07 - 8:17 PM

Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

Where does the Philosopher write that
when human intelligence is confronted with the highest truths,
it is in the same situation as
the owl who is dazzled by the light of the sun?

Ivo

Sep 26th, 2007 - 12:45 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

I solve my own problem.

Metaphysics, II (Alpha the Lesser), 1, 993b10.

For just as bats’ eyes are towards daylight, so in our soul is the mind towards those things that are clearest of all.
(Penguin Books translation by Hugh Lawson-Tancred)

For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all.
(W.D. Ross translation)

Here’s the reference which disclosed to me to the place in the Metaphysics:
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:a971tCDqtz8J:www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C03.pdf+aristotle+metaphysics+owl+light&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4
It translates, in the text to which footnote 18 refers, as follows:
Our intelligence is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun.

Kevin

Sep 26th, 2007 - 12:49 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

IVO (asks):
Where does the Philosopher write that when human intelligence is confronted with the highest truths,
it is in the same situation as the owl who is dazzled by the light of the sun?

ANSWER:
Aristotle, or perhaps his translator, writes about BAT's eyes being dazzled by a blaze of light in the sky, at Metaphysics BK. II, Ch. 1, 993b, line 10. It is St. Thomas Aquinas who paraphrases Aristotle, concerning the eyes of OWLS, in bright sunlight, at Summa I, Q.1, Article 5., Reply Objection 1, concerning the nobility of diverse SCIENCES.

ARISTOTLE:
993a line 30: "The investigation of TRUTH is in one way hard, in another way easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that NO ONE is able to attain the TRUTH adequately, while, on the other hand, we do not collectively FAIL, but EVERY ONE says something TRUE about the NATURE of THINGS, and while individually we contribute little or nothing to TRUTH, by the UNION OF ALL a considerable amount of TRUTH is amassed. Therefore, since the TRUTH seems like the proverbial door (ie. TRUTH is as big as THE BARN DOOR that we can't miss KB), which no one can fail to hit, in this respect it must be easy, but the fact that we can have the WHOLE TRUTH and NOT the particular part (of the barn door KB) we aim at shows the difficulty of it (ie. hitting that little "bulls eye" painted on a barn door).

Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds (in things and in us human beings KB), the cause of the present difficulty is NOT in the FACTS but in us. For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all.

It is just (right; correct; "pious" KB) that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the POWERS of thought. It is true that if there had been no Timotheus we should have been without much of our LYRIC POETRY; but if there had been no Phrynus there would have been no Timotheus.

The same holds good of those who have expressed views about THE TRUTH; for from some thinkers we have inherited various OPINIONS, while the others (with differing opinions KB) have been responsible for the appearance of the former ("inherited" opinions of Aristotle and friends KB).

It is right also that PHILOSOPHY should be called KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH (contrary to a previous opinion expressed by Ivo that Aristotle did not write much about the truth; KB). For the END of THEORETICAL knowledge is TRUTH, while that of PRACTICAL knowledge is ACTION (for even if they consider how things are, PRACTICAL men do not STUDY the ETERNAL, but what is RELATIVE and in the PRESENT; Aristotle's brackets KB).

Now we do not KNOW a TRUTH without its CAUSE; and a thing has a QUALTITY in a higher degree than other things, if in virtue of it, the similar QUALITY belongs to the other things as well (eg. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the CAUSE of the heat of all other things; ARISTOTLE); so that (it follows KB) that-which-CAUSES derivative TRUTHS to be TRUE is MOST TRUE. Hence the PRINCIPLES of ETERNAL THINGS must be always most TRUE (for they are not merely sometimes TRUE, nor is their any CAUSE of their BEING, but they themselves are the CAUSES of the BEING of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of BEING, so it is in respect of TRUTH. [Metaphysics BK II, Ch.1, 993b line 30]

Compare with,
UNCLE BERTIE RUSSELL:
"Thus to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied NOT for the sake of any DEFINITE answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as A RULE, be known to be TRUE, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination {Read "Ego"? KB) and diminish the dogmatic assurance (that there are such things as TRUE and FALSE answers to questions KB) which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that UNION with the UNIVERSE which constitutes its HIGHEST GOOD.
----"not signed" Uncle Bertie Russell; THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, 1912; final paragraph---

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:
(Russell recommends the "philosophy student" to)
PLATO Republic especially Books VI and VII
DESCARTES; Meditations
SPINOZA; Ethics
LEIBNIZ; The Monadology
BERKELEY; Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (sounds like matter and mind KB)
HUME; Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
KANT; Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic.

NOTE:
Every one of those "philosophers/ies" is anti-Aristotle, and anti-realism, in extremis, as was the case with Russell himself.

Kevin

Ivo

Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:14 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

WRITTEN BEFORE READING KEVIN's REPLY

I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress.

Here’s the introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred to Metaphysics, Alpha the Lesser, I

In this chapter, Aristotle makes some general comments on the prospects for making progress with philosophical investigations. These are, on the one hand, difficult because of the extent and variety of the field, but on the other they are easy in that human beings have a natural aptitude to philosophise at least to some extent. What is hard is to do philosophy well, just as it is hard for moles to see the daylight. A recipe, for progress, at any rate, is collaboration. The best way to pursue the object of philosophy is by systematic inquiry in a well-organised institution. It is a striking feature of the “Metaphysics” that it suggests that philosophy is naturally a group activity, not a matter of individual, personal inspiration.
In the second half of the chapter, Aristotle makes some remarks about TRUTH. Truth, here, is something closer to the concept of reality. Aristotle thinks that things, especially causes, have greater or lesser truth depending on whether they have more or less being.

Contrast the first paragraph of this introduction to
Peter van Inwagen, “Metaphysics”, Boulder, Colorado, Westview, 2002, 2nd. ed., pp 9 and 10

The study of metaphysics / philosophy has yielded no established facts.

If some branch of philosophy were suddenly to undergo a revolutionary transformation and begin, as a consequence, to yield real information ,
it would cease to be regarded as a branch of philosophy
and would come to be regarded as one of the sciences.

It is, in fact, a very plausible thesis that this is just how “the sciences” began.
At one time what we now call natural science was not clearly distinguished from what we now call philosophy –
it was then called “natural philosophy”.
When the sciences, as we now call them, began to yield real information,
they began to be perceived as something different from metaphysics, epistemology and ethics,
and the word “science” (verb scrire – to know) was reserved for them.

The word “scientia” already existed, but before that time , a “science” was what we should call a “discipline” today.

Now,
Why is there no philosophical information?
Why is there no agreed upon body of philosophical facts?

It would not be the whole truth to say that BY DEFINITION there is no body of philosophical fact because it was a defining characteristic of philosophy that it has no information to offer.

A few one-time branches of philosophy
(natural sciences and logic and psychology, say)
may have, at a certain point in history begun to be sources of information
and thus, for that reason, have ceased to be called “philosophy”

but metaphysics and ethics and most other branches of philosophy have not been able to make the transition natural science and logic and psychology have made.
Why not?

The question is itself a philosophical question.
belonging to meta-philosophy

ACCORDING TO ONE POINT OF VIEW
this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy
- philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer

ACCORDING TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind
- there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions

Ivo:
I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress.

Ivo

Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:45 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

Kevin,

Thank you for having capitalised in the Ross translation as follows:
For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all.

As you can imagine, the latest fact which makes me “philosophise” about the things which are by nature most evident of all TO REASON,
is still that Microsoft judgment of last week of the European Union Court of First Instance.

Why is that people can disagree so strongly on what is evident to reason?

Is it, as Van Inwagen surmises, that there is something about the mind of (most? so-called) humans that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions?

Kevin

Sep 26th, 2007 - 3:30 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

WRITTEN BEFORE READING KEVIN's REPLY

I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress.

REPLY:
Yes. One day he will start his own forum to solve all the problems of philosophy --- SYSTEMATICALLY.

Here’s the introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred to Metaphysics, Alpha the Lesser, I

In this chapter, Aristotle makes some general comments on the prospects for making progress with philosophical investigations. These are, on the one hand, difficult because of the extent and variety of the field, but on the other they are easy in that human beings have a natural aptitude to philosophise at least to some extent.

COMMENT:
To actually say TRUE things, which hit the proverbial barn door, but not the bull's eye painted on the door of the barn.

TANCRED:
What is hard is to do philosophy well, just as it is hard for moles to see the daylight. A recipe, for progress, at any rate, is collaboration. The best way to pursue the object of philosophy is by systematic inquiry in a well-organised institution.

COMMENT:
So long as the institution doesn't MISS THE MARK and go further astray, as did Speusippus and the later Academic Mathematicians.

TANCRED:
It is a striking feature of the “Metaphysics” that it suggests that philosophy is naturally a group activity, not a matter of individual, personal inspiration. In the second half of the chapter, Aristotle makes some remarks about TRUTH. Truth, here, is something closer to the concept of reality.

COMMENT:
BEING and the ETERNAL CAUSES of BEING, both in truth and in factual translation.

TANCRED:
Aristotle thinks that things, especially causes, have greater or lesser truth depending on whether they have more or less being.

COMMENT:
A very vague paraphrase.

IVO:
Contrast the first paragraph of this introduction to
Peter van Inwagen, “Metaphysics”, Boulder, Colorado, Westview, 2002, 2nd. ed., pp 9 and 10

The study of metaphysics / philosophy has yielded no established facts.

REPLY:
According to Bertrand Russell, whom this man regurgitates quite accurately from the PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, but not according to Aristotle who names the "philosophical sciences" as (1) Abstract mathematics, (2) Physics and (3) Theology --- which give us so much of "the divine" (or "eternal") which appears to us.

contd.

Kevin

Sep 26th, 2007 - 4:12 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

OTHER GUY'S INTRODUCTION TO METAPHYSICS:
If some branch of philosophy were suddenly to undergo a revolutionary transformation and begin, as a consequence, to yield real information, it would cease to be regarded as a branch of philosophy
and would come to be regarded as one of the sciences.

COMMENT:
More Uncle Bertie regurgitation.

OTHER GUY:
It is, in fact, a very plausible thesis that this is just how “the sciences” began. At one time what we now call natural science was not clearly distinguished from what we now call philosophy –
it was then called “natural philosophy”.

COMMENT:
It was actually called PHUSIKE (philosophy of movable/changeable bodies), which got translated as PHYSICS by "modern people" (in the 10th century)! This fella is a "real genius"!!!

OTHER GUY:
When the sciences, as we now call them, began to yield real information, they began to be perceived as something different from metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and the word “science” (verb scrire – to know) was reserved for them.

COMMENT:
Some Latin guys, Germans, Frenchmen, English guys, etc. failed to learn the Greek roots of their various mathematical and physical disciplines, since the Latin SCIENTIUM and the Greek GNOUS, or gnosis, which becomes Knowledge in the Germanic tongues mean exactly the same thing --- SCIENCE/knowledge.

OTHER GUY:
The word “scientia” already existed, but before that time , a “science” was what we should call a “discipline” today.

COMMENT:
Latin, SCIENCE = Greek GNOSIS/knowledge. Different words with the same MEANING, although the Greeks better distinguished Speculative/Theoretical knowledge from Practical and Productive knowledge, which they called TECHNE (Latin "ars" or English "art") which is the source for our modern derivative term TECHNOLOGY.

Now,
Why is there no philosophical information?

REPLY:
There is, despite what modern sceptics "blather", by regurgitating 17TH century sceptics and sophists and their modern re-regurgitators, like Uncle Bertie.

IVO:
Why is there no agreed upon body of philosophical facts?

REPLY:
Because a litter error in the beginning, such as "the senses deceive us" (they don't about their proper objects) and "we can clearly perceive our own clear and distinct 'ideas'" (we can't; IDEAS are intrinsically IMPERCEIVABLE) stops "progress" and results in more and more CONTRADICTIONS between and among those who think "little errors" are TRUE.

IVO:
It would not be the whole truth to say that BY DEFINITION there is no body of philosophical fact because it was a defining characteristic of philosophy that it has no information to offer.

REPLY:
What you have written is only a TAUTOLOGY. Philosophy gives no facts "because" philosophy gives no information (facts).

OTHER GUY (or Ivo):
A few one-time branches of philosophy (natural sciences and logic and psychology, say) may have, at a certain point in history begun to be sources of information and thus, for that reason, have ceased to be called “philosophy”.

COMMENT:
But their leading exponents, and discoverers of new TRUTHS have always been considered "wise" or "great minds" or "great scientists" which is exactly what PHILOSOPHER meant in ancient Athens.

And nobody has refuted Euclidean Geometry, although they have gone "beyond it" (non-Euclidean geometries). Meanwhile every "modern scientific theory" has been replaced or severely modified on the same "philosophical grounds" by which Socrates refuted his interlocutors in ancient Athens --- breaches of the LAW OF CONTRADICTION --- clear observed CONTRADICTIONS of speculative theories, otherwise known as Counter-Examples, strictly in accordance with Aristotle's 1st Principle of Thought.

Philosophy LIVES ON, despite the ignorance of Academic Sophists and Russellian regurgitators.

KEVIN (to be continued)

Kevin

Sep 26th, 2007 - 5:21 AM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

OTHER GUY:
"but metaphysics and ethics and most other branches of philosophy have not been able to make the transition natural science and logic and psychology have made.
Why not?"

ANSWER:
Because Cartesian so-called "Metaphysics" is the direct LOGICAL CONTRADICTION of Aristotle's Primary Philosophy (Metaphysics). All modern philosophers begin with Descartes's "goofy meditation" as a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of ancient Metaphysics --- the study of being, unity and CONTRARIETY in individual substances and in secondary substances (Substance Qualitatively Differentiated). In sum Every Contradiction of TRUTH results in further contradictions of TRUTH.

But actual natural philosophers (scientists), otherwise known as Physicists or Physicians don't read 17th Century or 18th Century SOPHISTS. They go on learning knew truths by means of EXTENSIONS OF THE RANGE AND POWERR of their natural sensory organs.

Instead of a pair of natural "scopes" (eyes), they have telescopes, microscopes and CAT scanners, etc. to help them see smaller things and farther things, exactly as Aristotle mentions in the very first lines of his version of METAPHYSICS --- and above all other senses we love the sense of SIGHT because it, above all of our other senses, SHOWS US the similarities and differences between things.

OTHER GUY or IVO:
The question is itself a philosophical question,
belonging to meta-philosophy.

REPLY:
Nonsense. It is THE SCEPTICAL ASSERTION merely phrased as a "loaded question".

ACCORDING TO ONE POINT OF VIEW
this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy
- philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer.

COMMENT:
Russell-regurgitation.

ACCORDING TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind
- there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions.

COMMENT:
Same thesis. One blames "philosophy" as incompetent, the second blames human minds as incompetent. It's the SCEPTICAL thesis regurgitated on either "view"! N.B. The sceptic's major premise:-"Every human being is an ignoramous." (Except me, because I know Geometry, Arithmetic or Logic). Snore!

Ivo:
I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress.
Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

YES, as you said before.

Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:45 AM

IVO:

Kevin,

Thank you for having capitalised in the Ross translation as follows: For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all.

COMMENT:
Aristotle mentions bats. Aquinas mentions owls. And your latest "metaphysician-sceptic" talked of MOLES (which actually have their eyes covered by skin, if I am not mistaken).

IVO:
As you can imagine, the latest fact which makes me “philosophise” about the things which are by nature most evident of all TO REASON, is still that Microsoft judgment of last week of the European Union Court of First Instance.

Why is that people can disagree so strongly on what is evident to reason?

REPLY:
You're not talking about "people", here, Ivo. You are talking about DIALECTICAL SOPHISTS, otherwise known as lawyers, who love to sue MICROSOFT, because Bill Gates never counter-sues them. Bill's dad was a lawyer. All lawyers love to sue RICH PEOPLE and RICH CORPORATIONS, who don't sue them back to their lying two faces. Law Courts are the only places in the world that 2 lawyers can directly CONTRADICT each other and walk out of court, both paid for pleading DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS and without one being jailed for PERJURY.

However, if/when the direct party litigants try such DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS "on the stand", they, rarely, are jailed for perjury. However, nobody who sues MICROSOFT goes to jail for perjury, because there is NO BIG MONEY for all the lawyers involved ON BOTH SIDES if Microsoft-suers LOSE and/or go to jail.

Microsoft always loses or settles out of court and everybody pays a few bucks extra, on the next OPERATING SYSTEM, to pay all the legal fees (both sides) out of the proceeds from the last system.

IVO:
Is it, as Van Inwagen surmises, that there is something about the mind of (most? so-called) humans that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions?
Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.

ANSWER:
Van Imwagen, if it is actually his "surmise" and not your actual surmise, Ivo, is an IDIOT (the logical opposite of a patriot who recognizes any RULE OF LAW, whether LOGICAL-LAW or "common-law-morality", otherwise known as "legality").

COMMENT:
I LOVE Bill Gates for the simple reason that he TRANSLATED mathematical machine language into simple English Commands! Hence, he became a multi - billionaire for DOING what modern SL logicians try to do, but --- KANT!!!

Gates is a billionaire "mathematical-grammarian"! Two LIBERAL ARTS (grammar; math) are still valuable arts to KNOW as Bill has proved.

Ivo

Sep 26th, 2007 - 8:54 PM

Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

Russell-regurgitation

The back cover of Van Inwagen says that he is teaching at the University of Notre Dame. I understand this to be Catholic university.

His quoted book on Metaphysics does not discuss the principle of non-contradiction (PNC).

But he spends many pages discussing the Principle of Sufficient Reason which says that:
for every truth, for every thing that is so, there is a sufficient reason for its being true or being so (p. 115)

For Alvira, Clavell and Melendo from the University of Navarra on p. 41 in their book “Metaphysics” (translated into English by Sinag-Tala Publishers in Manila)
the Principle of Causality says that
every effect has a cause
OR
that
everything which begins TO BE is caused
(Ivo: That’s the same principle of sufficient reason)

But Alvira, Clavell and Melendo say that this is not a first principle at all
BECAUSE
it involves notion (cause, effect) that are more restricted
and come after the notions of ens (being) and non-ens

It thus presupposes the PNC
and
has a more limited scope, say Alvira, Clavell and Melendo.

