Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



6/26/2015 6:27 am  #1


PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

Platonism Project (1)




I follow Dr. Gerson because he and I both think that Platonism is a continuous movement starting with Plato all the way through Aquinas (and beyond - I personally include Hegel). This is a wonderful lecture that ought to be of relevance to everyone coming out of Feser's blog. (Gerson even criticizes Rosenberg, lol.)

Last edited by iwpoe (6/26/2015 6:33 am)


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

6/26/2015 7:43 am  #2


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

You may find the recording of the 2012 Moving Naturalism Forward conference,(starting here), interesting. It should not, however, be treated as representative of naturalism in philosophy (I don't see how that's possible at a conference without at least D. M. Armstrong, or someone of equal caliber).

Last edited by John West (6/26/2015 7:49 am)

 

6/26/2015 7:52 am  #3


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

I know what naive pop / scientistic naturalism looks like. I grew up on it.

Lord, those names. Is it cringe-worthy with all the self-assured dismal of religious caricature and non-"scientific" questions I've come to expect from Dawkins and co. or is it interesting?


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
     Thread Starter
 

6/26/2015 7:58 am  #4


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

iwpoe wrote:

I know what naive pop / scientistic naturalism looks like. I grew up on it.

Lord, those names. Is it cringe-worthy with all the self-assured dismal of religious caricature and non-"scientific" questions I've come to expect from Dawkins and co. or is it interesting?

It's interesting. Parts of it, anyway. I skipped a couple sections. There are a few silly anti-religion one-liners, but for the most part they stay within their respective fields of philosophy and science. Dawkins mostly keeps his mouth shut.

Last edited by John West (6/26/2015 8:03 am)

 

6/26/2015 8:09 am  #5


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

Thank god. I can't stand another group of aspie STEM-school rejects speaking as if the reduction of the mind to computation is a trivial matter of vocabulary and morality makes sense in terms of evolutionary theory & determinism.

I'll take a look at it while I'm at work tonight.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
     Thread Starter
 

6/26/2015 8:13 am  #6


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

iwpoe wrote:

Thank god. I can't stand another group of aspie STEM-school rejects speaking as if the reduction of the mind to computation is a trivial matter of vocabulary and morality makes sense in terms of evolutionary theory & determinism.

For example, most of them support some form of compatibilism about free will. It's interesting. But they are still Naturalists (capital N).
 

 

6/26/2015 8:23 am  #7


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

John West wrote:

For example, most of them support some form of compatibilism about free will. It's interesting. But they are still Naturalists (capital N).

Is there any way to maintain the reality of what might be called loosely "platonic objects"- mathimaticals, relations, classes, Forms, Categories, etc -and to do metaphysics proper while still being a Naturalist?


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
     Thread Starter
 

6/26/2015 8:53 am  #8


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

Thanks very much for the lecture vid Iwpoe - I've been meaning to get Gerson's Analytical account of Plotinus for ages now (his book on the First Cause argument in Classical Philosophy also looks tempting though dreadfully expensive).

iwpoe wrote:

John West wrote:

For example, most of them support some form of compatibilism about free will. It's interesting. But they are still Naturalists (capital N).

Is there any way to maintain the reality of what might be called loosely "platonic objects"- mathimaticals, relations, classes, Forms, Categories, etc -and to do metaphysics proper while still being a Naturalist?

It depends on how strict one wants to be about the use of the term 'Naturalist'. One could make the case that methodologically Quineans inherit Positivism's 'there might be a God, there might be immaterial souls et cetera but Science gives us no reason to assume their existence and thus we need not talk of them'. If one wants to be a hard Metaphysical Naturalist then it becomes more awkward.

Many philosophers of an Agnostic or Naturalist stripe feel compelled to admit Numbers as Platonic entities and a considerable number do the same with properties. The thought is now that if ne has to admit them then at least one should make them do hard explanatory work explaining things like causation, modality, reference and so forth in Philosophy of Science contests. Professional atheist philosophers of religion Tooley and Fales are two of the most influential proponents of this kind of Platonism (in fact quite a few professional atheist philosophers are Platonists). Historically there have been Naturalists e.g. Russell or Nicolai Hartmann who endorsed quite elaborate Platonic ontologies - there was less resistance amongst these earlier thinkers to accepting a non-mechanistic or physicalist approach however.

My thoughts are that someone who wants to eliminate God from his or her ontology and still explain reality is going to have to bring in more and more Platonic entities. The trouble for them is that it makes it increasingly difficult to see anything approaching a physicalist take on philosophy of mind could succeed. After all: Benacerraf's Problem is also Socrate's argument for the immateriality of the soul.
 

 

6/26/2015 9:00 am  #9


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

Well, there's some contention about what exactly a naturalist is in the first place. I call someone a naturalist (small “n”) if they adhere to Quine's definition of naturalism:

naturalism. the abandonment of the goal for a first philosophy. It sees natural science as an inquiry into reality, fallible and corrigible but not answerable to any supra-scientific tribunal, and not in need of any justification beyond observation and the hypothetico-deductive method.(Quine, Five Milestones of Empiricism)

Quinean naturalism, confirmational holism, and the Quine-Putnam indispensability thesis[1] lead directly to some type of realism about mathematical entities. It's the bread-and-butter realist argument in philosophy of mathematics, and most philosophers of mathematics—including people trying to undermine it like Hartry Field—agree that it goes through.

Moreover, I think most philosophers doing work on universals these days agree that they are forced to admit at least Aristotelian universals, or tropes (abstract particulars). For example, D. M. Armstrong, who defines naturalism as the thesis that nothing exists outside of space and time, was one of the foremost advocates of Aristotelian realism about properties and relations (until he died last year).

But sometimes (especially in philosophy of religion), Naturalists (I use a large “N” for them) use the term synonymously with a sort of mechanistic, physicalistic view of reality.

[1]The Quine-Putnam indispensability thesis is that ”We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.” I drop the "and only", because I think it's arbitrary and actually weakens the argument, but most naturalists would not.

 

6/26/2015 9:03 am  #10


Re: PP - Platonism vs. Naturalism - A Lecture by Lloyd Gerson

I never quite understood how exactly in the end Russell maintained his atheism. If you think "north of" is real why is the Form of the Good troubling?

I myself am open to something like the Hegelianism of Russell's youth, but I'm not sure that can easily get you to anything like the kind of modern scientistic atheism taken for granted now, or if it's even a non-theism.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum