Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
Quoting The fact-hood of certain entities like Santa and Pegasus?
In the above exchange with @I like sushi, in the other thread, I was asked to specify a point.
I've been having some thoughts about @Moliere's thread, A holey theory along with my own thread about "Pegasus" or "Santa" and how do they ontologically relate. The gist of the issue presented in Moliere's thread was that hole's are ontologically parasitic entities, and in another thread that "Pegasus" is an entity onto itself.
My point with bringing this up is namely, that anthropomorphic understanding, made through epistemic truths about them are most accurate in understanding (not necessarily scientifically on face value). I mean, how can one speak about the objective, when all your going to get in reply is that your perception of reality is at best intersubjective. In an attempt to be as accurate and persuasive as possible, I resort to "facts" as verified or truthful relations as seen through science or observational understanding instead of problems like a "sense" of existence between "Pegasus" the mythical creature or as a literary creature based on historical facts. Much as the difference between Hesperus and Phosphorus are relational, then facts about these two 'differing' objects becomes resolved with precise observations that they are in reality just two differing names for Venus.
Now, with the thought that as humans we are at best confined to epistemological discussions about holes, or Pegasus, or, Santa, I think that at best we ought to start with an investigation into knowledge about entities and their relations with other things, to reach a shared conclusions about their nature or even existence, and if one continues this process as an investigation, one might be able to even entertain some facts about these entities like "holes" or "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus"?
So, with that in mind, what's wrong with asking if some ontological entity obtains as a fact, in resolving how it obtains as one of factual or some intersubjective sort?
— Shawn
Care to rephrase? This subject matter interests me but haven’t really seen the point of this thread yet.
Note: I would class ALL objective knowledge as ‘strong intersubjectivity’ because I’m only going to accept certainty as an item existing in set boundaries with established rules.
In the above exchange with @I like sushi, in the other thread, I was asked to specify a point.
I've been having some thoughts about @Moliere's thread, A holey theory along with my own thread about "Pegasus" or "Santa" and how do they ontologically relate. The gist of the issue presented in Moliere's thread was that hole's are ontologically parasitic entities, and in another thread that "Pegasus" is an entity onto itself.
My point with bringing this up is namely, that anthropomorphic understanding, made through epistemic truths about them are most accurate in understanding (not necessarily scientifically on face value). I mean, how can one speak about the objective, when all your going to get in reply is that your perception of reality is at best intersubjective. In an attempt to be as accurate and persuasive as possible, I resort to "facts" as verified or truthful relations as seen through science or observational understanding instead of problems like a "sense" of existence between "Pegasus" the mythical creature or as a literary creature based on historical facts. Much as the difference between Hesperus and Phosphorus are relational, then facts about these two 'differing' objects becomes resolved with precise observations that they are in reality just two differing names for Venus.
Now, with the thought that as humans we are at best confined to epistemological discussions about holes, or Pegasus, or, Santa, I think that at best we ought to start with an investigation into knowledge about entities and their relations with other things, to reach a shared conclusions about their nature or even existence, and if one continues this process as an investigation, one might be able to even entertain some facts about these entities like "holes" or "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus"?
Comments (26)
You’ll have to explain this too (bold), and how it relates to the topic.
This might continue, but it’s necessary for me. I’ll add what I can too in order to clarify what is under scrutiny.
Also, where’s the justification for this approach? I’m suggesting one is required but I’d like to know if you have a reason and whether or not you can parse it.
Thanks
What I mean by anthropomorphic understanding is to an extent the realm of intersubjective or subjective thought.
Quoting I like sushi
The justification seemingly is in regards to trying to determine what is of value or accuracy when discussing such things. To give an example, it would likely mean that you would have to research a topic epistemically before discussing it with a peer or another person. The manner in which understanding differs about an issue, would be resolved by adherence to the subject in question by adhering to the epistemic knowledge gathered about it.
As in ‘interactions’ where humans imbue ‘objects’/‘items’ with characteristics - or rather as extensions of themselves in some way?
Also, the ‘at best confined to discussions’ comes after the lived experience without any ‘discussion’. For that reason ‘discussions’ about things doesn’t seem to take president over experiencing them. Maybe you’re mean something different and/or only want to jump to how we talk about such things more than dig too far back into the visceral experience?