How is it possible that somebody who teaches Philosophy at university level is ignorant of Aristotle and the PNC?

Is it, as Van Inwagen himself surmises (p. 10), that there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions?

Van Steenberghen writes that he (Van Steenberghen) considers this so-called principle of sufficient reason not to be separate from the principle of intelligibility which says that each being is intelligible, that is, each being can be assimilated by my intelligence, each being can be known by my intelligence to the extent precisely that it is.
The value (I’m not happy with this translation of “valeur”) of being by which a being opposes itself to nothing and by which that being is thus relative to nothing is precisely what renders that being intelligible
(Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X de Guibert, ed.), « Philosophie fondamentale », Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, pp 372 - 373).

Van Inwagen spends many pages on the question why there is nothing rather than nothing.

Van Inwagen writes p. 87
If there were nothing, WE should not be here to ask the question
Van Steenberghen says that “nothing” is unintelligible.

Here’s Robert Nozick, “Philosophical Explanations”, Belknap of Harvard UP, p. 115
Any factor introduced to explain why there is something will itself be part of the something to be explained
==>
it could not explain there is ANYTHING at all
==>
the question appears impossible to answer

Nozick: the question demarcates a limit of what we can hope to understand

Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 116
The question raises issues about the limits of our understanding.
Is it possible for everything to be explained?

Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 117
EITHER
there are no foundations to sciences,
no most fundamental or deep explanatory principles
OR
there are some truths without any explanation

Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 138’
One of philosophy’s tasks is
to probe so deeply as to uncover fundamental truths,
to list and identify these,
and to trace out what they yield, including themselves.
To succeed in this should occasion pride, not shame.

What thinkest thou?

Here’s Nozick on The principle of Sufficient Reason in the chapter on “Why there is something, rather than nothing?”

Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p 140
The Principle of Sufficient Reason says;
every truth has an explanation

Is the principle true, does it apply to itself, and if so what is its sufficient reason? Is the principle of sufficient reason , call it SR a brute fact or does it have a sufficient reason? If we assume SR is true and apply to to itself, we can conclude that there is some truth q which explains SR. Self-applied, SR says there is something true which explains it, but does not say what that something is. In particular, SR does not provide the explanation of itself via self-subsumption.

Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 141
Alternatively, though otherwise true, SR may fall outside its own scope and so be without a SR of its own.

quantum mechanics does not satisfy the P of SR
==>
weaker version says
not that every truth has a sufficient reason or explanation
rather it views truth’s having a SR as a natural state,
deviations from which can occur for reason

but we can even weaken it further.

Ivo:
Does Nozick want to weaken intelligibility?

The bat is dazzled by the light of truth.

Kevin

Sep 27th, 2007 - 5:47 AM

Re: Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl

IVO
The back cover of Van Inwagen says that he is teaching at the University of Notre Dame. I understand this to be Catholic university.

REPLY:
I understand that Descartes was a Catholic and that transendental Thomists are actual Catholic-Kantians, dressed up like "Thomists" at a "philosophical costume ball". Fakes. Sham philosophers. Sophists. Do you actually think that just because I am a Catholic that I actually believe most Catholics. You really are naIVO.

His quoted book on Metaphysics does not discuss the principle of non-contradiction (PNC).

REPLY:
Well Aristotle does, and the subject header says Aristotle and not Imwagen.

IVO:
But he spends many pages discussing the Principle of Sufficient Reason which says that:
for every truth, for every thing that is so, there is a sufficient reason for its being true or being so (p. 115)

REPLY:
Sure! I really believe that "Sufficient Reason" has something to say about "itself"! This is modern non-sense in extremis. Principles which talk about themselves. UGH. Where do you find these "philosophical" COMIC BOOKS and comedians who have NOTHING intellible and EVERYTHING banal "to say", Ivo? Infinite regress.

For Alvira, Clavell and Melendo from the University of Navarra on p. 41 in their book “Metaphysics” (translated into English by Sinag-Tala Publishers in Manila)
the Principle of Causality says that
every effect has a cause
OR
that
everything which begins TO BE is caused
(Ivo: That’s the same principle of sufficient reason)

But Alvira, Clavell and Melendo say that this is not a first principle at all
BECAUSE
it involves notion (cause, effect) that are more restricted
and come after the notions of ens (being) and non-ens

It thus presupposes the PNC
and
has a more limited scope, say Alvira, Clavell and Melendo.

How is it possible that somebody who teaches Philosophy at university level is ignorant of Aristotle and the PNC?

REPLY:
Gee! Maybe they're sophists who cite Aristotle, but actually believe somebody else. Who knows whom?

IVO:
Is it, as Van Inwagen himself surmises (p. 10), that there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions?

REPLY:
Maybe his mind is unfit. He must have a mind. Who knows, for sure, the fit from the unfit.

IVO:
Van Steenberghen writes that he (Van Steenberghen) considers this so-called principle of sufficient reason not to be separate from the principle of intelligibility which says that each being is intelligible, that is, each being can be assimilated by my intelligence, each being can be known by my intelligence to the extent precisely that it is.

COMMENT:
Nobody can know each being, let alone assimilate each being into their intelligence.

IVO:
The value (I’m not happy with this translation of “valeur”) of being by which a being opposes itself to nothing and by which that being is thus relative to nothing is precisely what renders that being intelligible
(Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X de Guibert, ed.), « Philosophie fondamentale », Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, pp 372 - 373).

REPLY:
Sounds like the guy has been reading too much Heidegger to make much sense. On Being and Nothingness. Ugh. There is nothing Aristotle here, nor REALIST above.

IVO:
Van Inwagen spends many pages on the question why there is nothing rather than nothing.

REPLY:
No he doesn't. He might have spent many pages on the question why there is something rather than nothing. Sounds like a "deep thinker".

Van Inwagen writes p. 87
If there were nothing, WE should not be here to ask the question. Van Steenberghen says that “nothing” is unintelligible.

REPLY:
As I said "deep-thinker"! Somebody should give him NOTHING TO EAT (meaning NOT give him anything to eat) for about 30 days. Then NOTHING might be more intelligible to him. It is called the PRIVATION intelligible.

MORE LATER, although it makes no sense to criticize or ridicule your CARTOON "metaphysicians", none of which are Aristotle NOR any who say very much.

