BothAndBlog Forum

A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to?
B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997

I think you have put your finger on a sore-point of Philosophy & Science : the necessity to take some "facts" for granted without empirical proof. The only evidence to support such unproven premises (axioms) is logical consistency. But, even that assumption is based on the presumption that the human mind and the real world are inherently logical, hence share a firm foundation. I suppose Aristotle's Universal Principles are the metaphysical analog of physical atoms : not reducible to anything more fundamental. First Principles are simply labels for First Causes : the cornerstone of all practical knowledge. Example : the distinction between Substance (matter) and Essence (form ; qualities).

However, some fundamental premises are themselves subject to disproof, by stumbling across an exception to the rule. For example, physicists rejoiced when the long quest for the Democratean Atom seemed to be fulfilled in the 1800s, when Dalton & Thompson inferred that they had found the smallest possible piece of matter. Yet, no sooner had Rutherford produced his plum-pudding models, it was replaced by the planetary model of Bohr, introducing even smaller bits of stuff. Unfortunately, their dissecting & reductive methods soon hit a softer underlying layer of reality, which we now label, not as compact lumps of stuff, but as extended Fields of potential. Therefore, the 21st century foundation of the material world, now seems to be somewhat fuzzy & mushy, acausal & non-classical. Yet the operations of those amorphous immaterial mathematical fields have proven to have a perverse holistic logic of its own, as proven by the real-world success of "weird" Quantum Theory*1.

Apparently, Aristotle's First Principles were presumed "self-evident", based on his self-confidence in his own reasoning ability. But quantum scientists are no longer so self-assured, regarding their ability to make sense of the evidence available for the fuzzy logic of the sub-atomic realm of reality. It even calls into question our long-held assumptions about the linear logic of the Universe. Maybe our time-honored First Principles should be considered as local rules-of-thumb for taking the measure of the immense universe.


*1. Famously, physicist Feynman advised his bewildered students to avoid the trap of trying to make philosophical sense of quantum non-mechanics. Instead, "just shut-up and calculate".

Nevertheless, I think Aristotle's principles of logic are still important in some ways. — javi2541997

Yes. If we couldn't agree on some universally applicable First Principles (starting point for reasoning), Philosophy & Science would be a political contest of whose personal opinions should rule. Most of Aristotle's principles have held-up to skeptical scrutiny over the years. But, logical reasoning from abstract principles can still be questionable. For example, even if you accept a particular axiom, as the first of a series of logical causes & effects, you could still go wrong.

That's because of the skeptical distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact". David Hume noted that there is no "logical necessity" between a cause and its effect. He said that our intuition of logical cause & effect is basically a "habit of thought". Hence, one experimental outcome doesn't prove anything. So, scientists can't accept a single result as typical, until it has been repeatedly replicated. Nevertheless, reasoning from First Principles is a stubborn, and useful, habit.

Kant said he was "awakened from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume's skepticism. So, he tried to find a way to justify our intuitive "habit of thought" by means other than endless inconclusive experiments & observations. Yet, he was forced to conclude that we can't know anything about the world with absolute certainty. We can only know our own minds. Even our sensory Perceptions are filtered through our metaphysical Conceptions. Hence, it is only "knowledge of causation itself that is a priori (i.e. knowable prior to experience)"*1. We seem to be born with a mental template of metaphysical Logic and physical Cause & Effect, which we refine over time by adding confirming experiences.

Yet we must always be on the lookout for the exception that proves the rule : miracles are rare & usually based on trust in someone else's experience. So, who do you trust : Aristotle or Augustine? :joke:



*1. Reference : Philosophy Now Magazine, June/July 2022

↪javi2541997
I believe this What makes an observation true or false will be helpful!
Synthetic a priori? — Agent Smith

True & False are opinions, not facts. They don't exist apart from human minds. That's why Kant labeled them "synthetic" (artificial instead of natural). But, all animals have an interest in determining which appearances are Real (true & natural) from which are Unreal (artifacts of mind).

For instance, the appearance of tall grass may, or may not, indicate edibles for ruminants. There could be a tiger lining-up its stripes with grassy shadows. But fawns don't need to know that "fact" from personal experience. So, most prey animals are jumpy, because they were programmed -- a priori by evolutionary education -- to err on the safe side, and be prepared to run, if the grass moves when the wind is not blowing.

