The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 2) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Sep 26, 07 - 2:25 AM |
IDEAS (intelligible Species) ABSTRACTED from PHANTASMS
(contd) Similarly with sucrose, glucose and fructose (sugars) molecules. They are the molecules BY WHICH we sense "sweetness" in the tastes of fruit or sugar (sucrose) from a sugar bowl. "Sweet" is THAT WHICH we taste. Sugar molecules and their stimulation of SPECIFICALLY ADAPTED "taste buds" are THAT BY WHICH (the means by which) we "sense" sweet foods. And so on with various decibal levels of sound with respect to the SPECIFIC sense receptors of the hearing apparatus in our ears, or the SPECIFICALLY adapted sense receptors in our skins. Some nerve endings react to sensible-SPECIES of sound, others react to the SPECIFICS of heat, cold, pressure and/or pain. Each of these SPECIFICALLY ADAPTED nerve receptor systems have different shapes and structures peculiarly adapted to sense sound-wavelengths, pressure-stimulation, heat, cold and, more generally, painful/pleasureable stimulation. The SENSIBLE SPECIES of sound or touch (decibal levels; frequencies of sound percussion; stimulations of SPECIFICALLY adapted sense organs in our skins) are THE MEANS BY WHICH we sense "sounds" and "touches", such as sharp, flat, loud, quiet, smooth, rough, hot, cold, pleasureable and/or painful sensations, which are THAT WHICH we sense. The fact that human beings can actually record and PLAY BACK the SENSIBLE SPECIES of sound and light, whether DIGITALLY or ANALAGOUSLY, is living proof that both Aristotle and Aquinas were RIGHT ON TARGET when both said that the SENSES are NEVER WRONG about their proper OBJECTS, unless the SENSE ORGANS, themselves, are DAMAGED. We don't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel THE SPECIFICS or SPECIES. We do see, hear, smell, taste and feel the SENSATIONS (sight-images, hearing-audibles; taste-flavors; skin-feelings; olfactory-smells or the recalled "phantasms" thereof) which such SENSE-SPECIES generate, in the here and now, or which we may "vaguely recall" by imagination. However, these days, the SPECIES of sound and light, as well as the images and sounds they generate, can be "accurately recalled" by means of modern "art-forms", such as television, motion picture "arts" and, for sound-example, DOLBY sound-surround systems. And all of these SENSIBLE SPECIES are related to SUBSTANCE (individual units and individual beings) as subject to QUANTITATIVE considerations. Audible decibels, light wave-lengths and intensity (photons or "lumens" in the old terminology; the photo electric effect when we consider modern digital cameras, spectrophotometers, etc.) are all related to QUANTIFIABLE-considerations of SUBSTANCES. But we experience the effects of SENSIBLE SPECIES as SENSIBLE QUALITIES. eg. Dark vs. Light; Hot vs. Cold; Sweet vs. either Sour or Bitter; Loud vs Quiet; rough vs. smooth; sharp vs flat/smooth in either "touches" or "sound-notes". Thus QUANTITY is Aristotle's 2nd "Thought Category" and QUALITY is his third Category of Thought. It is the COMMUNITY OF INTERIOR SENSES ("common sense") which gives rise to our first intellectual apprehensions of the first TRUE and very PRECISE UNIVERSALS, which are, not surprizingly (given the nature of sensible-species and their SPECIFICALLY adapted SENSORS), Arithmetical and Geometrical (mathematical) UNIVERSALS ("Species" which are common to more than one thing). Child prodigies and child geniuses are usually of the mathematical or mustical kinds, since the principles of music are subject to Arithmetical considerations, per harmonics, and mathematics begins with Arithemetic, proceeding to Geometry, which is the mathematics of multiple dimensions. Descartes was such a mathematical genius (Cartesian Coordinate Geometry), who evidently lacked any respect for those who had increased the power of thought before him, as Aristotle relates in his version of PRIMARY PHILOSOPHY (Metaphysics), previously cited on the topic of bats and owls. Even old "Uncle Bertie Russell" had the "mathematical bug" in his PSYCHE as well, given his work on 1+1 (is certainly) = 2, done with A.N. Whitehead as PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA. Along with the Descartes, Russell shared the same contempt for all things "Aristotelian", especially Aristotle's version of actual METAPHYSICS, as the study of unity, being and (primarily) CONTRARIETY in diverse SUBSTANCES. "Contrariety" is the peculiar mark of the thought-Category of SUBSTANCE, whereas EQUALITY is the peculiar mark of all things QUANTITATIVE or, in other words, the peculiar mark of the Thought Category of Quantity. Russell's emphasis on QUANTITATIVE considerations is the reason that his list of "philosophers" to study, at the end of his PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, only includes those who had something "primarily-mathematical" to say (Plato; Descartes; Leibniz; Spinoza; Kant; Berkeley; and Hume). One can clearly perceive Russell's bias for mathematical logicians as "philosophers", from his cited names and from their written theses. contd KB |
|
Kevin
Sep 26th, 2007 - 3:02 AM |
Re: IDEAS (intelligible Species) ABSTRACTED from PHANTASMS
contd. (Previously) One can clearly perceive Russell's bias for mathematical logicians as "philosophers", from his cited names and their treatises. Every one of those mathematical logicians; perhaps (not sure) Leibniz and Spinoza excepted (less likely with Spinoza who followed Descartes quite closely), considered IDEAS (Aquinas's INTELLEGIBLE SPECIES) to be THAT WHICH they perceived, rather than THAT BY WHICH intelligible (and "exterior") objects may be understood by our intellects. As a consequence they "lock themselves up inside their subjective minds" and DOUBT either/both the knowledge or certainty of external objects, although they are quite CERTAIN of the clarity and truth of the "ideas" and mental processes in their own minds, and of their opinions and judgments. Opinions and judgments are exactly WHERE Aristotle points out that intellectual errors are most likely to occur --- within our souls/minds, where and because UNIVERSALS are IMPERCEPTIBLE and knowledge arizes because of the apprehension of the COMMENSURATE UNIVERSAL. Commensurate Universals are made "perceptible" by means of DEMONSTRATIONS, from true and primary premises, which are more KNOWABLE and certain than the conclusions derived therefrom. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, including hundreds of ancient Greek Sophists, actually KNEW that the "things" which most people were (above all other things) entirely "unaware", were the "things" going on inside their own souls/minds. Thus Socrates described himself as a "thought birther" or "midwife" of thought. Plato wanted to lead men up to the light from out of their "shadow world" caves. Aristotle wanted to put something useful upon their "blank slates". Aquinas wanted to get rid of useless and confusing repetitions and overlaps in Theology and teach the unlearned or experienced step, by logical, step. And all of these "guys" had a healthy "piety", or in other words, "respect" for their predecessors who had gone before them (Plato slightly less than either Socrates or Aristotle; although Plato's respect for the Pythagoreans remained constant), and helped with an increases in reasoning power, CONTRARY to people like Descartes and Hume, who did respect mathematics as knowledge, but little else of anything done or said by their predecessors. That monster DIFFERENCE is both perceivable and demonstrable from their writings, in comparison and contrast to the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas. Kevin |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com