BothAndBlog Forum

I decided to start a new discussion rather than continue in the thread on the hard problem. . . .
"Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes." — Fooloso4

I'm not an Aristotle expert, but I do refer to his ideas on Metaphysics whenever discussions about philosophical "hard problems" --- as contrasted with scientific empirical problems --- come up. Perhaps Ari is saying that in order to divine*1 First Principles, penetrating wisdom (insight) is more important than mere superficial observation.

For example, I just began reading Steven Strogatz' 2003 book Sync, How Order Emerges From Chaos. His first example is fireflies (lightning bugs) in Asia that gather in the thousands, and begin to spookily blink in rhythm : all on, all off. The mere observation was that this orchestrated behavior is not normal for "glow-worms". So some mathematical principle was sought to explain this "spontaneous order" without a conductor, and without faster-than-light communication.

That it should be explainable by a general "principle" was implicit, because other cases of order out of chaos have been observed, as in the steady rhythm of the heartbeat, with thousands of cells contracting simultaneously. Actually, a mathematical theory of order-out-of-chaos*2 was constructed by merging the observations & insights of many scientists over several years ; not by instant revelation. In fact, the search continues after many decades of effort*3.

The author doesn't mention Metaphysics, but he does attribute the progress toward a Principle of Order to the collective wisdom of many observers. Presumably, each instance of emergent Order from normal Disorder is caused by some "trigger". And that Causal Principle should be describable in mathematical symbols. But understanding the metaphysical meaning of those abstract numbers & symbols will require some philosophical wisdom.


*1. To divine : gain knowledge by nonlinear insight or intuition, as if by revelation, instead of by logical linear reasoning

*2. Order out of Chaos : Chaos is random -- no rules -- but Order is regulated by logical/mathematical rules. But what triggers the change? Don't ask me; I just started the book.

*3. Complexity Systems Science : The Santa Fe Institute was established in 1984 to study some of the "hard problems" that emerged from Quantum Physics.
10 days ago

Interesting comment on one sense of divine, but he is talking about divine beings. — Fooloso4

Ari did seem to assume the existence of some kind of supernatural beings, beyond the limits of human senses*1. But to me his "unmoved mover" sounds more like an abstract Nature-God than the Judeo deity, who walks in the garden with his creatures, and communicates his divine Will in no uncertain terms. In any case, I was using the term "to divine" in a colloquial metaphorical sense, not to be taken literally.

More to the point, I'll address your question "Is Aristotle wise?". I suppose the answer depends on whether you agree with Ari on the requirements for wisdom : one being the knowledge of Causes. In the quote below*2 though, he sets a high standard : "knows all things". But also admits to limits : "as far as possible". One cause of the limitation on human knowledge may be the aloofness of the deity, who gave humans the ability to "divine" via intuition & reason, instead of by direct revelation & slavish acquiescence.

Socrates opined that “Wisdom begins in wonder", and Ari's treatise on Phusis reveals a sense of encyclopedic inquisitiveness. Both of those paragons of sagacity also paradoxically expressed doubt about their own wisdom*3. So, Wisdom seems to require childish curiosity constrained by adult skepticism.


*1. What does Aristotle say about the divine?
Here Aristotle bases his doctrine of God on his cosmology. He conceives of an unmoved mover or first cause, eternal, invisible and unchangeable, who initiates all change in the universe by his attractive power, by arousing the desire to be like him in those heavenly beings which most nearly resemble him.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26477/cha ... m=fulltext

*2. “The wise man knows of all things, as far as possible, although he has no knowledge of each of them in detail.” — Aristotle

*3. Why did Socrates say I know nothing?
The meaning of Socrates' reflections in the phrase “all I know is that I know nothing” consisted of two paradoxical things. Firstly, Socrates doubted his own wisdom's superiority over other people's wisdom.
https://www.thecollector.com/all-i-know ... -socrates/

So, I wonder if real numbers are either subjective or objective. I mean, they're not to be found anywhere in the world, as such. Nor are they products of the mind, as they are the same for all who can count. That is the sense in which 'intelligible objects' are transcendent - they transcend the subject/object division. And not seeing that is part of the consequences of the decline of realism. The culture doesn't have a way of thinking about transcendentals. From an article on What is Math that I frequently cite in this context: — Wayfarer

Disclaimer : not erudite on Aristotle, Plato, or Kant. But I think they were onto something, even when I can't say exactly what it is.

I suppose the issue you raise here is what prompted Kant to develop the tricky concept of Transcendental Idealism. Plato's Ideal Forms seem to be implicitly supernatural, so how do we natural beings know anything about them? Kant placed such imaginary things off-limits to human experience, in the heavenly realm of ding an sich. So, we cannot "know" them via empirical experience, but only "imagine" them as abstract concepts. From that perspective, Numbers are not "real" in any natural sense, but "ideal" in the sense that we abstract those bare bones (ding an sich) from fleshly experience with multiple objects. Numbers are transcendental place-holders for abstract values. Those ideal tokens are not "products of any one mind", but are universal truths that logical minds have access to.