Homo Sapiens have inherited that habit of synthesizing physical percepts into meta-physical concepts, to mentally compare true grass with fake grass (a thought experiment). But humans have expanded that analytical talent to include complex meta-physical concepts in their appearance-vs-actual scrutiny. But out there in harsh Reality there is only "is" or "ain't". True is only "true" in Ideality.

So, philosophers invented new words to differentiate non-physical noumena (ideas, beliefs, opinions) from physical phenomena (facts, percepts, sensations). Those abstract logical categories all distill-down to True vs False. But, it's seldom that black & white. Anyway, since noumena are not empirical (known by physical evidence) they exist only in the abstract realm of Logic & Reason. Which Kant assumed was inherent in the human mind, not learned from experience. Yet, "a priori" could be interpreted as "from creation" or "from evolution". So, which belief is true, and which false?

Kant and Evolution :
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 5AABBA8EB9

So "human minds" are human minds-dependent "facts"? — 180 Proof

Say what?
Alls I'm sayin is that our understanding of what's real or unreal, true or false is subjective phemomena, not objective noumena. That's why Kant concluded that we KANT know the ding an sich (true ultimate perfect reality, which I call "Ideality"). All we know is our own concepts about perceived reality. So our "facts" are "human-mind-dependent". G*D only knows what's what out there in the Real world.

Unfortunately, most of us assume that our mental models are perfect representations of Reality. Although empirical scientists do generalize, they are aware that their models are never perfect, and fall short of absolute Facts. Hence, the necessity for methodological skepticism.

That's also why Aristotle made a distinction between Universal Ideal Generic Forms (morph), and particular physical Instances (hyle) of those Ideal Abstractions. Science attempts to generalize universal Facts from a few instances. In practice though, our common language too often allows us to confuse physical real Instances (Things ; Facts) with metaphysical ideal Forms (Universals ; Truths) ; the Ding with the Ding An Sich.

Ding an sich :
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason—i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent—makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon#ref182175

Universals :
The Problem of Universals asks three questions. Do universals exist? If they exist, where do they exist? Also, if they exist, how do we obtain knowledge of them? In Aristotle's view, universals are incorporeal and universal, but only exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle ... universals

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt

Platonic Form :
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.
___Wiki
Note -- Those perfect Ideals exist only in the mind of G*D (or Spinoza's Nature), not in the minds of mortal men. If there is no eternal state of Being, there is only imperfect ever-evolving reality -- no absolute Truth. G*D's ideals are the ultimate objectivity that fallible humans futilely strive for in Science & Philosophy. Hence, if there was no G*D, we would have to invent one to serve as the Ideal Objective Observer.

"Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance 'God', or 'Nature'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Spinoza

MIND-DEPENDENT FACT
cat-sees-lion-in-mirror-2.gif?fit=529%2C626&ssl=1

Clearly, Gnomon, you don't drink bleach – no doubt because the "representation" of its toxicity corresponds sufficiently with the bleach's "ding-an-such" for you to heed the poison warning label. Anti-realism (i.e.immaterialism) is demonstrably bad for your health — 180 Proof

I also don't imbibe 180 proof Materialism. It's bad for your mental health; even for those who don't believe in immaterial Minds.

Anti-Idealism :
Type-A materialists hold that phenomenal facts (insofar as there are such facts) are necessitated a priori by physical facts. Such a materialist denies that physically identical zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds are coherently conceivable, denies that Mary (of the black-and-white room) gains any factual knowledge on seeing red for the first time, and typically embraces a functional (or eliminative) analysis of consciousness.

Type-B materialists accept that phenomenal facts are not necessitated a priori by physical facts, but hold that they are necessitated a posteriori by physical facts. Such a materialist accepts that zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds (often both) are coherently conceivable but denies that such worlds are metaphysically possible, holds that the factual knowledge that Mary gains is knowledge of an old fact in a new way, and typically embraces an a posteriori identification of consciousness with a physical or functional property. ___David Chalmers
http://consc.net/papers/modality.html

PS__Maybe "G-mon" is a type A Materialist. Phenomena is a function of Noumena. In that case, Phenomena are recognized as models of Noumena because the a priori template of Aristotelian Categories (Quanta/Qualia) fits the incoming information. Partial fit = questionable; No fit = false.


hqdefault.jpg

If evolution is to succeed with humans, it has to balance reality with illusion, hit the sweet spot so to speak just so that we stay alive long enough to transfer our genes to the next generation. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Yes. Evolution weeds out un-fitness, but useful (pragmatic) "illusions" (models of reality) are fit-enough to pass the survival test. Donald Hoffman doesn't deny that there is a real world out there. He just argues that our mental models of reality are based on limited information & experience. He uses the analogy of computer screen icons as abstract & simplified symbols of the underlying complexities hidden inside the processor.

