Continental Philosopher, deeply inspired by Actualized.org

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, Nodar Bakradze said:

Regarding Thomas Kuhn, his work is brilliant. Nonetheless, was badly misinterpreted by the plethora of so-called “new paradigm” thinkers…

Hard agree there - it's akin to picking up 'The Selfish Gene' and coming up with a spurious interpretation of the book based on the title alone. When the book itself is an account of how 'selfish' genes give rise to altruistic behavior.

Edited Wednesday at 01:44 PM by DocWatts

[Nodar Bakradze]

35 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Hard agree there - it's akin to picking up 'The Selfish Gene' and coming up with a spurious interpretation of the book based on the title alone. When the book itself is an account of how 'selfish' genes give rise to altruistic behavior.

Indeed

Ken Wilber details Kuhn’s misinterpretation very well in his classic, “The Marriage of Sense and Soul”

[zurew]

15 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Theories that display meta-theoretical self-awareness are preferable - in short, they don't mistake the map for the territory. Meaning they don't reify their theoretical constructs into fixed features of a mind-independent Reality. A meta-theoretically reflective view of physics, for instance, holds that physics isn’t an objective inventory of “what is,” but an iterative model of how reality behaves, which reflects our practical interests (e.g., building functional machines, predicting motion, manipulating our environment)

This one would be necessitated given your metaphysics - no? (In other words , all scientists who hold your metaphysics would necessarily look for this virtue when it comes to theory crafting or theory selection)

You made me realize (even though  it seems obvious now - that there are theoretical virtues that are metaphysics specific)

Although I imagine in most of the cases its not relevant, because its already hard enough to be constrained by the virtues that are compatible with multiple different metaphysics.

 

Btw thanks for the detailed answer.

Edited Wednesday at 03:03 PM by zurew

[Reciprocality]

@Nodar Bakradze   Interesting stuff.

 

Given your post-metaphysical phenomenology, do you ground primitive dualities, categories, logic, and concepts in perceived reality? If so, do you rely on arguments from plausibility, or do you demonstrate why the alternative 1. includes contradictions, 2. overextends the predicate in certain judgements or 3. shows that possibilities as necessarily contingent? 

If my questions are ambiguous ill be happy to elaborate on them and why they matter.

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

If my questions are ambiguous ill be happy to elaborate on them

🤣🤣🤣

Edited 23 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Nodar Bakradze]

15 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@Nodar Bakradze   Interesting stuff.

 

Given your post-metaphysical phenomenology, do you ground primitive dualities, categories, logic, and concepts in perceived reality? If so, do you rely on arguments from plausibility, or do you demonstrate why the alternative 1. includes contradictions, 2. overextends the predicate in certain judgements or 3. shows that possibilities as necessarily contingent? 

If my questions are ambiguous ill be happy to elaborate on them and why they matter.

I will be very grateful if you could elaborate on your point. 

[Nodar Bakradze]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

🤣🤣🤣

Why are you laughing  He made a very interesting point that I really appreciate. Thank you @Reciprocality

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Nodar Bakradze said:

Why are you laughing  He made a very interesting point that I really appreciate. Thank you @Reciprocality

Interesting point? What was it? 🙈

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Nodar Bakradze said:

I will be very grateful if you could elaborate on your point. 

@Nodar Bakradze  If some concepts, such as time, space and logical categories such as those in the Kantian tradition, were given to us independent of particular experiences, due to being merely formal and not themselves having any content such as the ideas we do derive directly from perception does, then it would at least be plausible that they exist as necessary substances in addition to the one of our perceptive fields.

This would directly contradict phenomenology, whose main object is to ground all semantics, meaning, truth and reality in direct perception, thereby avoiding the metaphysical "otherness" of an additional substance that transcendental realism, dualism and theism commits to.

 

Phenomenology can be described in several ways, but each variation will have in common that phenomenology stands in antithesis to the mainstream intellectual traditions of the belief that essences as either pertaining directly to the world itself and existing in that world independently of the perceiver or through the invariant perceiver called god, and that phenomenology attempts to reveal why these additional assumptions are not necessary by grounding everything in phenomena, by various means.

Traditionally it appeared that there were a sharp dichotomy between the concepts that pertain to unique entities that includes shapes and phenomena and those that pertain to everything without exception or structural concepts like disjunction, conjunction and negation, where those who believed that both originates in the mind a priori were called pure rationalist and those who believed both originated in perception were called pure empiricists. 

It may not be as sharp as were previously suggested, and this is what has to be proven if we were to state that realism about such things as object-identity are definitely false, which surely are ideas you are familiar with.

[Nodar Bakradze]

The best we can do—owing to the scope of the forum post—is to highlight that, within Principia Ontologia’s deepened fundamental ontology, phenomenology is understood as the systematic study of the first-person experience, exactly as it arises. Naturally, this is rigorous preservation of Husserlian and Heideggerian conception of phenomenology. With that in mind, pure phenomenology is itself limited and incapable of catalyzing an advent of authentically post-metaphysical thinking. This is why the project goes out of its way to introduce genealogical structuralism—not to mention other pillars—within deepened quest concerning Being. 
 

 

[Reciprocality]

7 minutes ago, Nodar Bakradze said:

The best we can do—owing to the scope of the forum post—is to highlight that, within Principia Ontologia’s deepened fundamental ontology, phenomenology is understood as the systematic study of the first-person experience, exactly as it arises. Naturally, this is rigorous preservation of Husserlian and Heideggerian conception of phenomenology. With that in mind, pure phenomenology is itself limited and incapable of catalyzing an advent of authentically post-metaphysical thinking. This is why the project goes out of its way to introduce genealogical structuralism—not to mention other pillars—within deepened quest concerning Being. 
 

 

@Nodar Bakradze  I understand, you boast about a huge philosophical undertaking where you literally will pick up the torch of Heidegger and integrate all kinds of philosophical domains, but when challenged to solve the most basic problems that gave rise to those different traditions it is beyond the scope of the very thread in which it were posted and where people have the opportunity to decide whether it is worth taking seriously by asking questions that directly relate to it.

"My philosophical project—deepened fundamental ontology—integrates each and every major breakthrough of premodern, modern, and postmodern epochs."

When we ask ourself what do we really know about the world and what it really is, how much of it are merely conjectures or perspectives in our head then the answers comes in a limited set of different kinds, those kinds corresponds to the breakthroughs of premodern, modern and postmodern epochs and my questions directly satisfies that criterion, and if I and anyone else were to take you seriously than we are justified in learning about how you answer them.

[Nodar Bakradze]

16 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Nodar Bakradze  I understand, you boast about a huge philosophical undertaking where you literally will pick up the torch of Heidegger and integrate all kinds of philosophical domains, but when challenged to solve the most basic problems that gave rise to those different traditions it is beyond the scope of the very thread in which it were posted and where people have the opportunity to decide whether it is worth taking seriously by asking questions that directly relate to it.

"My philosophical project—deepened fundamental ontology—integrates each and every major breakthrough of premodern, modern, and postmodern epochs."

When we ask ourself what do we really know about the world and what it really is, how much of it are merely conjectures or perspectives in our head then the answers comes in a limited set of different kinds, those kinds corresponds to the breakthroughs of premodern, modern and postmodern epochs and my questions directly satisfies that criterion, and if I and anyone else were to take you seriously than we are justified in learning about how you answer them.

Thank you for appreciating my confidence.  

Indeed. Thread is indeed beyond the scope. Fortunately, I have written 800 pages, and on top of that, you can check out my work on social media platforms.
 

Again, thank you for the question and feedback.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nodar Bakradze