My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

Apes and monkeys form political systems, too. And they do so w/out philosophy.

But some humans have come to believe that the philosophy which is used to justify their actions is somehow indispensible to those actions.

 

[D'rok]

Notice you were unable to answer my question - why would Comte have a problem with the statement that that "The ultimate nature of what we call the universe is then the noumena ".

Actually, I changed my mind; I'll answer this one.

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

This has really quickly descended into semantics. I get enough of that in the legal world. The only way that statement could jive with Comte is if you interpreted it as expressing the position that the noumena/phenomena dichotomy is false.

 

[Apathia]

Folks, this is not why the Bodhdharma went to China!

 

[PixyMisa]

This has really quickly descended into semantics. I get enough of that in the legal world. The only way that statement could jive with Comte is if you interpreted it as expressing the position that the noumena/phenomena dichotomy is false.

So the question for BDZ is, is he a dualist, or is he a monist who has trouble expressing himself clearly?

 

[Robin]

Actually, I changed my mind; I'll answer this one.

Comte would assert that the ultimate nature of the universe is exactly as we perceive it to be through our senses and as we describe it with our physics.

Nope.

We have no knowledge of anything but Phaenomena; and our knowledge of phaenomena is relative, not absolute. We know not the essence, nor the real mode of production, of any fact, but only its relations to other facts in the way of succession or of similitude. These relations are constant; that is, always the same in the same circumstances. The constant resemblances which link phaenomena together, and the constant sequences which unite them as antecedent and consequent, are termed their laws. The laws of phaenomena are all we know respecting them. Their essential nature, and their ultimate causes, either efficient or final, are unknown and inscrutable to us

August Comte as quoted in John Stuart Mills "Auguste Comte and Positivism"
(My emphasis)

 

[Robin]

Yes. Organically.

Here is another opinion

The intellectual foundations of modern constitutional democracy were laid during the European Enlightenment, an 18th-century philosophic movement marked by its rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and its emphasis on rationalism. Two of its most influentual thinkers were English political philosopher John Locke and French jurist and political philosopher Montesquieu.

In 1690 Locke published his seminal Two Treatises of Government. His assertion that all legitimate government rests upon "the consent of the governed" profoundly altered discussions of political theory and promoted the development of democratic institutions.

With his assertion of natural law, Locke rebutted the claim that government, specifically monarchy, was an aspect of a divinely ordained chain of being. Natural law is identical with the law of God, Locke argued, and guarantees to all men basic rights, including the right to life, to certain liberties, and to own property and keep the fruits of one's labor. To secure these rights, Locke argued, men in civil society enter into a contract with their government. The citizen is bound to obey the law, while the government has the right to make laws and to defend the commonwealth from foreign injury -- all for the public good. Locke asserted that when any government becomes lawless and arbitrary, the citizen has the right to overthrow the regime and institute a new government.

Locke's theory of natural law inspired a generation of Enlightenment philosophers in Europe and the New World -- from Jean Jacques Rousseau in France to David Hume in Scotland, Immanuel Kant in Germany, and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in what became the United States. But his foremost successor was probably Montesquieu who, like Locke, believed in repubican government based on the consent of the governed, but not in democracy founded on majority rule. In The Spirit of Laws, published in 1748, Montesquieu advocated separating and balancing powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government as a means of guaranteeing the freedom of the individual. This doctrine also helped to form the philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution, with its division of power among the presidency, the Congress, and the judiciary.

-- Jeanne S. Holden

and:

The French political theorist Montesquieu, through his masterpiece The Spirit of the Laws (1748), strongly influenced his younger contemporary Rousseau (see below Rousseau) and many of the American Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

Encyclopedia Britannica

 

[D'rok]

Nope.

Oh God. I can't believe I'm engaging in the battle of citations. I already regret it.

Comte, as quoted by Comte, in a book by Comte, taken down off of my bookshelf by me:

"We have seen that the fundamental character of the positive philosophy is to consider all phenomena as subject to invariable natural laws. The exact discovery of these laws and their reduction to the least possible number constitute the goal of all our efforts; for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning."

I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right? I choose to interpret the plain language as written - which is in the spirit of the author. Things that absolutely cannot be perceived are imaginary.

 

[Robin]

So the question for BDZ is, is he a dualist, or is he a monist who has trouble expressing himself clearly?

Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.

 

[D'rok]

Here is another opinion

and:

How's about paraphrasing Locke, Rousseau and the gang. I've read them; you don't need to quote them at me.

Social Contract theory is not Democracy per se. You conveniently left out Hobbes, whose Social Contract was decidedly undemocratic. You also forgot to mention that Rousseau's General Will is Absolute. Your best argument comes from Locke, and his liberalism was of the "I want to protect my private property from the Crown" variety.

Also, don't forget that democracy has a long, long tradition. I dare you to find me a significant Greek who is pro-democracy.

If we are pedantic enough to keep score, counting up the "yeas" and the "nays" will handily vindicate my claim. Political philosophers have historically been against democracy.

 

[Robin]

I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right? I choose to interpret the plain language as written - which is in the spirit of the author. Things that absolutely cannot be perceived are imaginary.

Read your quote again. He said "for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning"

He is not saying that the causes of phenomena are non-existent, as you seem to be suggesting, that really would make him a solipsist.

