Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:18 am
In asking this I am querying whether ideas are independent of their historical context. My understanding of eternal is of being timeless, or recurrent. In speaking of ideas, I am referring to basic concepts which are universal. Such ideas have been described by Plato and Jung as archetypes, such as goodness, justice, beauty, perfection and justice.
.........
From the perspective and claims of Plato, ideas are universal and absolutely real;
WIKI wrote:The theory suggests that the physical world is not as real or true as "Forms". According to this theory, Forms—conventionally capitalized and also commonly translated as "Ideas"[4]—are the non-physical, timeless, absolute, and unchangeable essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Critique by Hume
According to Hume's position on ideas and causation, the existence of Plato's Forms and Knowledge cannot be proved because they cannot be observed. The reason they cannot be observed is that they are novel, never having been glimpsed, and would be unrecognizable to any observer. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Hume-vs- ... XRYFPBYRPA
Critique by Kant
In terms of the relationship between the sensible and the ideated, Kant takes his own work to suture the divide between the two, while holding fast to a metaphysically sound articulation of the role and place of the ideas.
Plato, in Kant’s view, went much too far in the direction of a fanciful flight where understanding directs itself not to sensibility, thereby structuring experience, but out and away – toward the ideated, thus producing not concepts valid for experience, but merely phantasms. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... ml?lang=en
For Kant, ideas are thoughts that are not entangled with experience [sensibility] thus cannot be verified and justified as real, e.g. scientific concepts.
So, ideas are eternal and beyond space and time according to Plato, but Plato's ideas are merely illusions and not scientifically nor empirically real.
The ideas of Plato, Hume and Kant offer interesting contrasts. As I understand Plato was a little uncertain about the Forms as entities towards the end of his life. The solidity of ideas in most extreme contrasting positions would be Berkley at one end of the continuum and the postmodernists at the other. Berkley saw ideas and spirits as the only 'reality', with matter being only an idea. In contrast, the postmodernists saw all ideas, including good and evil, as well as gender, as socially constructed.
I see the arguments for ideas as universal, eternal and primary, as well as the postmodernists' critique of the construction and relativism of ideas as being fairly convincing even though they are clear opposites. So, I do wonder about a bridge between the two opposites. One writer who may succeed in this is Hegel. That is because he sees ideas and spirit as being real but imminent in history.
Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 11:48 pm
Are ideas merely subjective? Or, are they anything beyond the individual thinker? There is the idea of objectivity, but also intersubjectivity. This implies the connections between subjective understanding. It could imply a certain amount of objectivity, or distance from subjectivity. On the other hand, it could signify empathy in understanding between individuals in thinking.
There is not even anything beyond individual subjectivity. Even the concept of knowing there is an ''individual thinker'' is an idea.
Both the words objectivity and intersubjectivity are ideas.
Empathy is an idea.
Where are all these ideas, in deep dreamless sleep, or in the baby who lies inside it's mothers womb?
Ideas are a mental formation. And even the mind is an idea.
What is an idea? I have an idea, or I have no idea.
Nothing exists except this present moment. What is this moment? I have no idea, or I have an idea?
This moment is all there is, was and ever will be. There is nothing outside of this present moment that is not also this present moment.
This is it. This is all there is.
An idea.
And the dream is all there is. In other words, there is nothing in the word, except an idea.
Nothing is happening.
The argument that there is nothing beyond subjectivity misses the way in which all living beings are interconnected in nature. It is also challenged by Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. I am aware that the notion of the collective unconscious is not accepted by many and often seen as a fringe idea. Jung was not writing of it as a metaphysical structure only but also saw it as being connected with nature itself.
Of course, subjectivity and intersubjectivity are ideas, like all other ideas but each does represent an angle. Just because there are many varying ideas and positions does not mean that they are not valid. It may be an argument for the idea of multidimensionality.