Well, I'm not invoking psychological issues with the issue just yet. I'm more concerned with places of gathering like the Library of Alexandria or National Archives, where the knowledge about differing subjects are gathered and collected for the masses. Which means, that there's perhaps more importance in the gathering and historical along with literary facts about a subject than appreciated by most people.
Wikipedia seems like just an extension of one's self for some nowadays, as does Google.
I’ve had a long obsession with the various types of antonyms and how people disagree about what is or isn’t a ‘relational pair’ or what is or isn’t a ‘gradable antonym’. What seems to be underlying the discussion is exactly this problem right?
In an empty way it probably appears that way to some. Kind of reminds me about how I show students they don’t really know how to read. They just ‘read words’ and think ‘now I know that,’ but usually they can barely explain/repeat anything they’ve just read.
The leap from oral tradition, to writing, to audio/video has surely left an imprint on pedagogical approaches that are almost impossible to reverse. ‘Remembering stuff’ as opposed to ‘understanding stuff’ seems to be how modern education has gone (‘modern’ meaning over the past few centuries).
That's where psychology takes place, or at least human perception. I just don't understand why anyone apart from a Platonist would state that. It just seems misleading or otherwise not accurate to describe it with regard to such a relation.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, with this I agree. I don't really think ontological descriptions are really accurate with invoking, what you describe as "relational pairs".
That's one way of putting it. It seems to me that education is more related to what I say than anticipated. I guess an example could be how associative memory arises for people. It's not something that can be taught, and is rife with all this gibberish about the how the world works. As of recent I've taken it very seriously to analyze historical roots of words and neologisms rather than educate by a hard and fast format.
Quoting I like sushi
Plato sure said a lot about this.
Have you looked into the linguistic uses of the various antonyms at all? I wasn’t describing anything as a ‘relational pair,’ but some could argue that in part all ‘items’ must be relational pairs to some degree maybe?
Just in case you’ve not looked at this before examples of different antonyms would be ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ which are ‘gradable’ whereas another ‘set’ of antonyms would be those that require the opposite, ie. a ‘husband’ must have a ‘wife,’ and another being ‘open’ and ‘closed’ where the absence of one is required for the other (that is more or less where the ‘hole’ comes into play).
Is any of this getting at what your interest is? Anything relevant?
I’m still unsure what you’re saying, looking at. I’ll sleep on it.
Thanks
I'm just pointing out that it constantly goes on in what you say as antonyms in human reasoning towards objects in the world, and I think this was most apparent in stating a hole is (according to SEP) an ontologically parasitic entity.
Quoting I like sushi
I haven't; but, that's an interesting point.
Quoting I like sushi
Well, I must admit, the OP is a mish-mash. Sorry for any confusions, and hope I clarified as many as there are or actually are!
Hint: There's two other things.
The three types of antonyms: https://medium.com/@hdi.prateek/what-are-the-different-types-of-antonyms-in-english-language-3a19db18504a
My question would now be how do we say something is a fact and does fact mean? There are numerous issues with colloquial language. For example we can say ‘the door is half open’ which would frame ‘open’ and ‘closed’ as Gradable antonyms even though they are generally considered as Complimentary.
In terms of ‘existing’ if an item can be imagined then it’s semblance can come into being. I can design/imagine a building, or a creature, and it can then potentially be constructed.
The best example of how we shift our perspectives is the age old Theseus’s Ship. These are tricks of language - or rather habits of language - that tend to confuse experiential input.
I think, that the issue is one of anthropomorphic perception or understanding. I mention that Hesperus and Phosphorus are the same entity by investigating into the direct referent of the object in question. This seems to me to be an investigational issue about the source origin of the name for Venus at dawn and twilight.
Now, with Hesperus and Phosphorus in mind, I think treating confusing entities like a "hole" which is related to human perception is tantamount to talking about human perception in part also, which brings one to the point... at which point does authentic knowledge enter the discussion about "holes" or Pegasus or Santa? If it really is all epistemic, then aren't we confided to talk about criteria?