The actual reason why you don't go anywhere in actually understanding Aristotle, Ivo. "The list" goes nowhere because, it seems that you read anybody and everybody EXCEPT Aristotle.
KB

Author	Comment
Ivo Sep 25, 07 - 8:17 PM	Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl Where does the Philosopher write that when human intelligence is confronted with the highest truths, it is in the same situation as the owl who is dazzled by the light of the sun? Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Sep 26th, 2007 - 12:45 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl I solve my own problem. Metaphysics, II (Alpha the Lesser), 1, 993b10. For just as bats’ eyes are towards daylight, so in our soul is the mind towards those things that are clearest of all. (Penguin Books translation by Hugh Lawson-Tancred) For as the eyes of bats are to the blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature most evident of all. (W.D. Ross translation) Here’s the reference which disclosed to me to the place in the Metaphysics: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:a971tCDqtz8J:www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C03.pdf+aristotle+metaphysics+owl+light&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4 It translates, in the text to which footnote 18 refers, as follows: Our intelligence is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Sep 26th, 2007 - 12:49 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl IVO (asks): Where does the Philosopher write that when human intelligence is confronted with the highest truths, it is in the same situation as the owl who is dazzled by the light of the sun? ANSWER: Aristotle, or perhaps his translator, writes about BAT's eyes being dazzled by a blaze of light in the sky, at Metaphysics BK. II, Ch. 1, 993b, line 10. It is St. Thomas Aquinas who paraphrases Aristotle, concerning the eyes of OWLS, in bright sunlight, at Summa I, Q.1, Article 5., Reply Objection 1, concerning the nobility of diverse SCIENCES. ARISTOTLE: 993a line 30: "The investigation of TRUTH is in one way hard, in another way easy. An indication of this is found in the fact that NO ONE is able to attain the TRUTH adequately, while, on the other hand, we do not collectively FAIL, but EVERY ONE says something TRUE about the NATURE of THINGS, and while individually we contribute little or nothing to TRUTH, by the UNION OF ALL a considerable amount of TRUTH is amassed. Therefore, since the TRUTH seems like the proverbial door (ie. TRUTH is as big as THE BARN DOOR that we can't miss KB), which no one can fail to hit, in this respect it must be easy, but the fact that we can have the WHOLE TRUTH and NOT the particular part (of the barn door KB) we aim at shows the difficulty of it (ie. hitting that little "bulls eye" painted on a barn door). Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds (in things and in us human beings KB), the cause of the present difficulty is NOT in the FACTS but in us. For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all. It is just (right; correct; "pious" KB) that we should be grateful, not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the POWERS of thought. It is true that if there had been no Timotheus we should have been without much of our LYRIC POETRY; but if there had been no Phrynus there would have been no Timotheus. The same holds good of those who have expressed views about THE TRUTH; for from some thinkers we have inherited various OPINIONS, while the others (with differing opinions KB) have been responsible for the appearance of the former ("inherited" opinions of Aristotle and friends KB). It is right also that PHILOSOPHY should be called KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH (contrary to a previous opinion expressed by Ivo that Aristotle did not write much about the truth; KB). For the END of THEORETICAL knowledge is TRUTH, while that of PRACTICAL knowledge is ACTION (for even if they consider how things are, PRACTICAL men do not STUDY the ETERNAL, but what is RELATIVE and in the PRESENT; Aristotle's brackets KB). Now we do not KNOW a TRUTH without its CAUSE; and a thing has a QUALTITY in a higher degree than other things, if in virtue of it, the similar QUALITY belongs to the other things as well (eg. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the CAUSE of the heat of all other things; ARISTOTLE); so that (it follows KB) that-which-CAUSES derivative TRUTHS to be TRUE is MOST TRUE. Hence the PRINCIPLES of ETERNAL THINGS must be always most TRUE (for they are not merely sometimes TRUE, nor is their any CAUSE of their BEING, but they themselves are the CAUSES of the BEING of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of BEING, so it is in respect of TRUTH. [Metaphysics BK II, Ch.1, 993b line 30] Compare with, UNCLE BERTIE RUSSELL: "Thus to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied NOT for the sake of any DEFINITE answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as A RULE, be known to be TRUE, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination {Read "Ego"? KB) and diminish the dogmatic assurance (that there are such things as TRUE and FALSE answers to questions KB) which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that UNION with the UNIVERSE which constitutes its HIGHEST GOOD. ----"not signed" Uncle Bertie Russell; THE PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, 1912; final paragraph--- BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: (Russell recommends the "philosophy student" to) PLATO Republic especially Books VI and VII DESCARTES; Meditations SPINOZA; Ethics LEIBNIZ; The Monadology BERKELEY; Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (sounds like matter and mind KB) HUME; Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding KANT; Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysic. NOTE: Every one of those "philosophers/ies" is anti-Aristotle, and anti-realism, in extremis, as was the case with Russell himself. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:14 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl WRITTEN BEFORE READING KEVIN's REPLY I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress. Here’s the introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred to Metaphysics, Alpha the Lesser, I In this chapter, Aristotle makes some general comments on the prospects for making progress with philosophical investigations. These are, on the one hand, difficult because of the extent and variety of the field, but on the other they are easy in that human beings have a natural aptitude to philosophise at least to some extent. What is hard is to do philosophy well, just as it is hard for moles to see the daylight. A recipe, for progress, at any rate, is collaboration. The best way to pursue the object of philosophy is by systematic inquiry in a well-organised institution. It is a striking feature of the “Metaphysics” that it suggests that philosophy is naturally a group activity, not a matter of individual, personal inspiration. In the second half of the chapter, Aristotle makes some remarks about TRUTH. Truth, here, is something closer to the concept of reality. Aristotle thinks that things, especially causes, have greater or lesser truth depending on whether they have more or less being. Contrast the first paragraph of this introduction to Peter van Inwagen, “Metaphysics”, Boulder, Colorado, Westview, 2002, 2nd. ed., pp 9 and 10 The study of metaphysics / philosophy has yielded no established facts. If some branch of philosophy were suddenly to undergo a revolutionary transformation and