Tyler ’s Comments (group member since May 09, 2008)

Tyler ’s comments from the Philosophy group.

Hi Nemo --

An ontological fact is a fact of reality. An epistemological one is a fact based on human accord.

An example would be a ten dollar bill. Ontologically, it's nothing but rectangular pieces of paper. Yet it's true that humans treat it as a medium of exchange, something that has nothing to do with its physical characteristics. So it's also a fact that these notes are currency, although an epistemological fact.

Hi Chris --

I don't agree that the existence of political inequality means that equality isn't a political principle. What it does is to point out areas in which the state must better align its actions with its implicit moral underpinnings.

There's a related question: In order to achieve political equality, is it necessary for all citizens to be exactly equal? I don't think so, but clearly in some fundamental ways they must be, or become so. I think arguments about equality focus on what's fundamental to it and what's not.

I admire your segue back to Plato. The central place of the virtues, Plato may have hoped, would overcome the lack of what we now consider a judicial, or enforcement branch, of law. The concept of virtue morphed as Greek philosophy developed, but it always remained something that adhered to an individual.

I think it was the Enlightenment that developed a newer concept of public "morality" as a bridge between an individual and his fellow man in the political sphere, filling a gap the concept of virtue alone couldn't fix.

But public moralities have come under attack recently, and a current question is whether a return to the virtues is a good idea. I don't see the two notions as contradictory, but complementary to each other.

Aladair MacIntyre pressed this point -- a return to the Platonic virtues for modern people. It is certainly true that declaring various arenas of human action, such as management science, to be beyond the scope of the virtues, has resulted in a less humane society than we might otherwise have.

Hi Nemo --

You're contradicting yourself. First you say "that is clearly not true", but later you admit it is a "moral fact". Which one is it?

Both are the case. To claim that "all men are equal" is not a self-evidency, and the the supposition of a state of nature in which men are equal is false.

These are both ontological errors. But "facts" can be either ontological or epistemological in origin. The grounding of morality in equality along the lines of msg 121 is not an ontological fact; it is, however, an epistemological one.

Hi Nemo --

Why then is it written in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"?

I don't doubt that this statement established equality as a founding principle of a future American state. But if you read it carefully, it has no basis other than the bare assertion that it's so. The force of that statement lies not in any natural or God-given state of man -- such a state cannot be discerned -- but rather in the fact that the idea was proclaimed in public and accepted as true by the society to which it applied. That seems like a rather boring way for a moral fact to spring to life, but it works.

Hi Nemo --

Speaking of human nature, is it true that "all men are created equal"?

That is clearly not true, either in terms of human nature or the particular circumstance into which any particular individual is born.

The question is whether this fact justifies inequality. Another question is whether it precludes efforts to establish equality in various circumstances.

The extent to which inequality can or should be accepted lies at the core of moral reasoning. All moral, and hence political, questions seem to trace back to this single one.

Hi Robert --

You're questions are difficult for me to answer. They fall in a general category such as, "Why do we even study philosophy?"

So I'll offer a general answer: It helps make a person a better thinker about the subject at hand. I cannot explain (or remember) every chapter of Being and Nothingness, but in Sartre's defense I'll say I don't think he could have made his own book much shorter. In explaining consciousness, Sartre delves into every aspect of philosophy, talking about things as varied as the Eleatic's position on motion, or the existential importance of a woman's breasts as she lies naked and supine.

In my case, I got the feeling from the first pages that this author was going to take thinking to its uttermost limits, and that fascination is what it took for me to persevere through it. Not every book that dense will do that; I certainly wasn't as moved by The Critique of Pure Reason as so many are. But I think when the right person finds the right author for the things he's thinking about, what that author has to say can be much more meaningful than for a reader who can't connect. The same must be true for Being and Time.

I can't answer that because I know only about Sartre's take. I take it from B&N that Sartre provides an all-encompassing account of consciousness and he uses Heidegger's account as a starting point.