Hence, he agrees with Kant, that we don't have direct knowledge of (real) things, just our indirect (ideal) mental representations of them. And he concludes that our imperfect replicas of reality are "good enough" to guide us through the exigencies of evolutionary extraction (culling of the herd). Good enough is near the balance point ("sweet spot") between too much and too little. Even if it doesn't hit a home-run every time at bat, it will be sufficient to result in a high batting average.

PS__Even as the technological extensions of our senses add more detail to our world model, we discover that, like fractals, the subtleties go on toward infinity.


The Case Against Reality :
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ty/479559/
Note -- Hoffman insists that our survival was not due to a "true" picture of reality, but to a model (that I call "Ideality") that is true-enough for minimal fitness. For example, our ancestors survived for millennia without knowing much about Physics, or Quantum Physics, or the vastness of the universe. So, they "got by" with their superficial models of the entangled complexities of the underlying & overlying world that is hidden from our eyes -- but not from our sense-extending technology.

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound. — Agent Smith

An interesting perspective! It reminded me that lower animals have no illusions. For example, an ant is not concerned with "Truth", and doesn't worry about "Death", but only with what works right here, right now. Homo sapiens is a different animal though. Our rational ability to project here & now into the near future, causes us to worry about things that are not things, and about events that may never happen. We sometimes treat those imaginary possible futures as-if they are the wolf at the door. That's the root of most anxiety disorders. But the stoics among us understand, that if an imaginary wolf is at the door, all we need to do is not open the door.

Discerning True-from-False is sometimes taken to extremes by philosophers. That's why we need to be reminded by thinkers like Kant and Hoffman, that we have no way of knowing Absolute Truth. So, we have to do the best we can with our little cache of personally proven facts, and whatever useful truths we can glean from the experiences of others. We weave all those particular truths together with links of Logic, to fill-in the gaps in our direct & indirect knowledge. The patchwork result is Pragmatic Wisdom, not seamless Divine Revelation.

The BothAnd Principle is based on viewing "True-False" as a continuum, not as absolute extreme positions with nothing in between. So, instead of going to one-end-or-the-other of those simple-minded oppositions, philosophers are advised to shoot for the "sweet spot" at the Golden Mean. Apparently, species that succeed at maintaining an "even keel" (stability ; consistency) survive long enough to reproduce, and to propagate their informed genes (molded by experience) into future generations. That's not out-dated Lamarckism, but merely the observed fact that genes are not merely inert carriers of information, but are modified by the experience of their host (neo-Lamarkism). Moreover, humans have invented an artificial form of embodied experience : writing & recording (techno-Lamarkism).

Life is not simply a stark choice between door A (true?) & door B (false?), but a more interesting game with multiple options, some more true than others. Perhaps, what 180 Proof labeled "partial truths". The first of all Principles in the game-of-Life is "choose life". However, Wisdom is the talent to know how to choose the least-bad option, from a spectrum ranging between Good & Evil. Evolution seems to reward such Pragmatic Truth, instead of the vain treasure-hunt for the Holy Grail of Absolute Truth. Nevertheless, idealistic humans tend to err on the side of Truer Truth (e.g. philosophy ; science ; technology), thus advancing cultural evolution from Cave Man to Rocket Man -- from bare survival to thrival.


A cognitive bias is a strong, preconceived notion of someone or something, based on information we have, perceive to have, or lack.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/ho ... itive-bias

Perhaps I speak too soon - the circumstances are such that some of the traits we possess can't be identified as good/bad for survival; are some qualities we possess being maintained/honed/discarded? Only time will tell I guess. In addition we seem to have created a quasi-Matrix-like artificial world for ourselves with its own set of rules and only a handful will survive for more than a few hours out in the wild. — Agent Smith

Don't give up on us yet. I hope our good qualities are not being "discarded". But sometimes one talent comes to the forefront, and another recedes. For example Darwinian Evolution emphasized the role of competition in the "struggle for survival" : mano y mano ; one-on-one. But other naturalists, such as E.O.Wilson, saw that cooperation within cohesive systems (Group Selection) was a major factor of evolution. The "honing" process works in more ways than one, to "maintain" a balanced system.