Subjective claims that assert that something should exist, and derived from ethical and moral. Red is superior to blue. Claim is too dependent upon subjective taste to be arguable. Subjective claim that asserted that something should exist and derived from the ethical and the moral.
''My'' point, is actually no one's point, or everyone's point, everywhere. . same point!
What is the central point of everywhere? Answer: Everywhere.
Where can you place your point in everywhere? For wherever you place your point there's your point.
Where is everywhere? Answer: Nowhere. NOW HERE...the only place you can place your point.
Now-here cannot point to itself. It can only point to a past that does not exist, or a future that does not exist.
But here's the kicker; not even now-here is a point, because 'now' is only an idea..
The Tabula Rasa, or blank state, argued for by John Locke is open to question. That is on the basis that much of learning of concepts does seem to be shared by all human beings. That is there may be some innate wiring biologically for concepts in the brain similar to the nature of instincts.
puto wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 9:55 am
Subjective claims that assert that something should exist, and derived from ethical and moral. Red is superior to blue. Claim is too dependent upon subjective taste to be arguable. Subjective claim that asserted that something should exist and derived from the ethical and the moral.
Subjective experience and variations of taste are related to the concept of qualia, which is about the correspondence between such experiences and objective existence of something. If someone prefers red to blue it is related to his or her experience of the colours. Each person's experience of red differs and the perception of it is unique. Apart from psychological associations it comes down to the way in which no one knows if everyone looking at red sees the same, which is an aspect of phenomenology.
The Tabula Rasa, or blank state, argued for by John Locke is open to question.
How?
Who is going to question it?
I have just said that the idea of the tabula rasa can be questioned on the basis of biological wiring for concepts. It is questioned by those who argue for nature as opposed to nurture. A clear example of this debate is whether or not one's sense of gender is innate.
The Tabula Rasa, or blank state, argued for by John Locke is open to question.
How?
Who is going to question it?
I have just said that the idea of the tabula rasa can be questioned on the basis of biological wiring for concepts. It is questioned by those who argue for nature as opposed to nurture. A clear example of this debate is whether or not one's sense of gender is innate.
I have just said that the idea of the tabula rasa can be questioned on the basis of biological wiring for concepts. It is questioned by those who argue for nature as opposed to nurture. A clear example of this debate is whether or not one's sense of gender is innate.
The sense of being of gender, is illusory.
Gender is not identical to biological sex exactly. It is possible to not identify with one's body or any gender. Nevertheless, the majority of people identify with their assigned gender and some with difference. However, to try to tell someone that their own sense of gender is illusionary is not simple at all, or that would be effective in gender clinics.
The most classical example of this was shown in the case study of the boy whose penis was destroyed accidentally in a circumcision. He was raised as a girl, given surgery and hormones to 'make' him into a girl. He was not told that he had been a boy. For many years, it was argued by sexologists and sociologists that the 'successful' treatment demonstrated that gender was learned through nurture. That was until the boy realised that he was a boy and wished to transition to live as male.
Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:18 am
In asking this I am querying whether ideas are independent of their historical context. My understanding of eternal is of being timeless, or recurrent. In speaking of ideas, I am referring to basic concepts which are universal. Such ideas have been described by Plato and Jung as archetypes, such as goodness, justice, beauty, perfection and justice.
.........
From the perspective and claims of Plato, ideas are universal and absolutely real;
WIKI wrote:The theory suggests that the physical world is not as real or true as "Forms". According to this theory, Forms—conventionally capitalized and also commonly translated as "Ideas"[4]—are the non-physical, timeless, absolute, and unchangeable essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Critique by Hume
According to Hume's position on ideas and causation, the existence of Plato's Forms and Knowledge cannot be proved because they cannot be observed. The reason they cannot be observed is that they are novel, never having been glimpsed, and would be unrecognizable to any observer. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Hume-vs- ... XRYFPBYRPA
Critique by Kant
In terms of the relationship between the sensible and the ideated, Kant takes his own work to suture the divide between the two, while holding fast to a metaphysically sound articulation of the role and place of the ideas.
