Laurentius

AVE

Is the absolute philosophy’s fundamental problem?

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
Does existence exist in itself, independently from the thinking that thinks of it?
There are 3 possible answers:
(a) yes, it does – REALIST philosophy;
(b) no, it doesn’t – IDEALIST philosophy;
(c) no answer – AGNOSTIC philosophy.

WHAT DO WE WANT?
The quest for the absolute stands for the pursuit of something different from ourselves, in which we could diffuse and lose ourselves.
This pursuit is said to be the engine of any intellectual human activity. Hegel thought it the reason of all human activities. He believed that philosophic reflection led to the absolute. The quest for the absolute, however, required patience and infinite labor. This is why he considered religious faith, Romanesque love and suicide nothing but the absolute’s impatience.

WHAT CAN WE DO?
The absolute (i.e. one’s reaching something different from oneself and losing oneself in it) makes a privileged experience that may never take place. Man simply cannot surpass his condition:
(a) he cannot reach the absolute itself;
(b) he can establish a relation with the absolute, though;
(c) and he can make assertions on the absolute.
And this is philosophical reflection.

WHAT CAN WE KNOW?
Philosophical reflection aims at absolute knowledge.
Absolute knowledge does not mean comprehensive knowledge, which would include all things existent in the universe. Absolute knowledge is the superior understanding of reality, the process of exercising man’s faculty of reflection, during which man identifies himself with what he is not, the existence itself.

WHAT IS ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE?
Hegel defined absolute knowledge as the identity between thought and existence.
Any human action presupposes both subjective creation and objective revelation. Intellectual discoveries are dual occurrences, one facet being ourselves and the other the existence itself.

The absolute is manifest in all human actions and discoveries, the grasp of such privileged moments being only made possible through philosophical reflection.


AVE

tronvillain

Laurentius:
Well, I am obviously not generating my perceptions, so they have to be coming from somewhere else. Whether or not there is actually a keyboard and monitor "out there" is completely irrelevant, since the fact remains that I do percieve a keyboard and a monitor. Whether they are real or an illusion does not significantly affect our discussion.

Personally, I want various physical, intellectual, and emotional pleasures, and to a lesser degree various physical, intellectual, and emotional pains. Perhaps this rambling about the "absolute" falls under intellectual pleasures?

This is sounding more and more like gibberish Laurie.

Right. Do you really have any idea what you're talking about?

Did Hegel really have any idea what he was talking about? Sounds more like he just said something that sounded good at the time.

Laurentius

<tronvillain> Well, I am obviously not generating my perceptions, so they have to be coming from somewhere else.

<Laurentius> Philosophers deal exactly with the things that seem obvious often to prove that they’re not as obvious as they seem.

<tronvillain> Personally, I want various physical, intellectual, and emotional pleasures, and to a lesser degree various physical, intellectual, and emotional pains. Perhaps this rambling about the "absolute" falls under intellectual pleasures?

<Laurentius> “What do we want?” refers to those involved in the quest for the absolute, i.e. philosophers.

<tronvillain> This is sounding more and more like gibberish Laurie.

<Laurentius> And you sound as if you were picking on me.

<tronvillain> Right. Do you really have any idea what you're talking about?

<Laurentius> Okay, you are picking on me.

<tronvillain> Did Hegel really have any idea what he was talking about? Sounds more like he just said something that sounded good at the time.

<Laurentius> I see. I am gibberish and Hegel was a fraud. Thanks for coming by.

AVE

tronvillain

Laurentius:
Well, I have yet to see anyone show how it is not obvious that I am not producing my perceptions. Something in addition to what I am aware of is required, because I am not aware of producing my perceptions.

Are philosophers on a quest for the absolute? It's a pretty vague object for a quest.

Obviously you are not gibberish, but I am not sure I can say the same about all of your statements. As for Hegel, I was simply basing my assessment on your account of his definition of knowledge.

owleye

Laurentius...

My reading of your introductory posts halted when I read your (apparently) ontological breakdown:

"Does existence exist in itself, independently from the thinking that thinks of it?
There are 3 possible answers:
(a) yes, it does – REALIST philosophy;
(b) no, it doesn’t – IDEALIST philosophy;
(c) no answer – AGNOSTIC philosophy."

Realists hold that there are mind-independent entities.

