The purpose Life has

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Vkothii, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Firstly, there is no interaction with Plato. All interaction in a Platonic Dialogue takes place between Socrates and various other folk, such as Glaucon.
    Now, you're correct that textually all Glaucon appers to do is move through the paces Socrates places before him. You've forgotten to interpret the architecture of the text however: Glaucon's function within the text is to serve as the skeptical, contrary position. Regardless, you're correct: this is a metatextual discussion not wholly relevant to our current purposes.


    Fair enough. But I have some difficulty in applying scalar degrees to the subjective conceptualization.

    Indeed he did miss the point. However, the downfall of Empiricism has less to do with it's obstinacy regarding an objective reality than it does with an inability to account for our epistemological approach.
    How do you suppose to reconcile a purported objective reality (to say nothing of logically supporting such) with the de facto inability to overcome the subjectivity of the individual? Even Kant failed at this.

    Coolio.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    It has a purpose because you are using a ladder purposefully, that's what using something is: purposeful or intentional.
    Because you were using the ladder.
    You can call it whatever you like, it's "using a ladder and falling off it". An accident or a mistake is still because of intentional action. Just because something "wasn't meant to happen", doesn't make it unintentional. Sorry.

    P.S. Once more:
    A mistake is intentional, it gets labeled as a "wrong" move after it's been done.

    If you didn't intentionally make mistakes, you wouldn't have learned anything.
    Since you have (presumably) learned a lot of things, you must have had to make a lot of intentional errors to do so.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    When I posed this question a while back in this thread, I got a single response, along the lines of: "a species is not AN individual".

    This is correct; an individual organism is a single representative of a species.

    So, again, is a species NOT "individual" organisms? If it isn't, then what IS a species? What represents a species?

    Is it the sum total of all representative organisms, that are alive and potentially contributing? Or only those individuals who do contribute (i.e. who replicate)?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    Give me a bit of credit. I know about Socrates. But as far as I am aware, he wrote little if anything. Plato is arguing on Socrates' behalf in addition to putting his own words into Socrates' mouth. That's why I referred to Plato. How much of the Republic is a statement of Socrate's view and how much is Plato's ?

    I have no objection to your referring to degrees of subjectivity because I understand your meaning.


    I have more sense than to go where Kant failed. I believe you are referring to his " Ding an ( fuer ) sich, if I remember correctly.
     
  8. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    If you cannot see that falling off a ladder in not intentional, there is nothing more I can offer you. Climbing the ladder is intentional but faling off was no part of that intention.
     
  9. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Rubbish. Of course falling off a ladder is part of the intention of using a ladder. "Climbing a ladder" isn't "falling off a ladder", but both activities require "the use of a ladder".

    You fell off the ladder because you were on it. You made a "mistake" and fell off the ladder, intentionally.
    Or do you "make" mistakes chaotically?

    What a load, of course a mistake is intentional; you can say after stubbing your toe: "I didn't mean to do that", but you're kidding yourself, of course you did. Stubbing your toe is an intentional act, a "mistake", or "mis-step", that conveys the lesson: "watch where you step". You learn from mistakes by making them. You make them with intent, just like everything else you do.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2008
  10. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    So the ultimate mistake must be when a building worker falls to his death "intentionally" . Some lesson that. He has doubtless learned something which will be of value to him in the next life.

    The bottom line is that you cannot accept that evolution is a purposeless process, which puts you at odds with the majority of the worlds scientists. Don't waste your time here. Buckle down and publish a few papers; a Nobel prize beckons.
     
  11. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Really? Care to quote any of them on the subject of biological evolution's purpose (or lack thereof)? What do any of them think about adaptation? Nothing to do with the chance nature of life, huh?

    You're making this up, because it isn't true that "the majority of the worlds scientists" say that life is purposeless (which means its evolution isn't purposeful either). You simply misunderstand the issue.

    And if someone makes a mistake that causes their death, then it's the last mistake they will make; which doesn't imply in the least that it wasn't made. Saying "that was not intended", is actually telling a lie, because whatever mistake or error has been MADE, has been made intentionally, or rather as a result of something being done intentionally. You can claim that mistakes aren't MADE, but of course, this is WRONG. Mistakes do not happen "by themselves", do they?

    Of course it was "made"; a mistake is a purposeful, intentional action - or do you believe a mistake, or an error, is chaotic in nature, or "completely random"? Or can you come up with something else, that can show how a mistake is not due to an intention, or use of something?
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2008
  12. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    Frag gave you an answer which you wouldn't accept. Try Richard Dawkins.

    You refuse to differentiate between what is intentional and what is accidental. The question of whether nture is or is not chaotic has no relevance to what we are discussing.

    Let's leave it at that.
     
  13. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553

    Frag gave you an answer which you wouldn't accept. Try Richard Dawkins.

    You refuse to differentiate between what is intentional and what is accidental. The question of whether nture is or is not chaotic has no relevance to what we are discussing.

    The fact that we may learn from our mistakes does not entail intentionality on the part of nature, which is waht you seem to be suggesting when we talk of accidents. Equally, I have never set out to make a mistake; it's something that just happens. Wheher or not I learn anything is irelevant.

    Let's leave it at that.
     
  14. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    It does not "just happen", it happens for a reason.
    And you already know what that reason is.