Plato, in Kant’s view, went much too far in the direction of a fanciful flight where understanding directs itself not to sensibility, thereby structuring experience, but out and away – toward the ideated, thus producing not concepts valid for experience, but merely phantasms. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... ml?lang=en
For Kant, ideas are thoughts that are not entangled with experience [sensibility] thus cannot be verified and justified as real, e.g. scientific concepts.
So, ideas are eternal and beyond space and time according to Plato, but Plato's ideas are merely illusions and not scientifically nor empirically real.
The ideas of Plato, Hume and Kant offer interesting contrasts. As I understand Plato was a little uncertain about the Forms as entities towards the end of his life. The solidity of ideas in most extreme contrasting positions would be Berkley at one end of the continuum and the postmodernists at the other. Berkley saw ideas and spirits as the only 'reality', with matter being only an idea. In contrast, the postmodernists saw all ideas, including good and evil, as well as gender, as socially constructed.
I see the arguments for ideas as universal, eternal and primary, as well as the postmodernists' critique of the construction and relativism of ideas as being fairly convincing even though they are clear opposites. So, I do wonder about a bridge between the two opposites. One writer who may succeed in this is Hegel. That is because he sees ideas and spirit as being real but imminent in history.
Hegel put the two opposites together in spiralling along with history, but trapped with the idea [the Absolute] as ultimate.
I believe Kant is more realistic and practical.
Kant was the one who put ideas as universals, illusory & "real" [relatively] while at the same time maintaining reality as a construction relatively or contingently.
"In terms of the relationship between the sensible and the ideated, Kant takes his own work to suture the divide between the two [whilst interacting dynamic complementariness], whilst holding fast to a metaphysically sound articulation of the role and place of the ideas [as useful illusions]."
I have just said that the idea of the tabula rasa can be questioned on the basis of biological wiring for concepts. It is questioned by those who argue for nature as opposed to nurture. A clear example of this debate is whether or not one's sense of gender is innate.
The sense of being of gender, is illusory.
Gender is not identical to biological sex exactly. It is possible to not identify with one's body or any gender. Nevertheless, the majority of people identify with their assigned gender and some with difference. However, to try to tell someone that their own sense of gender is illusionary is not simple at all, or that would be effective in gender clinics.
The most classical example of this was shown in the case study of the boy whose penis was destroyed accidentally in a circumcision. He was raised as a girl, given surgery and hormones to 'make' him into a girl. He was not told that he had been a boy. For many years, it was argued by sexologists and sociologists that the 'successful' treatment demonstrated that gender was learned through nurture. That was until the boy realised that he was a boy and wished to transition to live as male.
Yes, but what you are talking about is all relative, which is all you can know, in this conception ( the artificial sense of separation ) relative to the observer.
But coming back on point to ''are ideas eternal''... well, an idea is only ever known now in this immediate moment.
I know this is boring, but nothing exists except this present moment.
Any relative idea about the absolute ( eternal ) is absurd.
Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:18 am
In asking this I am querying whether ideas are independent of their historical context. My understanding of eternal is of being timeless, or recurrent. In speaking of ideas, I am referring to basic concepts which are universal. Such ideas have been described by Plato and Jung as archetypes, such as goodness, justice, beauty, perfection and justice.
.........
From the perspective and claims of Plato, ideas are universal and absolutely real;
WIKI wrote:The theory suggests that the physical world is not as real or true as "Forms". According to this theory, Forms—conventionally capitalized and also commonly translated as "Ideas"[4]—are the non-physical, timeless, absolute, and unchangeable essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Critique by Hume
According to Hume's position on ideas and causation, the existence of Plato's Forms and Knowledge cannot be proved because they cannot be observed. The reason they cannot be observed is that they are novel, never having been glimpsed, and would be unrecognizable to any observer. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Hume-vs- ... XRYFPBYRPA
Critique by Kant
In terms of the relationship between the sensible and the ideated, Kant takes his own work to suture the divide between the two, while holding fast to a metaphysically sound articulation of the role and place of the ideas.
