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 27, 07 - 6:28 AM |
Nozick Explanations OR Should it be NO/ZIP explanations?
IVO: Here’s Robert Nozick, “Philosophical Explanations”, Belknap of Harvard UP, p. 115 ie. Ivo has found another genius, other than Aristotle, who says to him, quote: NOZICK: 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 IM-(not)-possible to answer. COMMENT: There is neither a question nor an explanation in anything written above. Just some strange and NEGATIVE propositions. That is the sophist's bailiwick, according to Aristotle--- a profound, but morbid, fascination with "non-being". IVO: Nozick: the question demarcates a limit of what we can hope to understand. Q. What question? Nozick, Philosophical Explanations, p. 116 The question raises issues about the limits of our understanding. Is it possible for everything to be explained? Q. Does he actually explain anything? Or is that impossible for him? Another "Kantian"? They inevitably talk about "possibilities". 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. COMMENT: No foundations. No explanatory principles. Truth with no explanation. Exactly what Aristotle called SOPHISTIC --- morbid fascination with "non-being". 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. COMMENT: A noble task. Did he ever try for such success by actually explaining a fundamental truth. IVO: What thinkest thou? ANSWER: I think you've discovered another "philosophical" comedian, other than Aristotle. more later KB |
|
Kevin
Sep 27th, 2007 - 7:16 AM |
Re: Nozick Explanations OR Should it be NO/ZIP explanations?
IVO: 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. REPLY: No! That is a lie. Nozick actually said that. Principles don't "say" anything. People say things. IVO/Nozick?: Is the principle true, does it apply to itself, and if so what is its sufficient reason? COMMENT: All that this "comedian" has said is that: (1) Every truth is explainable. Its CONTRARY is the proposition, (2) No truth is explainable. The contradictory propositions, as against both CONTRARY propositions, are (3) Some truth is explainable and (4) Some truth is NOT explainable. Any "comedian" may pick any or all of the 4 propositions to be either TRUE or FALSE, according to the LAW OF THOUGHT, which is the 1st PRINCIPLE of all intelligible "thinking". NOZICKZ: Is the principle of sufficient reason , call it SR a brute fact or does it have a sufficient reason? REPLY: Gee! I dunno. Let's eee what he thinks. NOZICK: If we assume SR is true and apply to (it?) to itself, we can conclude that there is some truth q which explains SR. COMMENT: When we assume SR to be true, his "square" looks like this. Let "EXP" symbolize "explainable" and (T) vs (F) stand for true and false. Every truth is EXP(T) vs. No truth is EXP(F) Some truth is EXP(T) and Some truth is NOT EXP(F) NOZICK: 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. COMMENT: So now he has CONTRADICTED what he has just implied to be FALSE, by his original assumption. Now he says that Some truth is NOT explainable(T), after assuming that Every truth is explainable (T)., which makes the CONTRADICTORY proposition "Some truth is NOT explainable." FALSE. In sum he has CONTRADICTED himself and will continue to do so, because he is an "unexplainable" obfuscator. 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. COMMENT: There is probably some bad typing above. Nozick probably wrote, as a "weaker" version, "NOT Every truth is explainable" (T), which is the logical equivalent of "Some truth is NOT explainable." (T) But this is not a "weaker" version of the same principle. It is, in fact and LOGIC, the direct CONTRADICTION of his original so-called "principle" NOZICK: but we can even weaken it further. RESPONSE: Oh I don't think any "philosopher" can get "weaker", as a philosopher than to repetitively CONTRADICT his own so-called "principles". And you can't get anything "weaker" or "stronger" than the outright CONTRADICTIONS of logically opposed propositions. Ivo: Does Nozick want to weaken intelligibility? ANSWER: He apparently enjoys contradicting his own so-called "principles". Most SOPHISTS are like that. He merely makes himself unintelligible. IVO: The bat is dazzled by the light of truth. COMMENT: You really have a tough time with ANALOGIES, don't you Ivo? Bats eyes are dazzled by the light of the sun, just as our reasons are "dazzled" by eternal truths, which have NO CAUSES (explanations) of themselves but do CAUSE and EXPLAIN the truths of contingent things. People who CONTRADICT their own so-called PRINCIPLES are not "dazzling". They are called HYPOCRITES or "subcritical" thinkers. You seem to have found another one in Nozick, who provides NO ZIP to his so-called explanations. They are actually CONTRADICTORY obfuscations. Kevin |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com