That maintenance includes Cultural selection & progression. In the 20th century, most Western societies rejected cooperative Socialism, and focused on competitive Capitalism as the main driver of social evolution (measured in terms of money). But, that "greed is good" policy resulted in some dire social consequences, as economic competition tended to let the cream rise to the top (the super-rich 1 or 2%), while the watery whey sank to the bottom (Zion in the Matrix). In reality though, what we now have is a hybrid (off-setting) system of Socialism & Capitalism.

However, Nature tends to automatically react to re-balance an out-of-whack system; sometimes via violent natural disasters. And Culture ("artificial world") also seems to offset extremes in order to harmonize the general human welfare. However, apologies to Marx, Social systems are unnatural, and seldom automatic. So the polarity may have to get very disproportionate before civil wars break-out. Hence the history of human culture seems to follow the up & down path made famous by Hegel. Yet, somehow the general trend seems to keep us, as a world-wide social system, on a fairly stable path. That may be because natural & cultural Evolution have an inherent stabilizing force to keep it on track. Being a pragmatic optimist, I call that implicit equilibrator "EnFormAction".

PS__One example of balancing Aristocracy (the few) and Proletariat (the many) is in the Parliamentary proportioning of Lords (few) and Commons (many). It acknowledges the social disparity, but tries to provide a political counterbalance. This is a cultural example of the natural balance between Predators (few) and Prey (many). It's an eccentric symmetry, and a dynamic balance, but it seems to work . . . . in the long run.

Social Re-Balance :
Picture a country plagued with financial struggle, unaffordable food, looting and rioting due to heavy disdain for the current regime, the wealthy exempt from paying taxes, and an expanding urban poor.
Thinking of the United States during the good year of our Lord 2020?
Think again. We’re talking late 18th century France.
https://www.polljuice.com/vive-la-revol ... 89-france/

THE EVOLUTIONARY DIALECTIC
Dialectic%2007-14-07.jpg

PYRAMID PROPORTIONS
200px-Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.jpg

I see. So is that an absolute truth ? Or just a guess ? Just 'appearance' or 'phenomenon' ? Does the person a in private dream somehow figure it out ? And assume that everyone else must also be in a private dream ? But isn't this just more of that private dream ? Mere illusion ?
The trick is its vainglorious humility, its wilting arrogance. — Pie

Is that your humble way of implying that, contra Kant, you do have personal access to "absolute truth"? What "trick" are you referring to? Do you think that Empirical Science reveals "absolute truth" that is hidden from "arrogant" philosophers?

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... ng-an-sich

Well, I'm not sure how to judge your post. It rings true but, absit iniuria, that can be for so many reasons other than it being true if you catch my drift. Verisimilitude is rather complex it seems! I digress though. — Agent Smith

That's OK. No offense taken. I was just riffing on one implication of your post : that humanity might be devolving due to unfitness : not having the "right stuff" for survival. Au contraire mon fre're, the Enformationism worldview implies that humanity is now a major driver of evolution -- for better or for worse. Humans have added Cultural Selection to Nature's weeding-out mechanisms. And one aspect of Cultural Selection is the Moral Dimension. It's an unnatural (artificial) way of guiding the selfish masses toward the common good. Animals don't have a formal Moral Code, because they are driven mainly by emotional instinct, instead of rational planning.

Some cynical philosophers see only the sensationalized media view of humanity's immoralities. But, a few scientists have dug up evidence to tell a mundane story of man's humanity toward man & nature. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature ; Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc ; and Rutger Bregman's HumanKind, are just a few examples of a more hopeful outlook for the future history of humanity. There are plenty of negative "truths", if that's your thing. But I prefer to focus on the much more common positive "truths" that can be interpreted as upward moral evolution. Our technological progress is undeniable, but moral progress is not so obvious. That's why Steven Pinker wrote Enlightenment Now, to present the case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. These books give some "reasons" for "it being true".


Enlightenment Now, Again :
Pinker is optimistic about human flourishing, fostering, enhancing, and progressing, as we overcome inherent and environmental limitations with grit & reason.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page41.html