Idealists can be realists or anti-realists. Platonists fall into the former category while Berkeley held a postion close to the latter. It is the anti-realist that would probably be what you had in mind for your second category.

However, there is another possible breakdown that you may be thinking of.
Realists, in response to a question about the kind of reality they hold would probably decide between material and immaterial entities.

Other interests of ontology include whether entities are one, dual or plural. Materialists, for example, are more likely to be monists (all is matter-energy).

Agnosticism, however, seems to be an epistemic category more than an ontological one so it doesn't quite fit the above.

owleye

Laurentius

AVE

tronvillan

<tronvillain> Well, I have yet to see anyone show how it is not obvious that I am not producing my perceptions. Something in addition to what I am aware of is required, because I am not aware of producing my perceptions.

<Laurentius> A simple example is the perception of twinkling stars, which are not twinkling actually, it is just an optical illusion produced by the particles in the atmosphere and, more importantly, by the moisture on the surface of the ocular globe.
A more complex example could be the perception of a Muslim fundamentalist blowing himself up in a public place filled with “Allah’s enemies”. Some will consider him a revolutionary or a martyr, others will say he is a maniac, a psycho. Beyond the religious issue, there is a nationalistic one, and beyond this one there is a clash of civilization on the one hand, and a conflict between Globalization and Localism on the other.

<tronvillain> Are philosophers on a quest for the absolute? It's a pretty vague object for a quest.

<Laurentius> By “absolute” I am referring to all that exists in itself, separately and independently from any other object (from the Latin absolutum).

AVE

Laurentius

AVE

owleye

I remember having been told once that philosophy’s fundamental problem is this issue of the absolute: Are things really the way we see them? Roughly speaking, one can say “yes” (Parmenides, Plato, Spinoza, Schelling) or “no” (Fichte, Hegel), or simply avoid giving an answer (Kant). I was just wondering if this quest for the absolute (as briefly defined above) is really philosophy’s fundamental problem.

AVE

tronvillain

Laurentius:
That has absolutely nothing to do with me producing my own perceptions - there is an external mechanism producing those perceptions.

Again, that has nothing to do with me producing my own perceptions. I am not aware of conjuring up the image of a Muslim fundamentalist blowing himself up, so a mechanism external to my awareness is required to produce that perception.

As I said, an extremely vague object. It's not clear that it's anything more than a munch of words strung together.

Laurentius

AVE

tronvillan

<tronvillain> I am not aware of conjuring up the image of a Muslim fundamentalist blowing himself up, so a mechanism external to my awareness is required to produce that perception.

<Laurentius> You not being aware of you constructing your perceptions does not rule you out as an agent of your own mispercetions.

<tronvillain> As I said, an extremely vague object. It's not clear that it's anything more than a munch of words strung together.

<Laurentius> Well, I guess the whole existence, as the largest object one can think of, can't be anything else but vague.

AVE

AtlanticCitySlave

"<Laurentius> You not being aware of you constructing your perceptions does not rule you out as an agent of your own mispercetions."

-This is the point I was going to make as well, but only because Tron thinks it obvious we don't generate our own perceptions. Also, to add, it seems so far Tron is arguing from ignorance. He writes:

"Well, I am obviously not generating my perceptions, so they have to be coming from somewhere else."

Then he writes:

"Well, I have yet to see anyone show how it is not obvious that I am not producing my perceptions."

-At least to some of us, it's not obvious that we are not generating our own perceptions (we may be without being aware of doing so), and to say that we are justified in believing we're not because no one has shown otherwise seems to me fallacious, unless it can be shown that this is such a case that doing so (pointing out no one else has shown otherwise) justifies it.
Regardless of this, it seems to me Tron is correct, and the only problem may be that we can say he's arguing from ignorance. While I would not say it's obvious that we do not generate our own perceptions, it does seem that we do, and it's a completely rational approach to think something is the case (especially when it seems obvious) until someone has shown we have good reason for thinking otherwise(this is the view taken by Swinburne commonly). Sure, we may be generating our own perceptions, but currently we have no reason to think so. And, regarding the criterion of adequacy (scope, novel, simplicity, etc.), we are justified in believing we do not generate our own perceptions, although it may be possible, in some sense, we do. Taking this into consideration, Tron would not be arguing from ignorance, although I would think modifying the use of "obvious" would help his case.

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>