logomachy --

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:23:07 10/11/08 Sat
Author: vit
Subject: logomachy

“We have within us the sparks of Knowledge, as in a flint:
philosophers extract them through reason,
but poets force them out through sharp blows of the imagination, so
that they shine more brightly”

This is what our beloved Descartes wrote in 1622.

...............................

選擇理性, 講求要非常客觀, 在一個形勢裡面, 把每一件事實分析.
這有不可能不跌入唯物論嗎?

選擇唯心論, 又可否不感情用事?

理想與現實, 永遠有一段距離, 咫尺天涯!

那一段人生歷程叫做掙扎!

有時, 天國與地獄的分別就在兩句說話:

為什麼今天看起來心事重重!

不要理, 行開點!

因此, 哲學家, 文學家, 音樂家, 畫家們用了別一種媒介
與他們的同類溝通.

這種人生歷程叫做創作.

而所有的分別只是在於寫實主義與印象主義,

也即是唯物論與唯心論.

愛也是一樣, 依靠心還是不依靠心, 雖然不管依靠甚麼,
最終都有可能出錯!

這種人生歷程叫做挫折!

有如哲學家的理論有疑點, 文學家的文字不夠才情,
音樂家與畫家的創作未見得有共鳴!

不要以為共鳴只是用心, 很多時其實是用頭腦.
因為頭腦必要先有一些印象才容易引起共鳴.

這種似曾相識的感覺叫做緣份, 或是無以為名!

而當緣份來到心裡, 誰要是再要分析下去,
那回事就不得不叫做焚琴煮鶴.

比如用materialism 分析Berkeley, 不是不可以,
但非常不是好方法.; 有如不用 transcendental 分析
Kant, 是非常對不起他一樣.

更有如想愛一個人, 先想他／她會否先愛自己一樣!

人生有一件事免不不了會引起疑惑, 那不是死!
那是在扳起面孔與面帶微笑之間的矛盾!

因為人, 這種萬物之靈, 通常不肯而且不甘承認身旁有人
可能是可以用..偉大..兩個字來形容!

而偉大, 對不甘承認的他們而言, 不過只是一個遠古的印象!
一個用來運用的名詞!

所以, 對於扳起面孔, 要用唯物論去分析.
相反, 面帶微笑是非常不需要用唯心論去研究的,
因為, 誰要是感受不到看不出, 那是用甚麼去研究去分析也沒用了!

這一點, 有如感受不到看不出一個面容嚴肅的人,
其實微笑之間帶點童心!

有如感受不到看不出, 那個不可能愛自己的人,
其實有時還是十分有情的!

踏上哲學的旅程, 有可能就此一生, 要成為一個哲道行者,
於是成為最終的目標.

要到達目標, 當然各施各法; 而我想: 誰都不會反對,
而且會非常堅信, 一個面帶微笑, 未必是可能到達的保證,
但已是俱備了十足的自信心!

這點自信, 有如相信有情其實會比無情更加符合人性一樣!

..................................

註:

哲道行者...一詞...是借用了李天命博士著的一書名.

這次吾歡迎各同學對文內的任何 decipher.

On 4月28日, 上午2時05分

...........................................

On Your Last Post

Dear vit,

As a human being, I appreciate WHAT you said; but, as a philosopher, I
am afraid that I cannot agree with the way HOW you said it.

There is NO REASON for us to suppose that Rationalism → Objectivism →
Materialism and Idealism → Sentimentalism. These suppositions are
CONFUSING and HARMFUL to proper thinking.

The suppositons that Realism = Materialism and Impressionalism =
Idealism are INCORRECT.

(Besides, the translations of Idealism as 唯心論 and Materialism as 唯物論
are also confusing and harmful to proper thinking.)

I always recommend philosophoi (lovers of knowledge) that either don't
use a terminus or using it in a strict and vigorous and correct sense,
using termini in a confusing and an incorrect sense is not good for
anyone.

I think you could have expressed much more clearly and in a much more
touching way, had you put aside all the academic termini above (or
their equivalent expressions).

I am not going to say anything about the content, besides that it is
quite good, since you 「吾歡迎各同學對文內的任何 decipher.」

I wish you better ways of expression in the future.

Best regards,
xxx

On 5月6日, 上午3時58分

.......................................

Dear xxx Sir,

Again, I treasure your kind concern.

Since a philosopher, needless to say, must be a human being,
so, it seems that it literally makes no sense to appreciate for how
one
said, but in fact disagree with the way of how one said that.

To say something and to say something in a certain way would
certainly be various depending on different person in a diverse
composition. If, in a way, what one said is correct, then, it must
be correct. Appreciation would then be easy to not be intractable.

But, it would not be too easy to posit on the contrary.

There has not a bit of intention to turn a trivial prose into
a scholarly paper which my bare hand could never compete favorably .
And if there really appeared to be having some suppositions are
CONFUSING and HARMFUL, may I dare to point out,
that it is you who add the symbols → and = to confuse.

