Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Abstraction is what has taken philosophy to posmodernism (the end of abstractive philosophy). I have a theory about this, it's a bit complex. Kant was the resolution, the final point, the one that ended the discussion amongst philosophers during the 18th century. These were devided between rationalists (mostly French (Descartes leader), Italien (Spinoza leader), or German (Leibniz leader)) and the empiricists (British, who followed Berkeley, Locke, Hobbes and Hume).Then came Kant, who resolve dthe discussion by abstracting all conceptualization, defending that abstract would lead to the laws. It did, and there was idealism. Well, we can see a parallelism. 18th century-20th century. Because during the last century, the discussion between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy was in many ways parallel to the discussion amongst rationalists and empricists in the 18th cnetury. Well, the basis for the two points is basically this:
1. Hermeneutical Phenomenology, believe in a truth, A logic, a nature. Discuss about the methods and limitations of science and philosophy. Analytic philosophy.
2. Hermeneutical Existentialism, relativism and subjectivism (even nihilism), many truths, logic and rationality not usefull (or any argumentation). Discuss about the individual and the society, psicoanalysis and anthropology. Continental philiosophy.
Basically, I believe that we need another universalization tio solve this problem. Kant developed Abstractive Universalization (Abun). Well, I am developing something I call Analogous Universalization (Anun). Instead of conceptualizing by abstraction, it should and must be by analogy. This is a very complex idea, so I will give an example. Imagine you are a culturologist (if this profession exists at all) and you have encountered an entirelly new civilization. What methods should you use to understand it, deconstruct it? You might think of Kant's abstraction. Let's see an idea, an event, or anything n this new culture, abstract it so that it ends up under the same abstract concept as something from our culture. Then you can draw the law. Or you can remember Guille's post, and use analogy. See the evolution in their art, for example, and then the on in ours. Observe them and see the analogy. That is all you need, there ar eno rules no systematic programmed methodology of actions. Just analogy. It is better, because you can get rid of abstraction, you talk directly through the things themselves, just that you have still the same advantage that you got from abstraction, that you can make the laws.
What does everyone think? |
Guille, you have made an excellent discovery about the problems involved in communications between different parties. I have been working in the same area and have called your analogy process, conceptual intentionality. It's basically the identical process, i.e., comparative analyses of same ideas in different people, places and things. In other words, we can discover true human values, and even an extended mathematics of, by such as inter-nation comparative analyses, in connection with the scientific axiology of notable professor Robert Hartman. Here's a post on another forum about the subject and a link to Hartman's ideas: >>Thanks for the insights. I think the area of most importance is to try and join science and religion, logic and intuition. Even though I may lean more toward science and you toward intuition, I think the far more important area is the union of the two. This must be accomplished to start to solve the Mid-East/West problem of severe religeous conflict, if the planet is to survive. As a final statement I'd like to add a response to another poster at space and motion. Here it is: This was in response to Knotty's post at:
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...opic.php?t=411
Hi Knotty Nuf-Rumi, I enjoyed your post on Jung and its possible further connections and extensions to and of WSM. As far as I am concerned you are headed in the right direction, as I am also headed in this same direction of connecting Jungian Unconscious more to metaphysics, infinity and WSM. Just as a quick addition at this moment, more at a later date, I am looking at the entire connections between your thoughts, Geoff's and Jung's as the super-consciousness[the totality of finite and infinite facts and opinions of all minds - the abyss?] being the unconscious infinite space inter-connectedness of all these ideas. As a matter of fact I have recently been introduced to a philosophy professor of scientific axiology that may be of help to you also, as it is to my own work. I'm only in the early stages of putting my ideas all together with these many new connections and my older work, but see unbelievable possibilities of creating an entirely new mataphysics, as does the professional process philosopher who introduced me to Dr. Robert Hartman's work. I think it would be worth your time to check it out at:
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/html/MeasurementOfValue.htm
It's about using mathematics of infinity[formal second order math and logic] to prove the conceptual intentionality of infinite, intrinsic human values. It has been scientifically used since its creation in the seventies. It is sound sience, and can be interpreted beyond its present use with the addition of other fields of study, such as economics equilibrium theories, and physics'/economics' ergodicity theories, as my philosopher friend and I are now working on. It will be some time before I can comment further, but I already know it is very promising. I know it is one of the missing links between the joining of metaphysics and physics, i.e., Jung, infinite superconsciousness and WSM, also the finite and infinite worlds of other thought areas, as you mentioned, i.e., little and big. I have already realized Hartman's transfinite math corresponds easily with greater and lesser magnitudes, greatest and least magnitudes, which makes explanations much simpler. See what you think.>>
Regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
BTW, excellent post. I would quibble a little, but overall, almost perfect. And also, what do you think of Hafez, Rumi's latter being?>>
Guille, my above ideas directly correspond with your analogy use ideas. I believe we are truly onto something. Maybe the solution to philosophy's central problem, the battle between the two major schools. Let me know more about what you think after checking out Hartman. I love your term
Analogous Universalization. Anun.
regards