Here again:

In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects -- in short, absolute knowledge -- supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings.

In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first, the mind supposes, instead of supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities (that is, personified abstractions) inherent in all beings, and capable of producing all phenomena. What is called the explanation of phenomena is, in this stage, a mere reference of each to its proper entity.

In the final, the positive, state, the mind has given over the vain search after absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe, and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws -- that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance. Reasoning and observation, duly combined, are the means of this knowledge. What is now understood when we speak of an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection between single phenomena and some general facts, the number of which continually diminishes with the progress of science.

Course of Positive Philosophy

 

[Piggy]

Folks, this is not why the Bodhdharma went to China!

He did it for the chicks.

 

[D'rok]

Read your quote again. He said "for we regard the search after what are called causes, whether first or final, as absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning"

He is not saying that the causes of phenomena are non-existent, as you seem to be suggesting, that really would make him a solipsist.

I suppose you'll interpret "absolutely inaccessible and unmeaning" as wiggle room for metaphysics - i.e. implying the existence of said meaningless things; they have to exist for them to be inaccessible right?

I do so enjoy when I successfully predict someone else's behaviour.

Here again:

Yes. The progression from theological, to metaphysical, to positive philosophy. It is a progression. We grow up, metaphorically speaking, from the infancy of theology to the childhood of metaphysics to the adulthood of positivism. We leave the childish things behind when we reach adulthood. The other stages where necessary "training" in order to reach the positive philosophy.

Given all this, why would you want to attribute non-positivist metaphysical notions to Comte?

For the record, I think Comte's positivism is just as silly as the theories of metaphysicians and theologists. His "social physics" in particular is extremely naive.

Just curious...have you read these works that you are quoting at me?

 

[Robin]

Social Contract theory is not Democracy per se. You conveniently left out Hobbes, whose Social Contract was decidedly undemocratic.

So what? I am not saying that all philosophers were pro-democracy. It is like saying that the heliocentric model of the universe did not come from scientists because most scientists at the time were against it.

You also forgot to mention that Rousseau's General Will is Absolute.

And you will notice that a democracy inspired by a flawed philosophy struggled at first. Not only is philosophy important, the right philosophy is important

Also, don't forget that democracy has a long, long tradition. I dare you to find me a significant Greek who is pro-democracy.

And you will notice that there was a long gap between the demise of Greek democracy and the rise of modern democracy. You will argue, I suppose, that the timing, just after the rise of Enlightenment philosophies, was merely co-incidental.

If we are pedantic enough to keep score, counting up the "yeas" and the "nays" will handily vindicate my claim. Political philosophers have historically been against democracy.

A scorecard would be quite beside the point. If only some philosophies were influential in establishing the modern democracy and influencing its character then that would still establish the usefulness of philosophy.

 

[Robin]

I do so enjoy when I successfully predict someone else's behaviour.

You didn't. You just read what you wanted to hear into what I said. That is a silly and irritating habit. Please stop it.

So let me get this straight. You appear to be claiming that Comte claims the causes of phenomena are non-existent. Are you?

Yes. The progression from theological, to metaphysical, to positive philosophy. It is a progression. We grow up, metaphorically speaking, from the infancy of theology to the childhood of metaphysics to the adulthood of positivism. We leave the childish things behind when we reach adulthood. The other stages where necessary "training" in order to reach the positive philosophy.

Given all this, why would you want to attribute non-positivist metaphysical notions to Comte?

I am not. Remember that was your straw man which I have been at pains to explain to you is wrong.

Try not to confuse your misrepresentation with what I actually said.

Just curious...have you read these works that you are quoting at me?

Yes.

 

[D'rok]

A scorecard would be quite beside the point. If only some philosophies were influential in establishing the modern democracy and influencing its character then that would still establish the usefulness of philosophy.

Nope. Establishing that some philosophers wrote approvingly of democracy or quasi-democratic principles would only establish that some philosophers did exactly what I claimed earlier - i.e., post-diction of the world around them.

 

[Robin]

Nope. Establishing that some philosophers wrote approvingly of democracy or quasi-democratic principles would only establish that some philosophers did exactly what I claimed earlier - i.e., post-diction of the world around them.

Post-diction prior to the event? Psychic philosophers maybe?

 

[D'rok]

I'm going to bed. I leave the field to you. Victory is yours by forfeit. We have solved, in this little encounter, exactly as many of the fundamental questions of existence as the combined efforts of all of the philosophers, political or otherwise, in human history.

That is...precisely none of them.

(Unless you want to talk about natural philosophy - aka Science. But that's another thread).

Good night.

 

[D'rok]

Post-diction prior to the event? Psychic philosophers maybe?

Nope. Attempts to explain what happened and is in the process of happening. Often framed in a certain way with a prosaically political - i.e. beneficial to an interest - desired outcome in mind.

Adieu.

 

[PixyMisa]

Or more likely, like Comte, Mach and so on, is neither dualist nor monist. Both of these positions assert that we can know something about the noumena.

Sesquiists?

 

[Robin]

Sesquiists?

If I understand BDZ correctly he is expressing a more or less Positivist view. I don't think he is expressing a metaphysical view at all.