Therefore, "transcendentals" are "intelligible objects" that are not perceptible to the senses. Hence, their questionable status of "reality". Yet, like verbal viral Memes, such unreal abstractions can be exchanged from one mind to another carrying some non-monetary value. In math, transcendental numbers (like PI) are defined as non-algebraic. Which means they can only be written down with symbols, qualifiers & modifiers to indicate their abstraction, infinitude & unreality*1. As a judge once said about Pornography : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". When we encounter an abstract bare-bones concept like "Beauty", we can't define it in a few words, but we can mentally put imaginary flesh on the metaphorical bones.

Some animals, such as crows*2, seem to be able to extract numbers from their concrete experience. So the ability is natural, even if the dings are somehow super-natural, or transcendental. I suspect that the general universal concepts that philosophers create in their minds are representations of the dings that Aristotle discussed in his Meta-Physics (lit. beyond physical) addendum to his book on Physics. However, as I disclaimed above, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know it's not pornography. Maybe it's above & beyond vulgar Physics*3.


*1. Transcendental Numbers :
More formally, a transcendental function is a function that cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps from the elementary functions and their inverses.
https://www.mathsisfun.com › numbers › transcendental-...
Note --- A Function is an abstract relationship between two or more objects or quantities. We can't see it, but we can infer it.

*2. Can crows recognize numbers? :
Crows can use and even make tools, reason via analogies, and have been said to rival monkeys in cognitive capacity. They also seem to have a remarkable ability to understand numeric values.
https://www.audubon.org/news/crows-can- ... tudy-finds

*3. Aristotle's Transcendent Reality :
In Plato's theory, material objects are changeable and not real in themselves; rather, they correspond to an ideal, eternal, and immutable Form by a common name, and this Form can be perceived only by the intellect. . . . .
The relationship between form and matter is another central problem for Aristotle. He argues that both are substances, but matter is potential, while form is actual. . . .
Thus Aristotle's conception is full of paradoxes.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/ar ... /section7/
Note --- Did Ari really (actually) know what he was talking about?
3 days ago

I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings. — Wayfarer

Thanks. But, can you clarify Kant's "equivocation" for me? If the ding an sich is not Phenomenal, is it not then Noumenal by default? Is there a third category of Being : things vs dings vs (?) ? Or more than two ways of Knowing : sensation vs imagination vs (?) ?

I usually think of dings as existing in a Platonic Ideal Realm, or God's Mind, beyond the reach of the human meat-mind --- except as inferred by Reason from the inherent Logic of the Real World : Concept vs Percept. How did Kant know about dings, if not by sensory observation or rational imagination/representation? Did he know by Direct Revelation or by Inner Vision (clairvoyance)?

The Noumenal vs Phenomenal dichotomy*1 seems to be intended to avoid ambiguity. But I suppose later philosophers have analyzed that black vs white meaning into a variety of nit-picky interpretations. For example, I just noticed the definition of ding an sich below*2. Neither sensory "observation" nor mental "representation", but perhaps some spooky third category of being & knowing.


*1. What is the difference between noumenal and phenomenal?
The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm
Note --- "Compelled to believe", by what power?

*2. Thing-in-itself
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thing-in-itself

Within this context, 'noumenal' means, basically, 'grasped by reason' while sensible means 'grasped by the sense organs'. In hylomorphic dualism, this means that nous apprehends the form or essence of a particular - what is really is - and the senses perceive its material appearance. That's the interplay of 'reality and appearance'. Again from the article on Noumenon: — Wayfarer

Thanks. That summary is in agreement my own understanding of the Real/Ideal and Phenomenal/Noumenal dichotomy. But my question was about your characterization of Kant's "equivocation" of that neat two-value division of the knowable world*1. Of course, in philosophical discourse, that "interplay" can get complicated, to the point of paradox.

I have the general impression that both Plato (real/ideal) and Aristotle (hyle/morph) also divided the philosophical arena of discourse into Sensory Observations and Rational Inference. So, I was wondering if Kant had posited a different analysis of the Things & Dings that philosophers elaborate & logic-chop into such tiny bits of meaning. Physical things can be reduced down to material atoms by dissection. And Metaphysical dings (ideas about things), presumably can be analyzed down to conceptual atoms. But does the distinction between Physical & Meta-Physical remain in effect?

