Physical Events, Physics and Metaphysics

[longknowledge]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I don't really know about Ortega having sense of humour but going on his photo....

Jeeprs! I'm lovin' it! I hadn't seen that photo of him before. That's a keepr!

[Pardon my emotional outbust in the middle of this serious discussion.]

[odenskrigare]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Actually, I agree, Russell was indeed a many-faceted individual, actually it was probably mistaken of me to have categorised him that way. However I think as his career progressed he became more and more focussed on the analytical and logical aspects, and lost some of that rather more speculative and original thinking that he had when younger.

how is "analytical" synonymous with "uncreative"?

I mean people act as though you have to be letting your brains fall out to be creative

exactly what was uncreative about the (aborted) masterpiece he co-authored, Principia Mathematica, which spent pages and pages developing an elaborate calculus just for grade school arithmetic?

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I still always remember his conclusion to the History of Western Philosophy, along the lines of 'even though we [analytical philosophers] recognise that there are things the intellect and science cannot tell us, we refuse to admit that there are hidden or higher forms of knowledge'... or something along those lines

what was the exact quote

it is true there are some things we don't understand now, but might understand in the future: electricity, oxygen, cellular life, DNA, viral infection and others were once also mysterious. their material explanations are now taken for granted

for the rest ...... I don't see the point in attempting to explain it, when we don't have the wherewithal to do so

metaphysics has no quality control

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

it is a little hard to make a definitive judgement, based on what little information I have, but I looked up the Wikipedia entry, and from what I can see, very well worth reading. He has a very solid grounding in traditional metaphysics, in fact held a chair in it, but also seems to have a very real grasp of philosophy as a life skill. I am starting to like these continental philosphers much more than the boring dull dry academic positivist analyst logic choppes Ayer, Russell, Quine. They are much more humorous and have much more vitality about them. He may be excitable but so what. I bet he was a great conversationalist.

Liking people is a matter of taste. And, of course, tastes differ. I am interested in whether a philosopher's assertions can be supported in some way. I don't consider reading philosophers entertainment. But it depends on what you are looking for. Woody Allen is more amusing than Ortega. If you are looking for amusement.

[odenskrigare]

see yes that's thing thing

we empiricists have things like 4chan to channel our desire for amusement

[jeeprs]

They [analytical philosophers] confess frankly that the human intellect is unable to find conclusive answers to many questions of profound importance to mankind, but they refuse to believe that there is some 'higher' way of knowing, by which we can discover truths hidden from science and the intellect.

Betrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, Unwin Paperbacks 1979, p789

I have always disagreed with this, and has the time has passed the conviction has only grown. This for various reasons. There is, for example, the faculty of intuition - which I understand as 'knowing without knowing how you know' - which is almost always a major factor in scientific discovery and all kinds of other intellectual endeavour. (See The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler). There is also, in Eastern and Western metaphysics terms such as 'jnana', 'prajna' 'gnosis', 'noesis', Aristotle's 'active intellect', Plotinus' 'Nous'. All of these terms connote some form of 'wisdom' which requires a quality of character and a sense of judgement, in addition to whatever can be described in propositions or equations. So maybe they are exactly the 'higher or hidden types of knowledge' which Russell (and Ayer and others) rejected; in fact, I think the way Russell understands 'intellect' is quite different to how it is understood by many continental philosophers (e.g. Bergson) and that the Continental tradition has had a much higher respect for this facility of 'higher understanding'.

Again, going back to that quote of Ortega, this is what I think he was driving at as well, and I bet he would take an equally dim view of this quote of Russell's and his 'secular scholasticism'.

[odenskrigare]

Procedural knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is this what you're talking about

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Betrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, Unwin Paperbacks 1979, p789

I have always disagreed with this, and has the time has passed the conviction has only grown. This for various reasons. There is, for example, the faculty of intuition - which I understand as 'knowing without knowing how you know' - which is almost always a major factor in scientific discovery and all kinds of other intellectual endeavour. (See The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler). There is also, in Eastern and Western metaphysics terms such as 'jnana', 'prajna' 'gnosis', 'noesis', Aristotle's 'active intellect', Plotinus' 'Nous'. All of these terms connote some form of 'wisdom' which requires a quality of character and a sense of judgement, in addition to whatever can be described in propositions or equations. So maybe they are exactly the 'higher or hidden types of knowledge' which Russell (and Ayer and others) rejected; in fact, I think the way Russell understands 'intellect' is quite different to how it is understood by many continental philosophers (e.g. Bergson) and that the Continental tradition has had a much higher respect for this facility of 'higher understanding'.

Again, going back to that quote of Ortega, this is what I think he was driving at as well, and I bet he would take an equally dim view of this quote of Russell's and his 'secular scholasticism'.

Unfortunately, intuition speaks with different and conflicting voices. How do you tell which of two conflicting intuitions is right?
And, if we can tell which is right, then why would we need intuition in the first place?

"Intuition, an unnecessary shuffle". Wittgenstein.

[odenskrigare]

I think jeeprs is describing something no more magical than learning how to shoot a bow

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by odenskrigare

I think jeeprs is describing something no more magical than learning how to shoot a bow

One person may have the intuition that abortion is all right. Another, that abortion is wrong. Now what?

[jeeprs]

No intuition is not really procedural, although it has some things in common with it. Certainly when you are really good at something through long practise, you have intuitive skills that make what you are doing seeem a bit magical to a beginner. But I also think intuition comes from unconscious mental processes and from harnessing all your being, not just your thinking mind, to an act or a problem.

As said above, people look for different things in philosophy. I have never been interested in empiricism. My feeling about empiricism is that its basic orientation is the defence of normality. Whether it started off that way, I don't know, but nowadays, it is the default position for the modern person. 'This existence is the only reality, I only believe what you can show me, philosophy is about sound reasoning', and so on. All well and good, it brings many benefits and is good in many respects, but it is not spiritually sustaining as far as I am concerned. But - each to his/her own, I am certainly not out to persuade or convert, and certainly one of the great benefits of modernity is the freedom to pursue any of these things, or none, and that is a great freedom indeed.

On a less personal note, however, and in keeping with the theme, I think the rejection of all things spiritual in Western philosophy is why Eastern philosophy is so popular all over the Western world As I have said before, I believe western philosophy has abandoned its mission (with honorable exceptions, of which I suspect Ortega is one, but need to do more reading on him).