Re: Artificial Philosophizing

From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:03:59 -0500

Georges wrote:
>daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>>
>>So Bruno says that:
>>a) "I am a machine."
>>b) "...no man can grasp all aspect of man"
>>
>>Tom says that to philosophize is one aspect of
>>humanness that is more than a machine (i.e.
>>simply following a set of instructions).
>>
>>Jef and Brent say that we are machines
>>who (that?) philosophize.
>>
>>Brent says that realizing we are machines is the
>>beginning of (or another step in) the death of
>>human hubris (arrogance).
>>
>>I thought that Bruno maintains that humility
>>is on the side of realizing that we cannot
>>totally understand ourselves.
>>
>>Pascal, "Reason can begin again when we
>>recognize what we cannot know."
>>
>>Could we try to make sense of this, given that we believe in sense?
>>
>>Tom
>
>Given that we believe in sense? 
> 
>Who/what gives that? 
> 
>Do we believe in that? 
> 
>Georges. 

Georges, you are using sense by asking those questions.

List,
OK, we don't have to use any of those scary words like sense and reason
and faith. We're just trying to get at reality. Or are people
starting to get nihilistic? Have a little faith (oops) and let's talk.

I suggest we start out by concentrating on the fact that Brent and Jef
don't agree with Bruno's b) above. (And also perhaps Bruno doesn't
agree with himself (Bruno's a) vs. b) above)). If we truly are
machines, then by definition we should be able to (in theory) figure
out the "list of instructions" that we follow. But wouldn't this be
grasping all aspects of ourselves? If not, then what part of ourselves
is outside of the realm of being able to grasp, and if so, how can we
say we are machines in a totally closed rationalistic/naturalistic
world? Brent and Jef's paragraphs sound mystical to me, as mystical as
any other "first truth" assumption.

Tom
Received on Tue Feb 07 2006 - 12:15:08 PST