For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
in a drapery shop?Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:25 amWhere did Russell argue for this?RCSaunders wrote:... Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads ...
Windowless monads were the invention of Leibniz, whom Russel admired, especially for what he called Leibniz, "mathematical logic." Though Russel criticized Liebniz monadology, he wrote: "... his monads can still be useful as suggesting possible ways of viewing perception .... What I, for my part, think best in his theory of monads is his two kinds of space, one subjective, in the perceptions of each monad, and, one objective, consisting of the assemblage of points of view of the various monads. This, I believe, is still useful in relating perception to physics." [A History of Western Philosophy, page 596]Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:25 amWhere did Russell argue for this?RCSaunders wrote:... Russell and his idiotic belief in windowless monads ...
I'm just requoting your OP but read enough of some of the ones that follow to get what you mean and agree.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:15 pm If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.
True!TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:15 pm If someone doesn't understand their own view, but has it on authority, it is impossible to use reason with them. Since, what they have is the jocund pleasure of the possession of the right to despise whoever disagrees with the authority. Only those who understand their views are movable by giving reasons. Usually, in this respect, the discussion never becomes dialectic, but rather serves to immunize the one with the view based on authority from reason as such. This is the case, for example, with all followers of various schools of thought political, scientific/philosophical or otherwise who merely have an inkling of the meaning of the teaching, without genuinely having mastered it. However, the pseudos of the mere inkling is not simply negative. It shows an inclination which may be healthy, a whiff of the truth without the attainment of it. A few feet up a snowy peak, but not the peak itself. In the attainment there may be, to be sure, only a relative truth, the prospect of a false peak, which is to say, only a more powerful understanding than is usually to be found corresponding, in the best cases, to the disputes among the greatest minds. Whether a supreme mind would ever be found, a mind possessed of simple truth, or is to be expected, is a dark question.
I don't follow your point.the ones who lack a proper rationale for the faith are not relevant to the 'supporting consensus' as authorities
I agree. This is why one can't dismiss the teaching by dismissing its worst students or adherents.I've often thought they're really doing a disservice to the authority they claim to represent.
This isn't necessarily the case. The view could be true (or at least to a reasonable standard), and something that could be laid down with a minute train of difficult reasoning which someone once understood or somewhere still does. One could cling in correct faith, but without being able to communicate it either to oneself or another.Rigidity is an obvious sign of a desperate, clinging, manipulated delusion.
Those who lack their own understanding, even if they 'support' something rational, are still using 'faith' and if you were to take the collective of those who take a shared point of view, the ones who side out of faith alone, should be ignored as part of the 'consensus'.TheVisionofEr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:09 pmI don't follow your point.the ones who lack a proper rationale for the faith are not relevant to the 'supporting consensus' as authorities
Scott Mayers
I see what you mean although I don’t agree. There is seldom or never this pure case of the depreciatory meaning you give to “faith.” We usually know something, and then we know also that people we trust or believe to know their stuff back a view, and we also may know quite a bit but not as much as the leading experts. The issue is often of an attraction to a point of view, which could be called an “emotional bias” which extend also to the greatest experts on some subject matter, who, themselves, must in some sense act on faith. As for instance with the wave theory of light which about 1898 was said be humanly proved beyond any normal doubt, as over against the old corpuscular view. Then, Einstein challenged the acceptance of it and today, as is everywhere known, both views are held. Both views must be “on faith” in some sense.Those who lack their own understanding, even if they 'support' something rational, are still using 'faith' and if you were to take the collective of those who take a shared point of view, the ones who side out of faith alone, should be ignored as part of the 'consensus'.