Showing posts with label epistemology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label epistemology. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Live Blogging: A Modern Manual of Scholastic Philosophy (chapter 1, part deux)
I back again, on the same chapter from yesterday, so to immediately move forward, the thing which distinguishes thought from anything else is the simplicity and universality of its ideas. That is, the abstractness, and extension of ideas are necessary conditions of thought and probably are sufficient conditions too. All men have this ability, to consider a thing in separate notions and this ability distinguishes men from animals. Further, this ability is wholly wanting to animals, all intellectual acts are accompanied with it, and it is THE distinctive feature of intelligence. From the fact that all men can abstract, and from the fact that this ability is wholly wanting to animals, I dare say that we have a biconditional statement here implying that man and only man has the ability to abstract. And continuing, since all intellectual acts are apparently abstract acts, and all abstract acts are human, then all intellectual acts are human (but how then are we to explain the intellectual acts of angels? -this we shall endeavor to uncover later). Presently our interests lay elsewhere. To treat further of the idea, the abstract idea is the simple idea and vice versa, and all extended ideas are comprehended if and only if, comprehended ideas are extended ones (that is, comprehension=extension in meaning). There is an inverse proportion between the comprehension of an idea and the simplicity of an idea. For instance, an idea about red tomatoes is applicable to any red tomato, whether it be bruised, soft or hard, etc. But the less simple idea about red small tomatoes is much more specific -hence the more ideas make up a concept (the greater the comprehension) the less the extension (or application/universality). From this I will tentatively state that if an idea is of high extension, then it is of low comprehension, and that if an idea is of low extension, then it is of high comprehension. But is this not contradictory: (-e-->c), & (c-->-e)? How do we resolve this problem if it is a problem? Finally, it is obvious how we must abstract/analyze things into simple ideas before comprehending them into complex ideas in order to understand anyone thing.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Live Blogging: A Modern Manual of Scholastic Philosophy
As great an admirer of the Scholastics as I would have no choice but to live blog the teachings of this wonderful book by Cardinal Mercier. Let us dispense with pleasantries however, and move directly to the meat of the work.
The first chapter of the book is entitled, "The Introduction to Philosophy" (also note the work's wide address -although called a "Manuel of Scholastic Philosophy" it addresses itself to both the seminary student and the wider public). So lets begin -the book starts by saying that some argue that the whole field of certain and verifiable knowledge is rightfully monopolized by the special sciences (physics, math, chemistry, history, etc.). Indeed, since advanced instruments have sharpened our perceptions, we have been able to multiply the number of sciences so as to take up the whole of what can be studied. At best what remains of philosophy can only be shadowy or unverifiable fancies. Here though, the author makes an interesting word choice -that is he uses the word analysis. And later we find that analysis means "to break down ideas". So if this is true, the author seems to characterize modern positive science as sciences which primarily break down "synthetic" ideas. Continuing on, philosophy however does not want to be another science besides the other sciences but it aspires to a place above and after the aforementioned studies. Fascinatingly, the author further describes philosophy as a science which seeks to understand the objects of the other sciences in an ultimate way, inquiring into their relations and connections, and proceeding from thence, to conclusions of universal applicability and to inscrutable ideas (note that even philosophy, is supposed to be analytic, for whatever is inscrutable cannot be further analyzed). Philosophy is the search for the highest causes of things. More will be said of this chapter later.
The first chapter of the book is entitled, "The Introduction to Philosophy" (also note the work's wide address -although called a "Manuel of Scholastic Philosophy" it addresses itself to both the seminary student and the wider public). So lets begin -the book starts by saying that some argue that the whole field of certain and verifiable knowledge is rightfully monopolized by the special sciences (physics, math, chemistry, history, etc.). Indeed, since advanced instruments have sharpened our perceptions, we have been able to multiply the number of sciences so as to take up the whole of what can be studied. At best what remains of philosophy can only be shadowy or unverifiable fancies. Here though, the author makes an interesting word choice -that is he uses the word analysis. And later we find that analysis means "to break down ideas". So if this is true, the author seems to characterize modern positive science as sciences which primarily break down "synthetic" ideas. Continuing on, philosophy however does not want to be another science besides the other sciences but it aspires to a place above and after the aforementioned studies. Fascinatingly, the author further describes philosophy as a science which seeks to understand the objects of the other sciences in an ultimate way, inquiring into their relations and connections, and proceeding from thence, to conclusions of universal applicability and to inscrutable ideas (note that even philosophy, is supposed to be analytic, for whatever is inscrutable cannot be further analyzed). Philosophy is the search for the highest causes of things. More will be said of this chapter later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)