Posts Tagged ‘Hegel’
Why scholars must oppose Aristotle’s positions to his teacher’s Platon?
Posted on: November 21, 2010
Aristotle attended Platon’s Academia for 20 years before his instituted his own school in Athens 25 years later. Platon’s Academia lasted 900 years and was closed by political decree of the Christian Church in Constantinople, and not by lack of disciples. There is this mania among scholars to opposing Aristotle’s teachings and positions to his teacher Platon, as if it is urgently necessary in order to comprehend Aristotle works on their own values. For example, you read: “The concept of knowledge to Platon is acquired by rational dialog, while Aristotle privileges demonstrations and experimental methods for gathering facts.” How can anyone believe that Platon could deny demonstration methods and observations?
A professional in a disciple has a toolbox of techniques and methods relevant to his profession; he is familiar with this toolbox (among many other relevant toolboxes) for demonstrating or experimenting and gathering data and observations. I don’t have to be proficient in a particular method in order to accepting the validity of what has been proven as true or how a phenomenon behaves. I do have to be proficient in the method if I have to critique a peer-reviewed article and discover the errors in the design and manipulation of the experiment. That is called dissemination of knowledge, and dialog is one method transmitting knowledge. Fact is, professionals, especially scientists, rely on dialog by sending letters and documents to one another and attending conferences. Scientists receive most of their ideas and concepts from communicating their research topics and difficulty facing demonstrations.
Another point that scholars permitted the two philosophers to come in a face-off challenge, is how ideas are generated? Are ideas produced by transcendental ways or by experimentation? Many scientists would claim that they had the idea in a dream or a form of transcending method; fact is, most probably, the idea or method was stored in their deeper layers of memories, in a different form, resulting from dialog, reading, and communication. How and when the idea was registered in memory? Is not recollecting the idea or concept another way of agreeing in the transcendental approach?
Most philosophical debates are not on the proper scientific methods of comprehending the universe and living creatures but mainly siding to powerful institutions at specific periods: The powerful classes (clerics or aristocrats or middle classes) that have vested interests in opposing the dissemination of a particular concept that they view will prejudice their status-quo privileges.
Collecting data or observations from haphazard experiments lead to no where: It is only when a reasoned method or a proper design of the experiment is contemplated, run, and analyzed for interrelations among the independent variables or controlled factors that data make sense. Adopting abstract logical deduction from a set of axiom cannot result in anything meaningful if the theory is not submitted to experimentation for validation. A single advantage of mathematicians is that their discipline encourages development of abstract theories, even if no scientist cared to test any of them. Thus, scientific methods in the various philosophies do not contradict the essence for reaching truth.
Mathematicians never claimed to be scientists, and scientists know that their work will not go far unless a mathematical law is generated from data collected. Scientists may spend years categorizing and classifying samples gathered in their research and this task is intrinsically a rational method otherwise, how links can be found if no implicit or explicit hypotheses are generated to compare among samples?
Note: After the German Hegel exposed his theory in the 18th century that “human civilization has developed by historical dialectic or the historic process of thesis, antithesis, and followed by synthesis”. The theory meant that at one period, scholars and philosophers agree on a consensus of propositions to comprehending the universe and mankind (I think due to political pressures of religious institutions and the power-to-be). The next period witness an opposite current agreeing on contrary propositions. The following period necessarily work out a synthesis of the two previous periods for a consensus on equitable propositions that reflect new knowledge. This cycle begins again with a new set of propositions, transformed and modified from the initial propositions in period #1, strong with acquired new scientific facts; and civilization advances in that historical fashion of thesis periods, followed by antithesis periods, and rearranged by synthesis periods. Since then, most philosophers and philosophy critics think they are obliged to considering opposing sets of propositions before delivering their own synthesis.
“Sophie’s World” on David Hume; (Written on Dec. 4, 2009)
How I stumbled on Jostein Gaarder’s “Sophie’s World”, one of New York Times best seller?
My niece is reading this book as required textbook in high school. The manuscript is of 513 pages divided in 35 chapters and talking of a wide array of philosophers and concepts from Socrates, to Descartes, to Hume, Hegel, Kant…, Freud, and the Big Bang.
A short introduction to the story might be entertaining.
The first chapter introduces us to Sophie Amundsen, a 15-year-old girl. Sophie arrives home from school and finds a first envelope addressed to her. The sheet of paper has a single hand written sentence “Who are you?” Sophie finds another envelops that says “Where does the world come from?”
The last delivery of the mailbox is a postcard “Hilde Moller Knag; c/o Sophie Amundsen, 3 Clover Close. Dear Hilde, happy 15th birthday. Forgive me for sending the card to Sophie. It was the easiest way. Love Dad.”