Plato, in Kant’s view, went much too far in the direction of a fanciful flight where understanding directs itself not to sensibility, thereby structuring experience, but out and away – toward the ideated, thus producing not concepts valid for experience, but merely phantasms. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... ml?lang=en
For Kant, ideas are thoughts that are not entangled with experience [sensibility] thus cannot be verified and justified as real, e.g. scientific concepts.
So, ideas are eternal and beyond space and time according to Plato, but Plato's ideas are merely illusions and not scientifically nor empirically real.
The ideas of Plato, Hume and Kant offer interesting contrasts. As I understand Plato was a little uncertain about the Forms as entities towards the end of his life. The solidity of ideas in most extreme contrasting positions would be Berkley at one end of the continuum and the postmodernists at the other. Berkley saw ideas and spirits as the only 'reality', with matter being only an idea. In contrast, the postmodernists saw all ideas, including good and evil, as well as gender, as socially constructed.
I see the arguments for ideas as universal, eternal and primary, as well as the postmodernists' critique of the construction and relativism of ideas as being fairly convincing even though they are clear opposites. So, I do wonder about a bridge between the two opposites. One writer who may succeed in this is Hegel. That is because he sees ideas and spirit as being real but imminent in history.
I am interested in Kant's philosophy, including the a idea of a priori and a posteri as a means of validating ideas. The a priori is an important means of establishing logic and universal ideas. Kant's moral theory is backed up by this. Kant's a posteri was an important foundation for establishing ideas empirically, important for scientific approaches, especially evidence as a means of verifying ideas.
His idea of the transcendent or 'thing in itself' is complicated. That is because it is hard to grasp fully. It goes beyond the limits of human knowledge. With regard to this, there is also the thinking of Schopenhauer, who brought the transcendent down to human experience, making ideas of true significance. What do you think of Schopenhauer's reinterpretation of Kant?
Gender is not identical to biological sex exactly. It is possible to not identify with one's body or any gender. Nevertheless, the majority of people identify with their assigned gender and some with difference. However, to try to tell someone that their own sense of gender is illusionary is not simple at all, or that would be effective in gender clinics.
The most classical example of this was shown in the case study of the boy whose penis was destroyed accidentally in a circumcision. He was raised as a girl, given surgery and hormones to 'make' him into a girl. He was not told that he had been a boy. For many years, it was argued by sexologists and sociologists that the 'successful' treatment demonstrated that gender was learned through nurture. That was until the boy realised that he was a boy and wished to transition to live as male.
Yes, but what you are talking about is all relative, which is all you can know, in this conception ( the artificial sense of separation ) relative to the observer.
But coming back on point to ''are ideas eternal''... well, an idea is only ever known now in this immediate moment.
I know this is boring, but nothing exists except this present moment.
Any relative idea about the absolute ( eternal ) is absurd.
I don't see the understanding of thinking about the 'present moment' as boring. It's significant was drawn out in Eckhart Tolle's 'The Eternal Now'. My reading of Tolle is that he is arguing that everything, including memories and ideas are experienced in the 'now' consciousness. This is the way human beings, as sentient beings exist are able to process all thought. It is a situation of the present, as the slice of time in which all experiential knowledge is collapsed. The past and present are the wider aspects of ' eternal' as framed within the ever changing experience of the momentary.
The concept of eternity can either be viewed literally as encompassing the past and present on a linear basis, or it can be seen as cyclical. Nietzsche's idea of 'eternal recurrence' is important. As far as I understand, his initial idea involves all aspects of life repeated over again, especially one's life in slight variations. However, in time, he came to believe that the idea of eternal recurrence as being about the symbolic expression of everything being within the wider picture of eternity. In that sense, ideas exist forever within a 'cosmic memory'.