OK you got me back, just for a little while though and I'm not planning to be doing more writing and prolonged arguing in the near future.
This text shall be a part of (thus far) three views on what I like to call practical and theoretical philosophies.
I- The first one was written By
Cerka Trova as a result of prolonged discussions we have had on the subject, he seems to have taken it to a more specific direction and address determinism, his work can be found here:
here.
II- The second one is Aspernor Dei's comment to Cerka's work. he seems to greatly disagree and might even be noted for being quite on the offensive while disagreeing as such. It might be worth mentioning that it has hardly been expected that he would act any differently. His work can be found here: here.
The text before you will not make much sense unless you refer to these two, therefor I recommend reading them both. If you don't desire to do so, have read this text and still found it mildly meaningful, try reading them just for the hack of it, they both have quite the pleasant elegance with their writing.
As to the matter at hand, as it might be obvious from your knowledge of me and from the fact that Cerca Trova mentioned me that I tend to agree with most of what he said. I might even go to the lengths of saying I agree with all he meant to say. That is due to the fact That I have spoken to him a great deal about the issue.
I do believe though, that he might have gotten a little tangled up in his ideas, the need to shorten it all into a readable short essay and a kind of tendency he has to put a little bit of poetic and maybe romantic touch to it all. the result of this being that he gave Aspernor a target slightly less hard to attack, and attack he did.
The first order of business is to explain a little deeper my view on the concept of practical and theoretical philosophies, a view I think Cerca shares with me. I will try to fill some gaps he has left not because he doesn't address them in his mind but because of the reasons mentioned earlier. Bare in mind though that he did start the work, and although I'm not arrogant enough to actually strive to finish it, he should be referenced when reading this text. therefor, if you find something missing both from here and in his work, comment on it.
I'll start with an overview by me on the subject and later on will try and comment on Aspernor's comment.
I consider myself to be a pretty practical guy, catch me at a certain angle and a certain light and I just might consider myself a pragmatic as well.
What do I mean by it? when practical means that something may be applied to life as is, and pragmatical means the claim that it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, as long as it works . Well what I mean is that exactly, there is little sense in wondering if something is right or wrong, if it works or doesn't is the big question, and this question needs to be answered in the existence of what is beyond what I like to call the vacuum between our ears. Let's say I believe that Aspernor tend's to go into ideas to such depth that he losses the meaning of the though and Cerca sometimes loses the idea that he's trying to convey to the practical example he's using (as with the flowers) , to me though, Aspernor's sin here is by far the worst because I know that Cerca's thinking is not impaired, maybe his expression a little, from time to time, but that happens to all of us.
Aspernor, on the other hand, always expresses himself spot on, explained everything and covers every corner and gap, If not in the original body of the text, than soon after. I also think this is his downfall, but more on that later on.
So how does this relate to philosophy? First of all, as I have already stated in the past, every single thing that concerns a human's view on every single thing, relates to philosophy. As I see it philosophy is the person's understanding of the world, therefore the entire world is a part of it and effected by it.
There are concepts, ideas or even actual fact and laws of nature, that by themselves make all the difference for every single one of us, but the knowledge of them will change the life of most people in absolutely no way whatsoever.
For example, The Doppler affect occurs when an object is emitting a wave, upon his movement he then compresses the wave or does the opposite. this can be seen in the color of light object's in space emit, but for all of us who are not astrophysical researchers, there are more everyday like examples to it as well, such as moving objects who emits sound waves and therefore changes the pitch of that sound. for the most of us there isn't much to be done with that knowledge but at least it actually appears in what may be called real life.
Another example could be the duel nature of the quantum, which acts both as a partical and as a wave, deeper explanation is not needed here but let us just say that for the physicist this is a must know as it is relevant to his work and therefor-to his life. To most other people though it is, and will most likely remain forever-a theoretical idea, which is interesting and close to a fact as much as anything can be nowadays, but which will not be applicable in his life.
The point I'm going at here is two basic thoughts. the first one is that, as you've already might have noticed, if something is practicable or not is a highly subjective question. one thing will mean the world in one person's existence and be absolutely nothing but an interesting ideas to the person next to him.
the second thing is that there are a lot of things that are interesting as are, without the actual need for them to be known. I am no physicist and yet I know these examples I gave (to a very light degree of course) nothing wrong with that I guess, but those are little pieces of knowledge, not a deep understanding and investigation of something that will not matter for me.
Here we come back to the philosophies, this is the point in which I think Cerka missed most of the needed explanation. and this is the point in which the pragmatism comes in play.
I see the pragmatic way not as an easy way to get around some tricky complex of thoughts, an escape for those who cannot go deep enough to the theory and therefor say "let's just look at the world" and "if it ain't broken don't . fix it". no, I see it as an approach that must be used at all times. this is a part of Aspernor's folly
Not meaning to say that it is a folly found only in him, but due to ever going search for knowledge and understanding it is highlighted and I believe it also undermines his entire view.
I see any not pragmatic view, any search for a profound truth behind things as a result of human arrogance. not to say there is no point in trying, but doing so while keeping in mind the limitations.
