Interbane wrote:Perhaps I was mixing transcendental and supernatural.
Yes, that is a key point I was making, that these terms are generally mixed, but transcendental is a term which can usefully be salvaged from the morass of supernaturalist mysticism, by reference to its use by Plato and Kant.
If philosophy can tune in to universal truth, most of what I've read in modern philosophy is bogus. You first have to assume a universal truth exists. I don't. It's unnecessary. To say that it's necessary is to develop a superfluous teleology. Neitzsche used that phrase and I've repeated it all day today, it's fun. Here, it's even fitting!
This is the nub of my critique of modern philosophy, that its assumption that universal truth is an obsolete and meaningless concept destroys the theory of value. Where we differ is that I argue the positing of universal truth is necessary as a basis for transformative ethics. You insist on the timidity of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes - “I know nahthink!” By asserting that all claims are subject to doubt, no certainty is possible. This scepticism is the foundation for Nietzsche’s description of a sense of purpose as ‘superfluous’, but I got the impression this assessment was at the centre of Nietzsche’s madness. By taking the modern logic of the hermeneutics of suspicion to its ultimate nihilistic conclusion he lost his mind.
Parsimony is a principle, and could care less about that which is superfluous, such as this superstructure, whatever it is. Robert, this is all simply unnecessary in explaining our world.
The theme of base and superstructure is from Marx -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
Far from being unnecessary, this idea is a useful way to explain the relation between culture and matter. While I don’t agree with Marx’s socialist inferences, this schematic provides an accurate framework for sociology. The problem is that culture seems independent from nature, but is both ultimately determined by nature and able to influence nature.
you're being reactive and defensive.
No, what is at issue here is that you presented the modern critique of Jung and Plato as done and dusted. Asserting that problems in philosophy are long since settled is a way to ignore the effort to critique the dubious presuppositions of mainstream consensus. Plato and Jung offer a method of philosophy that is rejected by the mainstream in their claim of a path of access to absolute spiritual values. This is horrifying for liberal skepticism, but I would argue that the sense of meaning in myth, especially seen in Jung’s analysis of symbol, helps to ground thought in culture, unlike the free-floating conceptions of the mainstream.
Those older philosophers simply got it wrong.
Nothing is simple in philosophy. We often see that simplistic distortions of the ideas of philosophers come to be assumed to be accurate. Part of what I have been saying here is that Plato is actually far more sophisticated than his critics allege.
Interbane wrote:RT: "... Dawkins’ theory of the selfish gene is quite Platonic. "
This is only the case if you're unable to separate the understanding from that which is understood.
But the relation between knower, knowledge and known is the hardest problem in epistemology. True knowledge always corresponds directly to its object. If you say that ideas are entirely a property of the knower rather than the known, you destroy the connection between thought and reality. In any case, this question of epistemology is a distraction from the question I raised of the philosophical antecedents of
The Selfish Gene, and rests on a misreading of Plato.
The Platonic idea of a tree does not point to a tree's genetic code, just as the Platonic idea of a rock does not point to some embedded mineral, it points to the objects themselves.
No, it does not point to the object, but to the abstraction that is instantiated in the object.
That the genetic code is also representative of the tree allows the waters to be muddied. An example is in how we understand a "house". We have a generic internal picture of the house, the Platonic form, but there are also blueprints of the house. The blueprints, being a model, are just like our understanding of the house, both are condensed representations of the real thing. What is encoded by the genes is not the 'nature' of the tree, but a blueprint for physical construction.
Dawkins asserts, as I read him, that the genetic code does contain the nature of the entity, by providing the information needed for it to grow each time. Because this code persists through many generations, the ephemeral instances are like straws in the wind by comparison. “Form” is an Aristotelian degradation of Plato’s actual term, which was idea. Empiricists are emotionally incapable of thinking in abstract terms, insisting instead that only things are real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism states “Platonism is considered to be, in mathematics departments the world over, the predominant philosophy of mathematics, especially regarding the foundations of mathematics. One statement of this philosophy is the thesis that mathematics is not created but discovered.”
I felt rather vindicated for my defence of Plato in reading this claim, considering the abuse to which Plato is routinely subjected by the ignorant. This observation that mathematics is discovered presents a serious challenge to the claim that ideas are just properties of the brain, as it shows how ideas have objective reality.
RT: "The point is that to understand the reality of a person you have to understand how the person is embedded in time." I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.
No worries, it is quite a complicated assertion. Dawkins suggests in
The Selfish Gene that genes are the units of natural selection and living entities are merely the vehicles of the genes. The longevity of genes is thousands or even billions of times the longevity of organisms. Hence the organism, including people, is just how multiple genetic rivers come together at one moment of their flow. By analogy to a river, we do not say that only the point of the river at which we wet our feet is real, but that the whole river exists. Similarly, the genetic temporal river exists as real in its entirety to date, once we shift to the intellectual framework that accepts the existence of the past. So the ‘reality’ of a person/entity includes its entire genetic heritage, embedded in what Dawkins calls the
River out of Eden.
RT: "Here, with your term ‘vicariously’ you subtly belittle the philosophical observation that ideas have an objective existence beyond their instantiation in neurons."
But do they have an objective existence? What is their objective existence? What does it look like? Give me an example. What must be distilled is the idea from whatever the idea references. We may have an idea of what beauty is, but that idea is an interpretation of something real.
Mathematics provides the paradigm, but also shows how our usual term ‘existence’ does not neatly apply to ideas.
For example, equality is a perfect idea that sense objects can only imperfectly approximate. The argument as given at Phaedo 74-76 on equality could equally well be given with respect to a number of different concepts (any concept that might have some claim to being an a priori concept. The argument tries to show that we cannot abstract the concept of equality from our sense-experience of objects that are equal. For
a. We never experience (in sense-perception) objects that are really, precisely, equal, and
b. We must already have the concept of equality in order to judge the things we encounter in sense-perception to be approximately, imperfectly, equal.
The argument can be schematized as follows:
1. We perceive sensible objects to be F.
2. But every sensible object falls short of being perfectly F.
3. We are aware of this imperfection in the objects of perception.
4. So we perceive objects to be imperfectly F.
5. To perceive something as imperfectly F, one must have in mind something that is perfectly F, something that the imperfectly F things fall short of. (E.g., we have an idea of equality that all sticks, stones, etc., only imperfectly exemplify.)
6. So we have in mind something that is perfectly F.
7. Thus, there is something that is perfectly F (e.g., Equality), that we have in mind in such cases.
8. Therefore, there is such a thing as the F itself (e.g., the Equal itself), and it is distinct from any sensible object.
The problem with this logic is the description of the idea as a thing. Much better to conceive it as an abstract concept or unit of information, much as the persistence of the gene through time is an abstraction from its instances.