begin, as a consequence, to yield real information , it would cease to be regarded as a branch of philosophy and would come to be regarded as one of the sciences. It is, in fact, a very plausible thesis that this is just how “the sciences” began. At one time what we now call natural science was not clearly distinguished from what we now call philosophy – it was then called “natural philosophy”. When the sciences, as we now call them, began to yield real information, they began to be perceived as something different from metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and the word “science” (verb scrire – to know) was reserved for them. The word “scientia” already existed, but before that time , a “science” was what we should call a “discipline” today. Now, Why is there no philosophical information? Why is there no agreed upon body of philosophical facts? It would not be the whole truth to say that BY DEFINITION there is no body of philosophical fact because it was a defining characteristic of philosophy that it has no information to offer. A few one-time branches of philosophy (natural sciences and logic and psychology, say) may have, at a certain point in history begun to be sources of information and thus, for that reason, have ceased to be called “philosophy” but metaphysics and ethics and most other branches of philosophy have not been able to make the transition natural science and logic and psychology have made. Why not? The question is itself a philosophical question. belonging to meta-philosophy ACCORDING TO ONE POINT OF VIEW this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy - philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer ACCORDING TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind - there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions Ivo: I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:45 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl Kevin, Thank you for having capitalised in the Ross translation as follows: For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all. As you can imagine, the latest fact which makes me “philosophise” about the things which are by nature most evident of all TO REASON, is still that Microsoft judgment of last week of the European Union Court of First Instance. Why is that people can disagree so strongly on what is evident to reason? Is it, as Van Inwagen surmises, that there is something about the mind of (most? so-called) humans that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions? Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Sep 26th, 2007 - 3:30 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl WRITTEN BEFORE READING KEVIN's REPLY I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress. REPLY: Yes. One day he will start his own forum to solve all the problems of philosophy --- SYSTEMATICALLY. Here’s the introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred to Metaphysics, Alpha the Lesser, I In this chapter, Aristotle makes some general comments on the prospects for making progress with philosophical investigations. These are, on the one hand, difficult because of the extent and variety of the field, but on the other they are easy in that human beings have a natural aptitude to philosophise at least to some extent. COMMENT: To actually say TRUE things, which hit the proverbial barn door, but not the bull's eye painted on the door of the barn. TANCRED: What is hard is to do philosophy well, just as it is hard for moles to see the daylight. A recipe, for progress, at any rate, is collaboration. The best way to pursue the object of philosophy is by systematic inquiry in a well-organised institution. COMMENT: So long as the institution doesn't MISS THE MARK and go further astray, as did Speusippus and the later Academic Mathematicians. TANCRED: It is a striking feature of the “Metaphysics” that it suggests that philosophy is naturally a group activity, not a matter of individual, personal inspiration. In the second half of the chapter, Aristotle makes some remarks about TRUTH. Truth, here, is something closer to the concept of reality. COMMENT: BEING and the ETERNAL CAUSES of BEING, both in truth and in factual translation. TANCRED: Aristotle thinks that things, especially causes, have greater or lesser truth depending on whether they have more or less being. COMMENT: A very vague paraphrase. IVO: Contrast the first paragraph of this introduction to Peter van Inwagen, “Metaphysics”, Boulder, Colorado, Westview, 2002, 2nd. ed., pp 9 and 10 The study of metaphysics / philosophy has yielded no established facts. REPLY: According to Bertrand Russell, whom this man regurgitates quite accurately from the PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, but not according to Aristotle who names the "philosophical sciences" as (1) Abstract mathematics, (2) Physics and (3) Theology --- which give us so much of "the divine" (or "eternal") which appears to us. contd. Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Sep 26th, 2007 - 4:12 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl OTHER GUY'S INTRODUCTION TO METAPHYSICS: If some branch of philosophy were suddenly to undergo a revolutionary transformation and begin, as a consequence, to yield real information, it would cease to be regarded as a branch of philosophy and would come to be regarded as one of the sciences. COMMENT: More Uncle Bertie regurgitation. OTHER GUY: It is, in fact, a very plausible thesis that this is just how “the sciences” began. At one time what we now call natural science was not clearly distinguished from what we now call philosophy – it was then called “natural philosophy”. COMMENT: It was actually called PHUSIKE (philosophy of movable/changeable bodies), which got translated as PHYSICS by "modern people" (in the 10th century)! This fella is a "real genius"!!! OTHER GUY: When the sciences, as we now call them, began to yield real information, they began to be perceived as something different from metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, and the word “science” (verb scrire – to know) was reserved for them. COMMENT: Some Latin guys, Germans, Frenchmen, English guys, etc. failed to learn the Greek roots of their various mathematical and physical disciplines, since the Latin SCIENTIUM and the Greek GNOUS, or gnosis, which becomes Knowledge in the Germanic tongues mean exactly the same thing --- SCIENCE/knowledge. OTHER GUY: The word “scientia” already existed, but before that time , a “science” was what we should call a “discipline” today. COMMENT: Latin, SCIENCE = Greek GNOSIS/knowledge. Different words with the same MEANING, although the Greeks better distinguished Speculative/Theoretical knowledge from Practical and Productive knowledge, which they called TECHNE (Latin "ars" or English "art") which is the source for our modern derivative term TECHNOLOGY. Now, Why is there no philosophical information? REPLY: There is, despite what modern sceptics "blather", by regurgitating 17TH century sceptics and sophists and their modern re-regurgitators, like Uncle Bertie. IVO: Why is there no agreed upon body of philosophical facts? REPLY: Because a litter error in the beginning, such as "the senses deceive us" (they don't about their proper objects) and "we can clearly perceive our own clear and distinct 'ideas'" (we can't; IDEAS are intrinsically IMPERCEIVABLE) stops "progress" and results in more and more CONTRADICTIONS between and among those who think "little errors" are TRUE. IVO: It would not be the whole truth to say that BY DEFINITION there is no body of philosophical fact because it was a defining