Sophie knows of no Hilde and the phonebook was of no help. Sophie has now three problems to resolve, all in one day. Sophie is baffled and confused: She is starting her philosophical initiation. Would Lillemor be the same person? If her hair was not straight and defying all cosmetics for a curly appearance, then would she behaved different? If her nose was a tad bit longer or her mouth smaller, would she be the actual Sophie?
The next problem is even harder to reflect on. Can anything come from nothing? If not, then how far has she to go to the sources in the creation process? Can a creating God come from nothing?
I jumped to page 267 on the British philosopher David Hume (1711-1776).
Hume was the contemporary of Voltaire and Rousseau or the Age of Enlightenment. The previous Age was of the “rationalists” such as Descartes, Lock, and Spinoza.
Hume published his main work “A treatise of human nature” when he was 28 of age. He claims that he got the idea when he was 15.
The empiricist Hume (believing in experiments as the most valid method for acquiring knowledge) said:
“No philosophy will ever be able to take us behind the daily experiences or give us rules of conducts that are different from those we get through reflections on everyday life.”
For example, people have experienced or sensed wings on birds, but that does not mean that the complex idea of “angel” exists. Angels are associations in man’s imagination; thus, the concept of angels is false as an experienced reality and should be rejected from the knowledge baggage.
If a textbook does not offer any experimental reasoning concerning matter of facts and existence then it should be committed to the flames as a book of knowledge.
Hume wanted to know how a child experienced the real world. Hume established that man has two types of perceptions:
1. impression (immediate sensation) and
2. ideas of external reality.
Ideas are recollections of impressions. For example, getting burned is not the same sensation as remembering getting burned: this would be a pale imitation of actually the stronger feeling of being burned.
Ideas can be simple or complex; we may form complex ideas of the world for which there is no corresponding “object” in the physical world such as angels or God. Each element in the complex idea was previously sensed and the mind constructed a “false object” if not actually existing for the senses.
Descartes indicated that “clear and distinct” ideas guarantee that they corresponded to something that really existed.
One example for Descartes affirmation is the ego “I”, which is the foundation for his philosophy.
Hume begs to differ.
Hume considers that the ego I is a complex idea and constantly altered. Since we are continuously changing our alterable ego is based on a long chain of simple impressions that we did not experienced simultaneously. “These impressions appear, pass, re-pass, slide away, and mingle in infinite varieties of postures and situations.” It is like the images in a movie screen: they are disconnected single pictures, a collection of instants.
It is the same concept of Buddha (2500 years earlier). Buddha said “There is nothing of which I can say “this is mine” or “this is me””. Thus, there is no “eternal soul” since “Decay is inherent in all compound things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.” Hume rejected attempts to prove the immortality of the soul or the existence of God but he never ruled out their possible existence or that of miracles.
On his deathbed, Hume said “It is also possible that a knob of coal placed upon the fire will not burn.”
A miracle works against the laws of nature; but again, we have never experienced the laws of nature.
All that we know results from “habit” of our experiences, such as witnessing relationship or “cause and effect” occurring many times, but that we can never say that it might happen “always”.
For example, adults are more awed by magic tricks than children: a child is no more impressed by an apple falling or just floating because he didn’t acquire the habit in his mind for natural occurrences. Expectations lie in our mind and not in one thing following another.
We human are great in the task of cutting and pasting everything that impresses upon us. Hume says that the preconditions to assembling complex ideas is to have entered all the elements in the form of “simple impressions”. If we imagine God to be infinitely “intelligent, wise, and good being” then we must have “known intelligence, wisdom, and goodness”.
(How man brought in the “infinitely” in his concept? Did it come from watching the sky as a substitute to the experience of infinity? Somehow, man is able to extrapolate on piece meal experiences).
Hume wanted “to dismiss all this meaningless nonsense which has long dominated metaphysical thought and brought it into disrepute.” (The introduction of the term metaphysical gave terrible nightmares to the succeeding philosophers fearing that they might sound metaphysical and had to explain at great length their concepts).
Hume cut off the final link between faith and knowledge.
(I conjecture that the deficiencies of our perceptual senses provide rich sources of strong impressions that modify our view of the real world. For example, when we see double for a while (a temporary affliction), or we feel the ground waving and shaking under our feet when drunk, or under the influence, or when we hear background noises, then these sensation are real first impressions and not just ideas.
Thus, the weaker our constitution, the more acute and varied are our experiences; the more adapted our brain for capturing associations the far more complex is our perception of the world.)
Adonis Diaries 