    I am not "refusing to differentiate" between intentional action and "mistakes". I'm saying there is no difference, except that AFTER making a mistake, that's when it gets called "a mistake"; it's still because of intentional action - the outcome may have been "unintended", but the causative action certainly was intentional, just like every action is - unless you want to claim possession is responsible maybe?
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Are you confusing purpose with cause somehow ?
     
  16. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Rain doesn't just happen; it has the intention of watering crops. If you want more of the same, I recommend that you read Voltaire's Candide. You will love Pangloss.
     
  17. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Indeed, Socrates left no records. This is why (with the possible exception of the Timaeus and Republic) you are incorrect in stating that Plato 'argues' anything. The vast majority of Platonic dialogues are nothing but Plato's recounting of theactivities of Socrates. On The Republic in particular, I would venture to say that it is more indicitave of Plato's beliefs than Socrates, but this is undecidable.


    I'm not sure you do. My point was that I find the notion of a 'degree of subjectivity' to be nonsensical.

    Correct, or at the very least, his reliance upon any such a priori construct (which, interestingly, was exactly what he was trying to get away from..).
    Nonetheless, your position is ultimately similar: you need to somehow reconcile subjectivity with the position that there is an ontologically objective reality.
     
  18. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    What Plato wrote is an account of what he believed Socrates said. Like all such accounts, I would suggest it contains subjective elements. Never mind, to me it's not that important. But I am not aware that Plato accompanied Socrates in the way that Boswell accompanied Johnson, nor that his account was contemporaneous with Socrates' utterances. Is there any evidence that Plato dioscussed his writings with Sopcrtes >

    I cut my philosophical teeth on Jowett's translation of the Republic some fifty years ago ,when we were more concerned with the arguments than with who said what.That is for Plato scholars. I have subsequently read two other translations of the Republic , together with most of the other dialogues. In the end , I did not major in philosophy

    I do undestand your position on subjectivity. To talk of degrees of objectively
    is nonsense. I was simply saying that the way you had expressed yourself might get you into trouble, as happened to me when I said "completely subjective" to emphasize the opposite of objective. I thought that would have been clear to you from what I wrote. Read it again and see !

    Thank you for explaining that my position is close to that of Kant. I have read his Kritik der reinen Vernunft in the original as well as in translation., so I have some idea of where I stand.

    I enjoy a good argument but, in the end, my attitude to philosophy can be summed up by what Voltaire has Candide say at the end of l'ingenu: "Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide;mais il faut cultiver notre jardin. "
     
  19. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    It was my understanding that Plato was a direct 'student' of Socrates and that the Dialogues then were essentially Plato's notes thereof.

    Fair enough then. I simply misunderstood you.


    I wouldn't deign to explain someone's position to them; I'm not that arrogant.
    I was just curious how you would deal with the problem.

    You've read the Critique in German? Impressive. It's a daunting tome even in translation.

    lol

    Damn Voltaire.
    I think it's too easy to dismiss discussion as ultimately being shit.
    At the end of the day, to achieve anything at all decent communication is necessary. I'll go with Wittgenstein and say that all we can really do is try to make our ideas clearly known.


    Myself, I did an Honours Degree in Philosophy; this is actually somewhat of a liability on here however..... lol
     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    No,
    rain "happens" because of the nature of solar warming and the nature of the atmosphere, and the water vapour it contains. Rain is not a conscious entity.

    A conscious entity "does" things, makes decisions, chooses to do something, or not do it.

    If, when doing something, an action causes an unwanted result, that's a mistake.
    Mistakes happen because conscious entities make them happen.
    This is purposeful, intentional behaviour, i.e. a mistake is intentional, even though a conscious entity might want to believe it "happened" because of some external influence, this obviously is not the case.

    An external influence (like a bolt of lightning striking someone up a large metal ladder), is accidental.
    An accident caused by an intentional act, is not "accidental", although we like to label it as such.

    Or:
    Can you point out at what stage the swinging of a toe towards a rock becomes unintentional?
    Is it when the foot + toe "begins" swinging towards the rock, or just before the toe contacts the rock, or during the contact?
    Or is it the start of a journey which will see the encounter of the toe with the rock?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2008
  21. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Well done ! I guessed you did when you said fora where most of us woulkd have said forum. Do you say syllabi and stadia ?

    I seem to remember that Russell said something to the effect that Wittgenstein had created a world based on logic which he, W., could no longer inhabit.

    I'll settle for science. Factum non verbum.
     
  22. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I guess so.
    This "confusion", is due to many observations, on my part, that a "cause" can be something that is evoked by a purposeful entity, namely: a live, conscious autonomous entity. A human being say.

    There are causes produced, or evoked by non-living things too, but they don't get to choose a course of action, like conscious things (human beings) do.
     
  23. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Aaah... I love language. Yep to both syllabi and stadia.

    Yep.. that would be Russell. Alas, Russell was stuck in his strictly Positivist position to the point where he really couldn't see the epistemological implications. Interestingly enough, in many ways, Russell was responsible for Wittgenstein and his epistemological implications (that uninhabitable world..). For me, Wittgenstein simply took the Positivist position right to its logical conclusion. And from here, spawned all contemporary non-continental philosophy. But that's just me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ahh.. but what is a fact?

    Okham's Razor applies equally to semantic notions as well as entities of convenience.....
     

Share This Page