Apparently, Heidegger's account of the phenomenon is inadequate to explain consciousness in its every aspect although many of his insights are on the mark. I've never read that he attempted to refute Sartre's account, anyway. Both accounts are comprehensive, so each author had something to say about all branches of philosophy. It's this completeness that makes them interesting.

Here's an example of how it might make a difference: Can you own your own death? Maybe, maybe not, depending on which philosopher you follow. Sartre dismisses the idea, but Heidegger takes it seriously and explores it at length. It would make a difference in your life because you would put your affairs in order differently depending on which of the two made more sense to you.

Does it have a consciousness or a will independent of the members that make it up?

Which distinction?

Hi Nemo --

The State is made up of individuals, like a family, a team or an organization, and if each member of the group is "whole", then the group is "whole" too.

I agree that the state is a valid social construct. What I question is whether it can have the kind of agency Plato and later thinkers have attributed to it.

Hi Robert --

About the original question I'm an existentialist. So I think mankind is alone in a universe that's either hostile or indifferent to our needs. So I'm tempted to choose option 2.

However, I'm not sure that there's a "drift" towards a kinder or unkinder state. All we can say about the universe right now is that it just is.

Hi Bo --

Don't sell yourself short. To be 17 and able to discuss Descartes is a sign of sharp thinking. At 17, I could never have said anything about about Cartesian dualism.

Hi Nemo --

I think Plato views occupation as a service to the society, i.e. the individuals are functioning parts of the whole.

I'll add that I think that's a correct interpretation of Plato, but Plato is simply mistaken. There is, as far as we humans can establish, nothing more whole than the individual himself. That is, there is no higher agency than that of a single person.

The idea that there is some secular Absolute, although popular, has never been demonstrated, but it, too, is a recent innovation on Plato's original. When people have acted upon the this idea, modern history shows what the results have been.

Plato's assumes the idea (or Idea) of a whole without showing it. I would have been a natural enough notion in a severely hierarchical society like ancient Greece. It's been a popular notion through the ages, but by itself I don't think it's enough to justify the state's power to this extent. Such a position requires additional arguments.

I'd add, Bo, that the ground for Cartesian duality had already been fertilized by the Church's neoplatonic roots. They were in the right frame of mind to accept Descartes.

The majority of concepts that derive from human sentiment are baseless and illusion.

I agree in general. But I do think the characterization of things as good and bad (or evil) can have a rational basis independent of our feelings about them.

I noticed in The Republic a similar bent toward what we now recognize as totalitarianism. Plato is very idealistic about how such a state and its laws would actually function.

I'm guessing, but I'm not sure, the Plato expected that the Idea of a perfect society would be adequate to guide its citizens away from their darker impulses. So it seems his proposals (like legal education - a good idea, I think) are intended to move society toward or to induce the concrete expression of the corresponding Idea.

They didn't have a police force in those days, either. So if they didn't enforce the judgments this way, it would be up to soldiers to do it, and that would complicate matters.

Is Plato advising us to take the law into our own hands? If so, what purpose would courts and legislatures serve? Are they supposed to lay out what justice is, then leave it up to individuals to enforce it? Or are individuals supposed to decide for themselves?

Hi Traveller --

YW, and please de-lurk any time you'd like to add to the discussions.

Traveller wrote: "Oi, please excuse me crashing in on this very philisophical conversation to ask a very mundane question.
I notice there are some "currently reading" books set out there for the group, but I'm ha..."

Hi Traveller --

Plato's Laws are being discussed on this thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Fear of Knowledge was being discussed by Aloha about post 109 of the introductory thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Brian puts in a shout-out for Think on this thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

On Liberty was mentioned on this thread msg 8:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

We don't really do group book readings on this forum right now, so I try to keep the Currently Reading section stocked with books that have come up in recent debates or discussions.

I read that book recently. I like it; I can recommend it.