Review Zhuangzi Indexicals Terms whose reference changes –Refer but not fixed—always from...
-
Upload
estella-turner -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Review Zhuangzi Indexicals Terms whose reference changes –Refer but not fixed—always from...
Review Zhuangzi Indexicals
Terms whose reference changes– Refer but not fixed—always from here/now– Relational—relative: many answers
• Not none, or one mystical, or can’t say anything
Rejects “all is one” – anti-language contradiction– Pointing to the one—makes two
Dao Axis is infinite possibility– But no actual position– The view from nowhere– Needs careful statement
• Or run into anti-language position
Judgments
Do make them—accept this– But always aware that could be different– From different “position”
No view from cosmos (nowhere)– But can gain from others—broadening
• Maybe will work—maybe won’t– Handan walk
– Absolute point of view useless• No argument for quietism/stoicism• No argument for absolute toleration
– Mao and Gandhi are different from actual POV
So what advice?
Strong skepticism doesn't entail anything– This is mild skepticism
• No argument against your perspective• Just awareness that there are alternatives
– Tolerance, openness, and don’t kill b/c different
Three bits of advice– Flexibility and youth– Accept convention as useful (no more)– Skill transcendence (satisfaction in excelling)
• Cook/butcher Ting
Slight inconsistency: life limited– Skill and Defect
Question
Quiz and back to the West
Back to the West: Nietzsche
Long wait for an antithesis: Nietzsche anti-rationalism
Life – Born 1844 Lutheran father– Dependence on women. Anger!
Existentialism and Nietzsche
Existence over essence (formula)– Plato’s forms essence
Opposes reason (rationalism)– God, abstractions, reality, meaning and
value
Two Theses Under Attack
Rational metaphysics and Christianity
Metaphysical basis of morality– Plato & God
• Christianity as blend of Greek rationalism and Judaism
• Science as their offspring
– Reason & science• Investigating the “mind of god”
Science Attacks Its Parents (Oedipus?)
God—the rational structure of the universe
Thesis that gave science birth but– Scientific reality has no affinity with our
rational souls– Cannot be known – Changing, dead, and valueless– No reality basis for meaning/value in life
God Holds It Together
Constant threat from science– Western conflict of science and religion
Dim awareness that it is a myth– God is dead—the madman in the marketplace– We can no longer fool ourselves with the myth– Nothing binds reality to value
Descartes
"Father of modern philosophy"– Rationalize science
Make it compatible with religion-rationalism
– Classic detail of Nietzsche's target
Science undermines his beliefs– Copernican revolution, evolution, dead matter,
light waves– Can we really know anything?
• The evil demon‑‑brain in a vat fantasy– From new theory of vision
Cartesian "Radical" Skepticism
Doubt everything—not from specific arguments, but general ones– Main target: objects and other minds
Strategy: prove something immune to evil demon doubt
• I think, therefore I exist• Even if I doubt, can't doubt that I'm thinking
Is Cogito Valid?
Back to Parmenides– If a sentence is true then its subject term must
denote something• Any true sentence of the form "X Q's" entails "X
exists"• So, if the premise (I think) is true then it follows as
a matter of form that I exist– "Santa Claus thinks" is false– Thought doesn't matter here
» "Santa clause walks" is also false
Is Cogito Sound?
Is the premise true?Certainly! Whenever I think itCan we know it is true? Yes
– It is true– We believe it is true
• (When we think, we think we are thinking)
– We have good reason to believe it• We are good judges of our own conscious
states
To think you do not think is a paradox– Different from semantic (liar) or prescriptive
(Shendao) paradoxes• The meaning inconsistent with truth• Conforming inconsistent with meaning
– Pragmatic (action) paradox• What you say is inconsistent with the act of your
saying it• "I cannot speak one word of English"• The speech act of asserting is inconsistent with its
truth
Paradox Analysis
我不會
想。用中文
I cannot think
In English.
Thinking Thoughts and ThinkerThinking Thoughts and Thinker
Next step cannot reach outside thoughtNext step cannot reach outside thought– A way to get all A way to get all rationalrational truths back—prove truths back—prove
God existsGod exists
So ontological argument for GodSo ontological argument for God– Unique in following from definition aloneUnique in following from definition alone
Ontological Argument
St. Anselm model—easier and more famous
Definition of the ‘god' concept: – The perfect being
Start with that thought of god—a concept– Can be thought of by a non-believer
• The non-believer contradicts himself in thinking:– “God does not exist”
• Not derived just from thinking• From the content (meaning/definition) of the thought
Existence
Perfect=df has all positive qualities completely
Qualities = predicates
'Exists' is a predicate
‘Exists’ is positive (better than 無 )
Not to predicate 'exists' of the being that has all positive qualities completely is a contradiction
So I am not deceived when I think clearly and distinctly