characteristic of philosophy that it has no information to offer. REPLY: What you have written is only a TAUTOLOGY. Philosophy gives no facts "because" philosophy gives no information (facts). OTHER GUY (or Ivo): A few one-time branches of philosophy (natural sciences and logic and psychology, say) may have, at a certain point in history begun to be sources of information and thus, for that reason, have ceased to be called “philosophy”. COMMENT: But their leading exponents, and discoverers of new TRUTHS have always been considered "wise" or "great minds" or "great scientists" which is exactly what PHILOSOPHER meant in ancient Athens. And nobody has refuted Euclidean Geometry, although they have gone "beyond it" (non-Euclidean geometries). Meanwhile every "modern scientific theory" has been replaced or severely modified on the same "philosophical grounds" by which Socrates refuted his interlocutors in ancient Athens --- breaches of the LAW OF CONTRADICTION --- clear observed CONTRADICTIONS of speculative theories, otherwise known as Counter-Examples, strictly in accordance with Aristotle's 1st Principle of Thought. Philosophy LIVES ON, despite the ignorance of Academic Sophists and Russellian regurgitators. KEVIN (to be continued) Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Sep 26th, 2007 - 5:21 AM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl OTHER GUY: "but metaphysics and ethics and most other branches of philosophy have not been able to make the transition natural science and logic and psychology have made. Why not?" ANSWER: Because Cartesian so-called "Metaphysics" is the direct LOGICAL CONTRADICTION of Aristotle's Primary Philosophy (Metaphysics). All modern philosophers begin with Descartes's "goofy meditation" as a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of ancient Metaphysics --- the study of being, unity and CONTRARIETY in individual substances and in secondary substances (Substance Qualitatively Differentiated). In sum Every Contradiction of TRUTH results in further contradictions of TRUTH. But actual natural philosophers (scientists), otherwise known as Physicists or Physicians don't read 17th Century or 18th Century SOPHISTS. They go on learning knew truths by means of EXTENSIONS OF THE RANGE AND POWERR of their natural sensory organs. Instead of a pair of natural "scopes" (eyes), they have telescopes, microscopes and CAT scanners, etc. to help them see smaller things and farther things, exactly as Aristotle mentions in the very first lines of his version of METAPHYSICS --- and above all other senses we love the sense of SIGHT because it, above all of our other senses, SHOWS US the similarities and differences between things. OTHER GUY or IVO: The question is itself a philosophical question, belonging to meta-philosophy. REPLY: Nonsense. It is THE SCEPTICAL ASSERTION merely phrased as a "loaded question". ACCORDING TO ONE POINT OF VIEW this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy - philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer. COMMENT: Russell-regurgitation. ACCORDING TO ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind - there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions. COMMENT: Same thesis. One blames "philosophy" as incompetent, the second blames human minds as incompetent. It's the SCEPTICAL thesis regurgitated on either "view"! N.B. The sceptic's major premise:-"Every human being is an ignoramous." (Except me, because I know Geometry, Arithmetic or Logic). Snore! Ivo: I think it was Richard who complained that this Forum didn’t make any progress. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws YES, as you said before. Sep 26th, 2007 - 2:45 AM IVO: Kevin, Thank you for having capitalised in the Ross translation as follows: For as the EYES OF THE BAT are TO THE BLAZE OF THE DAY (993b line 10), so is the REASON in our soul to the THINGS which are BY NATURE most EVIDENT of all. COMMENT: Aristotle mentions bats. Aquinas mentions owls. And your latest "metaphysician-sceptic" talked of MOLES (which actually have their eyes covered by skin, if I am not mistaken). IVO: As you can imagine, the latest fact which makes me “philosophise” about the things which are by nature most evident of all TO REASON, is still that Microsoft judgment of last week of the European Union Court of First Instance. Why is that people can disagree so strongly on what is evident to reason? REPLY: You're not talking about "people", here, Ivo. You are talking about DIALECTICAL SOPHISTS, otherwise known as lawyers, who love to sue MICROSOFT, because Bill Gates never counter-sues them. Bill's dad was a lawyer. All lawyers love to sue RICH PEOPLE and RICH CORPORATIONS, who don't sue them back to their lying two faces. Law Courts are the only places in the world that 2 lawyers can directly CONTRADICT each other and walk out of court, both paid for pleading DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS and without one being jailed for PERJURY. However, if/when the direct party litigants try such DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS "on the stand", they, rarely, are jailed for perjury. However, nobody who sues MICROSOFT goes to jail for perjury, because there is NO BIG MONEY for all the lawyers involved ON BOTH SIDES if Microsoft-suers LOSE and/or go to jail. Microsoft always loses or settles out of court and everybody pays a few bucks extra, on the next OPERATING SYSTEM, to pay all the legal fees (both sides) out of the proceeds from the last system. IVO: Is it, as Van Inwagen surmises, that there is something about the mind of (most? so-called) humans that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions? Email: ivocerckel@siquijor. ANSWER: Van Imwagen, if it is actually his "surmise" and not your actual surmise, Ivo, is an IDIOT (the logical opposite of a patriot who recognizes any RULE OF LAW, whether LOGICAL-LAW or "common-law-morality", otherwise known as "legality"). COMMENT: I LOVE Bill Gates for the simple reason that he TRANSLATED mathematical machine language into simple English Commands! Hence, he became a multi - billionaire for DOING what modern SL logicians try to do, but --- KANT!!! Gates is a billionaire "mathematical-grammarian"! Two LIBERAL ARTS (grammar; math) are still valuable arts to KNOW as Bill has proved. Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Sep 26th, 2007 - 8:54 PM	Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl Russell-regurgitation The back cover of Van Inwagen says that he is teaching at the University of Notre Dame. I understand this to be Catholic university. His quoted book on Metaphysics does not discuss the principle of non-contradiction (PNC). But he spends many pages discussing the Principle of Sufficient Reason which says that: for every truth, for every thing that is so, there is a sufficient reason for its being true or being so (p. 115) For Alvira, Clavell and Melendo from the University of Navarra on p. 41 in their book “Metaphysics” (translated into English by Sinag-Tala Publishers in Manila) the Principle of Causality says that every effect has a cause OR that everything which begins TO BE is caused (Ivo: That’s the same principle of sufficient reason) But Alvira, Clavell and Melendo say that this is not a first principle at all BECAUSE it involves notion (cause, effect) that are more restricted and come after the notions of ens (being) and non-ens It thus presupposes the PNC and has a more limited scope, say Alvira, Clavell and Melendo. How is it possible that somebody who teaches Philosophy at university level is ignorant of Aristotle and the PNC? Is it, as Van Inwagen himself