As I am sure that Cerca would agree, and quite sure that Aspernor would agree too, the human mind is limited. limited to a mind blowing degree if one thinks about it. there are many things we cannot grasp and many things we once thought we have but time proved us wrong. That, of course, doesn't mean we should stop trying, but we must always keep it in mind.
The universe doesn't care if we understand or not, it is as it is and we can always try to make sense of it although we rarely succeed, it is a crucial process indeed but the ultimate point should never be the mere profound understanding as it cannot be reached. the point should instead be making our lives better.
With that in mind, how would the deterministic point of view change our lives, what is practical about it, if at all?
Cerca seems to think that nothing, I am not sure I agree but I see his point. my point is that I agree with the concept (as Aspernor stated "just a description that you can't really logically deny"), however, I don't think Cerca meant to say that the consent itself is groundless, but that the idea makes no matter to us.
So there is a reason for everything that happens, everything is bound to everything else in what can be the only way since the beginning of time, every tre that grew and fell, every creature that emerged from the swamps and every thought that ever crossed a mind happened because that was the only way they could have happened.
Good, I agree. let me ask you four questions though: Yeah? and? So? What?
what difference does it make in my or your life beyond of the mere thinking of it? pretty much none, there is no way to be practical with the idea. the only thing to do with it is to contemplate it and discuss it. if this is enough for you than that is acceptable but it means you are not really searching for truth, as any well formulated idea would allow you to show who's got the bigger metaphysical dick.
Determinism allows you to explain things pretty much to the same degree that god does. as an atheistic approach it is good but rather useless, as you don't have to accept it to find a connection between things.
The thing with determinism is that it is everywhere, as Aspernor stated, this renders it meaningless. It's like saying we are all special, or that everything is natural. every thing really is natural, therefor there is nothing more to be said about it, when a concept covers everything in existence it is left with no meaning.
Thus, two notes for the end:
I have written this as an add on to the two other works, I have no desire to go into the debate my self therefor I will ask both the other sides to keep the big body of arguments and counter arguments, which I am in no doubt-are already cooking, to their own blogs. I will probably read them and might throw a comment here and there but I don't wish to have a bigger part in this.
Also, I hope I have elaborated to some degree, but have no hopes that I have covered everything, thus I ask you to fill the gaps as much as possible, follow the spirit of the text when a hole appears and don't be too pedantic with every little thing in it.
and, in the spirit of tradition, I shall too end with a paraphrase of the same thing.
The thing about determinism is that it is everywhere to be found, therefor there is nothing to be done with it
Post motrem
בהקשר לדיון המלוהט (יתר על המידה לדעתי האישית) שהתפתח, ניסיתי מעט לציין שאספרנור נוטה ללכת בעקבות המילים כל כך רחוק שהוא שוכח מה מטרתן, או כפי שCerca ציטט, מסתכל כל כך קרוב על המפה שהוא שוכח שיש כביש.
נתקלתי בדיוק עתה בקטע קצר שיש לו רלוונטיות לנושא. יש לציין שהקטע מובא מחוץ להקשר ולכן החלק הראשון שלו נשמע מנותק, אני מביא אותו בעיקר כדי שיהווה בסיס קל לחלק השני והרלוונטי יותר, יחד עם זאת, אני מוצא גם אותו רלוונטי אם כי הוא דורש תרגום יותר אקטיבי של הקורא כך שיותאם לנושא שבו דנו. אני מקווה שהוא יוכל להבהיר מעט מדוע אני לא מעוניין להיכנס לעובי הקורה בוויכוח הזה ובדומיו.
מתוך "איש הזאבים-מתולדותיה של נוירוזת ילדות" (1918) מאת זיגמונד פרויד. הוצאת קוגיטו בתרגום ערן רולניק (2003) עמוד 65:
"אומרים שדוב הקרח והלוויתן אינם יכולים להילחם זה בזה, כיוון שכל אחד מהם מוגבל לאלמנט שלו, ואינו יכול לפגוש את האחר. באותה מידה לא יהיה זה אפשרי מבחינתי לקיים דיון עם חוקרים מתחום הפסיכולוגיה או הנוירוזות שאינם מכירים בהנחותיה של הפסיכואנאליזה, ורואים בממצאיה תוצרי לוואי. נוסף על כך התפתחה בשנים האחרונות אופוזיציה מסוג אחר, של כאלה שלפחות בעיני עצמם נמצאים במגרש של האנליזה, אינם חולקים על הטכניקה שלה ועל ממצאיה, אך מוצאים שזכותם להסיק מסקנות שונות מאותו חומר, ולפרש אותו בצורה שונה.
אלא שעל פי רוב אין תוחלת למחלוקות תיאורטיות, ברגע שאנו מתחילים להתרחק מהחומר שעליו אלינו להתבסס, אנו מסתכנים בהתמכרות לטענותינו שלנו, וסופנו שאנו מצדדים בדעות שהיו עומדות בסתירה לכל תצפית. על כן נראה לי הרבה יותר מועיל להילחם בפרשנויות חריגות על ידי כך שבוחנים אותן על מקרים ובעיות בודדים."
בבלוג זה
בכל הבלוגים
כינוי:
