1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietzsche would put it;
2. Idols of The Cave: Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people;
3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-gound yourself;
4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the goddess Gaea): Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;
5. Idols of The Theatre, The Magician, or The Sophist: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself;
6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title;
7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean;
8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life;
9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life;
10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- except perhaps to only the person or people you most trust, and even this is dangerous, because things can change, people can change;
11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war;
12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction;
13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.
14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it;
15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and die -- in marriage.
16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)...From The Internet
From Wikipedia...
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.
At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.
At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.
The Four Idols of Sir Francis Bacon
From the internet...google...The Four Idols, Sir Francis Bacon
I don't know much about Sir Francis Bacon -- I plan to learn more -- but I love the way he thinks...as attested by the following essay on Bacon written by Manly P. Hall. To me, Bacon is a 'good idol' of what it means -- and how -- to be a good epistemologist.
-- dgb, August 24th, 2008.
................................................................................
The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&
The New Instrument of Knowledge
by Manly P. Hall
In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.
An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.
Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)
Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.
*************
After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.
It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.
The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.
Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.
Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the 4 IDOLS
I don't know much about Sir Francis Bacon -- I plan to learn more -- but I love the way he thinks...as attested by the following essay on Bacon written by Manly P. Hall. To me, Bacon is a 'good idol' of what it means -- and how -- to be a good epistemologist.
-- dgb, August 24th, 2008.
................................................................................
The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&
The New Instrument of Knowledge
by Manly P. Hall
In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.
An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.
Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)
Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.
*************
After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.
It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.
The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.
Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.
Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the 4 IDOLS
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy Re-visited
This essay was written about 9 months ago and then just re-written a couple of weeks ago (August 9th, 2008). Now, I am re-addressing the essay for a third time and this essay eliminates the last two. Perhaps with an evolving better and better knowledge of Kant in the months or years to come, I will have to rewrite this essay again at some future point.
Time will tell but hopefully this essay will stand the test of time for a while. It is based on new and conflicting information I just recently read about Kant from the internet. Interpretation is critically important -- it creates the foundation for our evaluations and actions. Different interpretation; different evaluation.
Also, the credibility of the author is at stake here. Just as you must reasonably ask the question: How well do I know Kant and what he believed? -- similarily, I must ask the same 'credibility' question of the author I am reading who is interpreting Kant. Because, obviously, if I am taking the author as being a credible Kantian source, then it may mean the difference between my making a 'left turn' and making a 'right turn' in terms of the way I interpret and evaluate Kant. One way makes me a 'post-Kantian epistemologist' whereas the other way makes me an 'anti-Kantian epistemologist'. That is a big difference.
This is where a Kantian scholar -- or any person seriously concerned with epistemological accuracy -- would insist on 'proper references' -- and rightly so.
The critical 'new interpretation' for me lies in this sentence here:
The path to resolving the paradoxes of Kant's theory opens up with two basic realizations: (1) Kant always believed that reason connected us directly to things-in-themselves, and (2) Kant's system is not a Cartesian theory of hidden, transcendent objects, but a version of empirical realism, that we are directly acquainted with real objects.
It can be found if you google Kant and read the essay that is now second from the top...The essay appears scholarly and knowledgeable but no author is listed -- which raises some degree of suspicion relative to its credibility. I will search other credible sources to verify and/or contradict what is being said here...
For years now, I have tried not to get dragged too deeply into the world of Kant -- because I could get lost in there forever and I have so many other things I still want to write about -- but I can feel myself starting to dig -- or be dragged in -- deeper. At least a decent knowledge of Kant is important for the credibility of my own presentation of DGB Epistemology -- and DGB Philosophy as a whole. Kant's epistemology -- as well as his philosophy as a whole -- was a major turning point in the history and evolution of Western Philosophy, influencing Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other major philosophers in major ways. One of my readers has even said -- rightly so by the looks of things -- that there would have been no Hegelian dialectical philosophy if it was not for Hegel leading him in this direction. Other essays and references obviously look like they will be needed here... And -- God forbid -- I may (will) have to read sinificant parts of 'The Critique of Pure Reason' myself.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...
Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.
His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]
In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.
Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.
..............................................................................
From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...
Critique of Pure Reason (1787)
Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)
Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)
Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)
Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."
A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)
Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)
Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)
Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)
All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)
.................................................................................
Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited
I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.
Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.
Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.
Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.
I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.
At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?
This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.
The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?
That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.
Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?
If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.
Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.
You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.
It depends on your perspective.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?
Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?
Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.
When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.
What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.
So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.
Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.
Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.
In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.
And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.
This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.
For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.
This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.
From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)
Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
Time will tell but hopefully this essay will stand the test of time for a while. It is based on new and conflicting information I just recently read about Kant from the internet. Interpretation is critically important -- it creates the foundation for our evaluations and actions. Different interpretation; different evaluation.
Also, the credibility of the author is at stake here. Just as you must reasonably ask the question: How well do I know Kant and what he believed? -- similarily, I must ask the same 'credibility' question of the author I am reading who is interpreting Kant. Because, obviously, if I am taking the author as being a credible Kantian source, then it may mean the difference between my making a 'left turn' and making a 'right turn' in terms of the way I interpret and evaluate Kant. One way makes me a 'post-Kantian epistemologist' whereas the other way makes me an 'anti-Kantian epistemologist'. That is a big difference.
This is where a Kantian scholar -- or any person seriously concerned with epistemological accuracy -- would insist on 'proper references' -- and rightly so.
The critical 'new interpretation' for me lies in this sentence here:
The path to resolving the paradoxes of Kant's theory opens up with two basic realizations: (1) Kant always believed that reason connected us directly to things-in-themselves, and (2) Kant's system is not a Cartesian theory of hidden, transcendent objects, but a version of empirical realism, that we are directly acquainted with real objects.
It can be found if you google Kant and read the essay that is now second from the top...The essay appears scholarly and knowledgeable but no author is listed -- which raises some degree of suspicion relative to its credibility. I will search other credible sources to verify and/or contradict what is being said here...
For years now, I have tried not to get dragged too deeply into the world of Kant -- because I could get lost in there forever and I have so many other things I still want to write about -- but I can feel myself starting to dig -- or be dragged in -- deeper. At least a decent knowledge of Kant is important for the credibility of my own presentation of DGB Epistemology -- and DGB Philosophy as a whole. Kant's epistemology -- as well as his philosophy as a whole -- was a major turning point in the history and evolution of Western Philosophy, influencing Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and other major philosophers in major ways. One of my readers has even said -- rightly so by the looks of things -- that there would have been no Hegelian dialectical philosophy if it was not for Hegel leading him in this direction. Other essays and references obviously look like they will be needed here... And -- God forbid -- I may (will) have to read sinificant parts of 'The Critique of Pure Reason' myself.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...
Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.
His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.
Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]
In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.
Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.
..............................................................................
From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...
Critique of Pure Reason (1787)
Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)
Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)
Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)
Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."
A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)
Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)
Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)
Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)
All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)
.................................................................................
Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited
I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.
Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.
Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.
Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.
I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.
At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?
This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.
The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?
That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.
Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?
If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.
Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.
You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.
It depends on your perspective.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?
Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?
Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.
When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.
What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.
So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.
Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.
Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.
In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.
And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.
This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.
For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.
This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.
From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)
Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.
-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
Preface
This is my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosopohers -- Georg Hegel.
..................................................................................
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness. -- Erich From
This is my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosopohers -- Georg Hegel.
..................................................................................
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness. -- Erich From
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Words and Their Meaning/Depression
Hi Dave,
Words and their Meaning: An excellent topic for an essay. So often in conversations, you wonder if the other person received the gist of what you were trying to communicate. Many times, it's clear that they did not. There is also the case where an explanation is given and even though the other person says that they understand you, you know clearly that they could not possibly fully understand, because they have not walked in your shoes.
No matter what descriptive words you try to draw upon...The meanings of your words don't match up with the other persons experience's, or, simply fall short, expressing an emotion, feeling or thought. Then along comes someone who has walked in your shoes, and they can actually complete your sentences, as they know first hand the feelings, the words, the intention of your thoughts and communication. Or, maybe, you find another who you just click with, they have the ability to lay the foundation of easy back and forth flow. It's Amazing!
Words, meanings, communication, the willingness to engage in dialectic, and the acceptance that sometimes the other person doesn't get our meaning, for many reasons - they just don't have the same understanding.
***Narcissism was a great example for your essay. Over the past few days, I have thought about your entry on 'Depression.' I like it a lot. I think back on some of my experiences and awareness's. I recognize that depression can sometimes be chemical but most often, it boils down to choices and /or decisions, eventually, even in the case of grief. The choice/decision to live or die. The choice/decision to be negative,sad, angry etc.. OR, not, and PUSH towards a life with happiness, joy, intrigue etc.
It doesn't matter what hardship has put you in the emotional gutter - The decision needs to be made to climb out. The 'push'...towards more existential awareness, contact, meaning, and value... as you've stated. Different issues take various amounts of time landing at the same conclusion - as long as we always end up landing in the best place...
Noreen.
Words and their Meaning: An excellent topic for an essay. So often in conversations, you wonder if the other person received the gist of what you were trying to communicate. Many times, it's clear that they did not. There is also the case where an explanation is given and even though the other person says that they understand you, you know clearly that they could not possibly fully understand, because they have not walked in your shoes.
No matter what descriptive words you try to draw upon...The meanings of your words don't match up with the other persons experience's, or, simply fall short, expressing an emotion, feeling or thought. Then along comes someone who has walked in your shoes, and they can actually complete your sentences, as they know first hand the feelings, the words, the intention of your thoughts and communication. Or, maybe, you find another who you just click with, they have the ability to lay the foundation of easy back and forth flow. It's Amazing!
Words, meanings, communication, the willingness to engage in dialectic, and the acceptance that sometimes the other person doesn't get our meaning, for many reasons - they just don't have the same understanding.
***Narcissism was a great example for your essay. Over the past few days, I have thought about your entry on 'Depression.' I like it a lot. I think back on some of my experiences and awareness's. I recognize that depression can sometimes be chemical but most often, it boils down to choices and /or decisions, eventually, even in the case of grief. The choice/decision to live or die. The choice/decision to be negative,sad, angry etc.. OR, not, and PUSH towards a life with happiness, joy, intrigue etc.
It doesn't matter what hardship has put you in the emotional gutter - The decision needs to be made to climb out. The 'push'...towards more existential awareness, contact, meaning, and value... as you've stated. Different issues take various amounts of time landing at the same conclusion - as long as we always end up landing in the best place...
Noreen.
Words and Their Meaning: Example -- 'Narcissism'
I don't think anyone has ever really looked at words from this light before but words are an ongoing process of 'dialectical negotiations, integrations, and compromises'. In this regard, words evolve too -- just like animals, people, cultures, and ideas... Indeed, words have to evolve to keep up with a constantly changing world.
In this regard, words have both a 'narcissistic' and a 'social' function -- and they are 'compromise-formations' aimed at meeting both functions at the same time. In this regard also, words have both a range and focus of different 'narcissistic meanings' for the same and different people; and at the same time, they have a range and focus of different 'social meanings' that are used within a particular 'social context' depending on the particular culture and/or sub-culture, the country, the region, the municipality, the community, the sub-community, the school of kids, the gang, etc. Meanings can change significantly within all of these different social contexts -- and within the context of one particular person using one particular word in one particular sentence and paragraph at one particular time. When it comes to the meaning of words -- narcissistic and social context means everything. Words -- and their meaning -- are very slippery things.
This is why you have politicians, sports athletes, entertainers, public speakers and the like constantly complaining about 'sound bites' -- and the assertion that they have been taken 'out of context'. The politiciaan, athlete, actor, or public speaker may have a particular message he or she wishes to convey to the community -- the particular journalist may or may not have an 'underhanded agenda to create a provocative, controversial story' -- and the public figure is left 'crying foul' after the story has been written and/or the newsclip is shown on tv, Now partly or mainly, the 'communication problem' may be of the speaker's own making -- a careless use of words, an easy to draw inference from something a speaker seems to be implying (I am thinking about Hillary Clinton's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination), a 'joke' that is not funny and/or that is alluding to but partly hiding a serious statement beneath it, an abstract word or sentence that can be taken in more than one way..and so on..
Freud may use the word 'narcissism', Kohut may use the word narcissism, I may use the word narcissism -- and it can be practically guaranteed that we will all have a partly similar, partly different, range and focus of meaning for this word -- and again, meaning in each of our individual cases will be 'contextually bound'. We may mean one thing by it in a particular sentence, and something else, slightly or significantly different in a different sentence, a different paragraph, a different essay. There will likely be a particular range of social meaning that will bind all of these individual meanings together into 'one house of social meaning' if you will but within this one house of social menaing it is still very appropriate and relevant to ask the questions: What does Freud mean by 'narcissism'? What does Kohut mena by narcissism? What does Bain mean by 'narcissism'? And what does Freud or Kohut or Bain mean by 'narcissism' in this particular context here? These are all very relevant questions when it comes to the relationship between words and meaning...
Sticking to the same word and its meaning -- narcissism --
we could again quite appropriately and significantly ask the question(s):
Does narcissism include the 'word-concept-phenomenon' (wcp) of 'hedonism'? 'Pleasure'? 'Assertiveness'? 'Aggressiveness'? 'Sensuality'? 'Sexuality'? 'Selfishness'? 'Egotism'? 'Greed'? 'Power'? 'Revenge'? 'Sadism'? The 'pursuit of money'? . 'Survival'?
In every case, I would answer -- 'yes'. But here is the kicker -- Freud and Kohut would probably each answer partly differently.
Is 'altruism' narcissistic? No -- unless it involves 'conditional giving'. Is 'approval-seeking' narcissistic? Perhaps partly. There may be a sense in which we may believe that we 'need' another person's approval in order to 'survive' or in order to get what we want. The same argument can be applied to both 'submission' and 'masochism'. A person may 'submit' because he or she thinks submission is necessary in order to survive -- or to keep one's husband or wife, or to keep one's job. And the same goes at least partly with 'masochism'. Masochism is a complicated subject addressed by Freud. I would have to go back over the material but it is most likely that I will express some agreements with Freud on this subject matter and some disaggrements. I can say right now that I believe that masochism presents a mixture of narcissistic and anti-narcissistic processes. There may be pleasure connected to the masochism. That is narcissistic. There usually involves the 'disownment' of self-assertiveness, self-integrity in masochism. That is 'anti-narcissistic'. Thus, masochism presents a mixture of narcissistic and anti-narcissistic activities.
Obviously, this discussion here is equally relevant to the subject of both 'words and meaning' -- and to the subject of 'narcissism'.
In my opinion, there is a responsibility on the part of both the writer and the reader, the speaker and the listener, to engage in these types of questions -- and their answers in order to clean up the possibility of 'referent confucsion' -- of not knowing what 'phenomenon' a word is referring to, and/or two people having different ideas, different phenomena, in mind when they use the same word.
Coming down the abstraction ladder -- and if necessary -- pointing at the 'real world phenomenon' we are talking about (see Korzybski, Wittgenstein) can significantly reduce this very common type of communication problem.
-- dgb, June 1st, 2008.
In this regard, words have both a 'narcissistic' and a 'social' function -- and they are 'compromise-formations' aimed at meeting both functions at the same time. In this regard also, words have both a range and focus of different 'narcissistic meanings' for the same and different people; and at the same time, they have a range and focus of different 'social meanings' that are used within a particular 'social context' depending on the particular culture and/or sub-culture, the country, the region, the municipality, the community, the sub-community, the school of kids, the gang, etc. Meanings can change significantly within all of these different social contexts -- and within the context of one particular person using one particular word in one particular sentence and paragraph at one particular time. When it comes to the meaning of words -- narcissistic and social context means everything. Words -- and their meaning -- are very slippery things.