In terms of phenomenon the Dawn Star and Evening Star are different events. Just like a baby isn’t an adult and dawn isn’t dusk. The so-called object of two different events yield different facts.
‘The king is dead! Long live the king!’ Would be another instance of how separate objective events can occupy the same space in speech.
The epistemological investigation into these things is necessarily correlated to any ontological issues. In terms of antonyms I would say ontology is opposite to epistemology. The human tendency to simplify into either/or categories is undoubtedly useful, but it certainly isn’t accurate. It is necessary to regard items as opposed for a ‘fact’ to exist.
The issue is then what is meant by ‘fact,’ ‘truth’ and/or ‘existing’/‘being’ and/or ‘reality’. Most of these things carry subtly different meanings within and between different fields of investigation.
Note: Quoting Shawn
What is the difference between ‘perception’ and ‘understanding’ or was that a gist sentence? Plus, you previously said the ‘psychological’ wasn’t where you wanted to go, so why use the term ‘anthropomorphic’? The term generally means to imbue ‘artefacts’ (events, animals or objects) with human characteristics - to assume Monday is felling happy when everyone is happy on Monday and such things.
If you mean we experience things as humans … well, yeah! If you meant that analogies and fables are used often and crossover into what we’d general call more ‘technical fields’ then yeah, I agree. This is a necessity of language evolving and humans playing.
Other deeper questions may arise here as to why we give certain words a certain sibilance. Often the onomatopoeic (the play of mimicking humans are so prone to) has a part here. This can lead to all kinds of cultural adaptations.
Language (spoken) certainly alters perception. I would not refer to language (spoken) as ‘thought’ though. I don’t need words to think, but undoubtedly words allow us to plan and parse up events - effectively ‘see into the future’ - which is a huge boon for social organisation and our perspective on our individual place in the cosmos at large (more referring to Husserl’s point about the human shift from a finite to infinite world).
I don’t think it is really ‘anthropomorphic’ to say something like ‘the Sun rises’ as that is merely an expression of what we see rather than imbuing the Sun with human qualities. It is also a ‘fact’ that it rises and not a ‘fact’ (because the Earth merely rotates - depends on context).
One of the most interesting things I like to look at is how we’ve repurposed and measured ‘events’ into something called ‘time’.
To refer back to Pegasus and Husserl … spot the difference in meaning between these two sentences:
- I can imagine a limbless Pegasus.
- I cannot imagine a Pegasus without limbs.
These are on the surface contrary. Technically speaking what I am saying by ‘without limbs’ here is that I cannot ‘unknow’ an animal that has limbs and then except them that way. Pegasus is a flying horse, a horse has legs, and if I saw a horse without legs I would notice it didn’t have legs or assume they were hidden from sight because horses have legs.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I have been concerned with historicism as of late, as distilled knowledge based on facts.
Not sure what more to comment on here. Thanks.
Yes, I think so. I believe it makes some sense to mention a square-circle and the idea of a square-circle. Two different things?
Husserl nails this one pretty well I found with ‘parts’ and ‘moments’. Certain phenomenon must meet certain requirements. A sound requires pitch, tone and volume (you cannot image a sound that lacks these), and the same goes for other objects/items.
Personally I’m too fussed about the terms ‘fact’ or ‘existing’ at this level. Those are terms of human negotiation in the sociopolitical realm. I can imagine Pegasus and that is enough. If I asked you to imagine a round ball that was a cup of tea and sounded like a cat in pain but made no sound … you couldn’t. You could still try to, but it is impossible to reconcile the opposing thoughts.
Going back to the hole, ‘volume’ does have meaning independent from ‘tone’ and a ‘hole’ does have meaning independent from an object (hole in some ‘object’).
Going back to antonyms I found it interesting to ask what the opposites are for such things as ‘tone,’ ‘volume’ or ‘shape’. You’ll find there are none.
I haven't read much of Husserl. I do think that intenstion and determination matters. My opinion on the matter seems to be related to what is called "ontological", where if one can specify epistemic content as a set of criteria, one might have a better discussion in total rather than discussing ontology.
I think, that there's something to the Sorites Paradox that touches on this.