surmises (p. 10), that there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions? Van Steenberghen writes that he (Van Steenberghen) considers this so-called principle of sufficient reason not to be separate from the principle of intelligibility which says that each being is intelligible, that is, each being can be assimilated by my intelligence, each being can be known by my intelligence to the extent precisely that it is. The value (I’m not happy with this translation of “valeur”) of being by which a being opposes itself to nothing and by which that being is thus relative to nothing is precisely what renders that being intelligible (Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X de Guibert, ed.), « Philosophie fondamentale », Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, pp 372 - 373). Van Inwagen spends many pages on the question why there is nothing rather than nothing. Van Inwagen writes p. 87 If there were nothing, WE should not be here to ask the question Van Steenberghen says that “nothing” is unintelligible. Here’s Robert Nozick, “Philosophical Explanations”, Belknap of Harvard UP, p. 115 Any factor introduced to explain why there is something will itself be part of the something to be explained ==> it could not explain there is ANYTHING at all ==> the question appears impossible to answer Nozick: the question demarcates a limit of what we can hope to understand Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 116 The question raises issues about the limits of our understanding. Is it possible for everything to be explained? Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 117 EITHER there are no foundations to sciences, no most fundamental or deep explanatory principles OR there are some truths without any explanation Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 138’ One of philosophy’s tasks is to probe so deeply as to uncover fundamental truths, to list and identify these, and to trace out what they yield, including themselves. To succeed in this should occasion pride, not shame. What thinkest thou? Here’s Nozick on The principle of Sufficient Reason in the chapter on “Why there is something, rather than nothing?” Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p 140 The Principle of Sufficient Reason says; every truth has an explanation Is the principle true, does it apply to itself, and if so what is its sufficient reason? Is the principle of sufficient reason , call it SR a brute fact or does it have a sufficient reason? If we assume SR is true and apply to to itself, we can conclude that there is some truth q which explains SR. Self-applied, SR says there is something true which explains it, but does not say what that something is. In particular, SR does not provide the explanation of itself via self-subsumption. Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 141 Alternatively, though otherwise true, SR may fall outside its own scope and so be without a SR of its own. quantum mechanics does not satisfy the P of SR ==> weaker version says not that every truth has a sufficient reason or explanation rather it views truth’s having a SR as a natural state, deviations from which can occur for reason but we can even weaken it further. Ivo: Does Nozick want to weaken intelligibility? The bat is dazzled by the light of truth. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Sep 27th, 2007 - 5:47 AM	Re: Re: Aristotle and Metaphor of Owl IVO The back cover of Van Inwagen says that he is teaching at the University of Notre Dame. I understand this to be Catholic university. REPLY: I understand that Descartes was a Catholic and that transendental Thomists are actual Catholic-Kantians, dressed up like "Thomists" at a "philosophical costume ball". Fakes. Sham philosophers. Sophists. Do you actually think that just because I am a Catholic that I actually believe most Catholics. You really are naIVO. His quoted book on Metaphysics does not discuss the principle of non-contradiction (PNC). REPLY: Well Aristotle does, and the subject header says Aristotle and not Imwagen. IVO: But he spends many pages discussing the Principle of Sufficient Reason which says that: for every truth, for every thing that is so, there is a sufficient reason for its being true or being so (p. 115) REPLY: Sure! I really believe that "Sufficient Reason" has something to say about "itself"! This is modern non-sense in extremis. Principles which talk about themselves. UGH. Where do you find these "philosophical" COMIC BOOKS and comedians who have NOTHING intellible and EVERYTHING banal "to say", Ivo? Infinite regress. For Alvira, Clavell and Melendo from the University of Navarra on p. 41 in their book “Metaphysics” (translated into English by Sinag-Tala Publishers in Manila) the Principle of Causality says that every effect has a cause OR that everything which begins TO BE is caused (Ivo: That’s the same principle of sufficient reason) But Alvira, Clavell and Melendo say that this is not a first principle at all BECAUSE it involves notion (cause, effect) that are more restricted and come after the notions of ens (being) and non-ens It thus presupposes the PNC and has a more limited scope, say Alvira, Clavell and Melendo. How is it possible that somebody who teaches Philosophy at university level is ignorant of Aristotle and the PNC? REPLY: Gee! Maybe they're sophists who cite Aristotle, but actually believe somebody else. Who knows whom? IVO: Is it, as Van Inwagen himself surmises (p. 10), that there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions? REPLY: Maybe his mind is unfit. He must have a mind. Who knows, for sure, the fit from the unfit. IVO: Van Steenberghen writes that he (Van Steenberghen) considers this so-called principle of sufficient reason not to be separate from the principle of intelligibility which says that each being is intelligible, that is, each being can be assimilated by my intelligence, each being can be known by my intelligence to the extent precisely that it is. COMMENT: Nobody can know each being, let alone assimilate each being into their intelligence. IVO: The value (I’m not happy with this translation of “valeur”) of being by which a being opposes itself to nothing and by which that being is thus relative to nothing is precisely what renders that being intelligible (Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X de Guibert, ed.), « Philosophie fondamentale », Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, pp 372 - 373). REPLY: Sounds like the guy has been reading too much Heidegger to make much sense. On Being and Nothingness. Ugh. There is nothing Aristotle here, nor REALIST above. IVO: Van Inwagen spends many pages on the question why there is nothing rather than nothing. REPLY: No he doesn't. He might have spent many pages on the question why there is something rather than nothing. Sounds like a "deep thinker". Van Inwagen writes p. 87 If there were nothing, WE should not be here to ask the question. Van Steenberghen says that “nothing” is unintelligible. REPLY: As I said "deep-thinker"! Somebody should give him NOTHING TO EAT (meaning NOT give him anything to eat) for about 30 days. Then NOTHING might be more intelligible to him. It is called the PRIVATION intelligible. MORE LATER, although it makes no sense to criticize or ridicule your CARTOON "metaphysicians", none of which are Aristotle NOR any who say very much. The actual reason why you don't go anywhere in actually understanding Aristotle, Ivo. "The list" goes nowhere because, it seems that you read anybody and everybody EXCEPT Aristotle. KB Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website