This is why you have politicians, sports athletes, entertainers, public speakers and the like constantly complaining about 'sound bites' -- and the assertion that they have been taken 'out of context'. The politiciaan, athlete, actor, or public speaker may have a particular message he or she wishes to convey to the community -- the particular journalist may or may not have an 'underhanded agenda to create a provocative, controversial story' -- and the public figure is left 'crying foul' after the story has been written and/or the newsclip is shown on tv, Now partly or mainly, the 'communication problem' may be of the speaker's own making -- a careless use of words, an easy to draw inference from something a speaker seems to be implying (I am thinking about Hillary Clinton's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination), a 'joke' that is not funny and/or that is alluding to but partly hiding a serious statement beneath it, an abstract word or sentence that can be taken in more than one way..and so on..
Freud may use the word 'narcissism', Kohut may use the word narcissism, I may use the word narcissism -- and it can be practically guaranteed that we will all have a partly similar, partly different, range and focus of meaning for this word -- and again, meaning in each of our individual cases will be 'contextually bound'. We may mean one thing by it in a particular sentence, and something else, slightly or significantly different in a different sentence, a different paragraph, a different essay. There will likely be a particular range of social meaning that will bind all of these individual meanings together into 'one house of social meaning' if you will but within this one house of social menaing it is still very appropriate and relevant to ask the questions: What does Freud mean by 'narcissism'? What does Kohut mena by narcissism? What does Bain mean by 'narcissism'? And what does Freud or Kohut or Bain mean by 'narcissism' in this particular context here? These are all very relevant questions when it comes to the relationship between words and meaning...
Sticking to the same word and its meaning -- narcissism --
we could again quite appropriately and significantly ask the question(s):
Does narcissism include the 'word-concept-phenomenon' (wcp) of 'hedonism'? 'Pleasure'? 'Assertiveness'? 'Aggressiveness'? 'Sensuality'? 'Sexuality'? 'Selfishness'? 'Egotism'? 'Greed'? 'Power'? 'Revenge'? 'Sadism'? The 'pursuit of money'? . 'Survival'?
In every case, I would answer -- 'yes'. But here is the kicker -- Freud and Kohut would probably each answer partly differently.
Is 'altruism' narcissistic? No -- unless it involves 'conditional giving'. Is 'approval-seeking' narcissistic? Perhaps partly. There may be a sense in which we may believe that we 'need' another person's approval in order to 'survive' or in order to get what we want. The same argument can be applied to both 'submission' and 'masochism'. A person may 'submit' because he or she thinks submission is necessary in order to survive -- or to keep one's husband or wife, or to keep one's job. And the same goes at least partly with 'masochism'. Masochism is a complicated subject addressed by Freud. I would have to go back over the material but it is most likely that I will express some agreements with Freud on this subject matter and some disaggrements. I can say right now that I believe that masochism presents a mixture of narcissistic and anti-narcissistic processes. There may be pleasure connected to the masochism. That is narcissistic. There usually involves the 'disownment' of self-assertiveness, self-integrity in masochism. That is 'anti-narcissistic'. Thus, masochism presents a mixture of narcissistic and anti-narcissistic activities.
Obviously, this discussion here is equally relevant to the subject of both 'words and meaning' -- and to the subject of 'narcissism'.
In my opinion, there is a responsibility on the part of both the writer and the reader, the speaker and the listener, to engage in these types of questions -- and their answers in order to clean up the possibility of 'referent confucsion' -- of not knowing what 'phenomenon' a word is referring to, and/or two people having different ideas, different phenomena, in mind when they use the same word.
Coming down the abstraction ladder -- and if necessary -- pointing at the 'real world phenomenon' we are talking about (see Korzybski, Wittgenstein) can significantly reduce this very common type of communication problem.
-- dgb, June 1st, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