That said, your comment about Kant's "confusing equivocation" raised the question in my simple mind : is there a third (non-quibbling) Ontological category of knowledge, other than Phenomenal (sensory) & Noumenal (inference) : perhaps Intuition (sixth sense) that bypasses both paths to knowledge? Is a ding an sich Phenomenal or Noumenal or something else?


*1. Quote from this thread :
"I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings."
___ Wayfarer

PS___ Post posting, I found this summary of Ways of Knowing. I don't know where it came from, or if it's even relevant to Aristotle's Metaphysical Ontology.
Ways%20of%20Knowing%20---%20noesis.png

Regarding the significance of teleology and its place in Aristotle's metaphysics, I happened on a very succinct explanation in a video talk by cognitive scientist Lisa Feldman Barrett. She simply says that teleology is 'an explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose which they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise'. That says a lot in very few words, as it demonstrates the sense in which reason also encompasses purpose for Aristotle, in a way that it does not for modernity. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, we can't see "purpose" in the non-self world with our physical senses, but we can infer Intention from the behavior of people & animals that is similar to our own, as we search for food or other necessities, instead of waiting for it to fall into our mouths. Some of us even deduce Teleology in the behavior of our dynamic-but-inanimate world system, as described by scientific theories. If there is no direction to evolution, how did the hot, dense, pinpoint of potential postulated in Big Bang theory manage to mature into the orderly cosmos that our space-scopes reveal to the inquiring minds of the aggregated atoms we call astronomers. Ironically, some sentient-but-unperceptive observers look at that same vital universe, and see only aimless mindless matter moving by momentum.

The current Philosophy Now magazine has several letters on the topic of Time. One says : "If time is subjective, an observer is needed to make the distinction between past & future, and so to turn a probabilistic quantum phenomenon into a known result." Another responded to Tallis' comment that "the most successful organism is the non-conscious cyanobacteria" with : "Humanity's domination of the planet is so extensive that evolution must be redefined." The next letter notes : "from the outside, reality is matter, from the inside, it's mind".

Aristotle knew nothing of gargantuan galaxies full of whirling worlds, or indeterminate quantum probability, or progressive novelty-creating evolution, or brainless bacterial objectives, but he could "see" that his primitive pre-industrial world was purposeful. "Everything has a function or purpose and its essential nature is to grow and achieve its purpose." https://open.library.okstate.edu/introp ... /__unknown__/


Teleonomy : a sign of Aristotle's Final Cause : the End or Purpose
This essay brings to mind Terrence Deacon’s Incomplete Nature, FWIW. On what we observe as teleonomy: “…unrealized future possibilities appear to be the organizers of antecedent processes that tend to bring them into existence,…
https://medium.com/@mmpassey/this-essay ... a7e2a4b1a7

This is to conflate two different ideas in Aristotle. What's usually translated as 'function' is 'ergon', the special nature of what is named, e.g. a knife cuts, humans engage in soul-based rational consideration. This is different to 'telos' or 'end', the purpose of an activity. — mcdoodle

Thanks. Yet I think Aristotle did associate both ideas in his discussion of Natural Purpose.
The "everything has a purpose" quote combines several words & meanings into a definition of Teleology*1 : essential nature (phusis) + work (ergon) => ultimate aim (telos). However, the universal Purpose (telos) of Nature is not the local purpose (ergon) of any particular element.

Instead of postulating Intelligent Design*2 though, he used more abstract & impersonal terms like First Cause & Final Cause. The initial Cause can also be interpreted as "design intent", which produces Essential Nature, which is processed by the teleological work of Evolution, to eventually result in the ultimate Goal : the Final Cause. Hence, Teleology is the Intentional Logic inherent in progressive Evolution.

Of course, Ari probably had only a rudimentary notion of Natural Progression*3, but his First Cause could do the Darwinian Selection, and the Formal Causes (natural laws) would produce the physical novelty (mutations) in the Material Cause (elements) necessary to fabricate the intended Final Form of Nature-in-general. Ari didn't specify, and we moderns still don't know, what that ultimate state will be. But we can, like Aristotle, recognize the signs of Intention (Prohairesis) in the progression of Nature from hot-dot to comfortably-cool-Cosmos. Physics (machine) needs Meta-Physics (intention) in order to evolve from Big Bang to Poetry to Philosophy.


*1. télos, lit. "end, 'purpose', or 'goal'") is a term used by philosopher Aristotle to refer to the final cause of a natural organ or entity, or of human art.

*2. Did Aristotle believe in intelligent design?
Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but unlike Dembski did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Des ... lligent_No

*3. Aristotle's Evolution :
The concept of evolution is as ancient as Greek writings, where philosophers speculated that all living things are related to one another, although remotely. The Greek philosopher Aristotle perceived a “ladder of life,” where simple organisms gradually change to more elaborate forms.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guide ... -evolution