Plato's Cave

[The Grey Man]

Newton said space was absolute hence classical physics. Leibniz just said space consisted solely of "spatial relations" between objects. Then Kant said Newton was right because if there was a left hand in space it'd be more absolute than anything, and of course, he has his critics so it may not even be true in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Kant disagreed with Leibniz, yes—he thought the latter's theory of space as relations between empirically given things could not provide an explanation of chirality such as the difference between a right hand and a left hand, for which an appeal to intuition and a priori laws of geometry would be necessary—but what does this have to do with proving Newton right? Newton's ideas of absolute space don't help either.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Newton said space was absolute hence classical physics. Leibniz just said space consisted solely of "spatial relations" between objects. Then Kant said Newton was right because if there was a left hand in space it'd be more absolute than anything, and of course, he has his critics so it may not even be true in the first place.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Kant disagreed with Leibniz, yes—he thought the latter's theory of space as relations between empirically given things could not provide an explanation of chirality such as the difference between a right hand and a left hand, for which an appeal to intuition and a priori laws of geometry would be necessary—but what does this have to do with proving Newton right? Newton's ideas of absolute space don't help either.

I don't get what you mean. It's generally well documented in history that Kant's views more so supported Newton's ideas, whatever that may imply. Chirality is common in biochemistry, as humans can only digest left handed molecules. It's known as R or S for rectus or sinister. I'm not sure your point. All it really means is Leibniz attacked the usual Newtonian notions of absolute space and time. I guess at the end of the day it's just a difficulty in accepting metaphysical truths, in the case of rational or empirical knowledge. Rationalists can seek truth through reflection and empiricists say only real belief can come from experience. You don't really know something just because you read it, it still takes field work or hands on experience.

 

[The Grey Man]

I think it has more to do with defending the laws of geometry against skepticism than defending Newton against Leibniz. Kant says in his first critique that the axioms of geometry are synthetic, but nevertheless a priori judgments, meaning that one can deny them without contradicting oneself, but they are nevertheless true for human experience. If space had a fourth dimension, we could flip left handed molecules in a third direction so that they become right handed, but it doesn't and we can't, at least not according to human intuition.

 

[Pizzabeak]

They're in accordance with the respective person's position. Math isn't particularly natural laws from reality, we use a number system based off being human, even with concepts like natural log. It's still useful for that. A hypothetical fourth spatial dimension isn't to say you can't flip molecules right handed. We might not just have the technology to, someone or something else could. It isnt't to say it's entirely speculative. There isn't much you can get out of that and it has no practical applications either.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I think all Plato was saying was, "dude, there are things called the Forms and I think you guys should all think about them more".

In other words he was trying to nudge people into thinking about his realism more.

Anyway William James is actually one of my favorite philosophers. I loved reading his Varieties of Religious Experience.

Okay. Well what haven’t you read? So how does that even make sense in the terms of this conversation, besides that being just the same person who wrote it? I was going to suggest a book for you but it seems you know everything already, or pretend to. I’m not sure who you’re trying to impress, clearly I’m not, and still look down upon your silly, miniature credentials. They are nothing in the scheme of things. All your make believe information means zilch to me, as you still don’t know what you’re talking about. You will never innovate anything.
The topic has nothing to do with “religion”. If things are really that straightforward and simple to you, as per James’s pragmatism, there’s no point in “arguing”, especially over the internet, as an aphrodisiac or intellectual masturbation. If it helps you get through the day, you can believe that, even if it isn’t the truth. It’s something people will more so refuse to come to terms with, through their envious feelings that they are attached to.
That isn't the standard book on religion anyway, and reading it doesn't mean you are an authority on anything.
You can try to attach the label religion onto it to serve your own needs, even though that kind of lie and hypocrisy can be seen right through.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The Varieties is actually the first phenomenological, academic study on religious experiences, which may or may not overlap with psychological abnormalities. James isn't just the propagator of pragmatism, he's the father of American psychology, as well as a son of a pastor. I mentioned him because his writings on the soul, its divisions, wounds and the process of healing and so forth was interesting. I would recommend the book to anyone- it isn't a religious book, it's more of a series phenomenological writings on religious experience- meaning that it's extremely descriptive- they're lectures given out in Harvard I believe. I'm not sure why you think I've attached 'religion' to anything, but if there's a distaste on your part it seems to be irrational, perhaps even a phobia of the religious- which is completely not my problem whatsoever. If anything, you've seemed to spell out his pragmatism without even understanding where he comes from, that is, that Jame's upbringing as a Christian conflicted with the epistemology of his age. All of his works were a reconciliation of idealism and empiricism, of which his Christian upbringing helped incubate into being.

 

[Pizzabeak]

I'm getting the feeling people think I don't know that Plato's Cave was a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon (from "The Republic", circa 380 BC).

shrug