In the said prose, all my intention is only but to interpret how
difficult
it would be to smile heartily!

Sometimes, do we have to listen to Descartes to force out our reason
through sharp blows of the imagination?

I appreciate the discussion we shared.

Give you good night!

On 5月6日, 下午3時18分

......................................

Dear vit,

The "WHAT you said" of your post is its thesis and its sub-theses.
(The thesis is, paraphrasing your words, the difficulty of smiling
healthily.)

"The way HOW you said it" in your post includes using philosophical
terms (or their equivalents) to articulate your thesis and your sub-
theses.

As a human being (who is able to understand the difficulty of life), I
appreciate your thesis and your sub-theses.

As a philosopher (who is able to understand the difficulty and
complication of the meanings of all those philosophical terms you
mention in your post), I am afraid that I cannot agree with your using
of these philosophical terms (or their equivalents) to articulate your
thesis and your sub-theses.

The reasons of my disagreement are as follows:

(1) Using these philosophical terms (or their equivalents) to
articulate your thesis and your sub-theses does not make your
articulation more clear and more touching, but makes it less clear and
less touching.

(2) Your usage of these philosophical terms (or their equivalents) are
misleading and incorrect.

The reasons of (2) are as follows:

(2.1) According to your post, rationalism implies objectivism,
objectivism implies materialism, and idealism implies sentimentalism.
But, you do not ever try to specify these terms before you use them.
So, the readers who did not receive substantial philosophical training
do not know what you mean with them, and the readers who did receive
substantial philosophical training know that you mean them
incorrectly. E.g. The philosophy of Leibniz is rationalsim but not
materialism and the philosophy of Kant is idealism but not
sentimentalism.

(2.2) According to your post, realism is identical to materialism and
impressionalism is identical to idealism. But, again, you do not try
to specify these terms before you use them. So, the readers who did
not receive substantial philosophical training do not know what you
mean with them, and the readers who did receive substantial
philosophical training know that you mean them incorrectly. If you
understand 寫實主義 and 印象主義 in an artistic and non-philosophical context,
they have nothing to do with materialism and idealism. If you
understand realism and impressionalism in a philosophical context,
they are not identical to materialism and idealism respectively. E.g.
some scholars (not including me) may call the philosophy of Plato
realism, but they do not call it materialism, and the philosophy of
Hume may be called impressionalism, but it is only one kind of
idealism, it is not identical to idealism.

Tom, it may be the case that you have "no intention to turn a trivial
prose into a scholarly paper", but the end effect is that a reader
comes across a lot of philosophical terms (or their equivalents) used
unspecifically and incorrectly in the title and the text of your
prose. I regard you as a philosophos (lover of knowledge), that's why
I say all these to you, and do it twice.

One of my suggestions and advices for writing something in humanities
and social sciences is the following: Please either do not use
technical terms or use them in their correct meanings.

Besides, I may have a piece of advice for you: Please study some basic
methodology of thinking and some elementary logic.

I regard me as your teacher only as far as philosophy is concerned.
Otherwise, I regard you as my 前輩 generally and I regard you as my
teacher in particular as far as painting is concerned.

I wish you very careful and exact way of expression in your coming
philosophical paper.

Best regards,

xxx

....................................

It's wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything
upon insufficient evidence.

........................W.K. Clifford

Dear xxx Sir :

The following is quoted from your last post:

I do NOT think that what I said is essential to that which you liked
to express in your prose. (You yourself asked the readers not “to
decipher the text”.) But I think that what I said is essential to the
way how you expressed that which you liked to express.

....................
But, as a matter of fact, what I asked is : 這次吾歡迎各同學對文內的任何 decipher.
I don't suppose you would not know this word 『吾』, because you'd used
it before,
and used it for many times.
.....................
It doesn't surprise this time, because from all the preceding post, a
look over and careless
attitude had almost been summoned on the mind of the readers, and that
inevitably would
perhaps sustain their reasonable doubt.
But this is minor.
......................

It certainly is my pleasure, my dear sir, for you to take the concern
of my emotion in precedence
of your favorable consideration, if that's the case; But that's not, I
am afraid I cannot acknowledge that.
If, unfortunately, that's your preconception, it literally will not be
easy for me to contradict that.

However, it's too grateful this time that you employ the innate act of
imagination, eventually!
......................

It's too joyful to know that you hope this will be the last time you
have to clarify, as I'm, at the same time,
desperately hoping to finalize the discussion we shared, due to what
you said, I cannot say all, but to certain extent,
oppose to what I trust.

You have to prove, at least, the following before you come to a
conclusion.

First,
The PREMISES are the statements that set forth the reason or evidence,
and the CONCLUSION is the statement
that the evidence is claimed to support or imply. (1)

Second:
A STATEMENT is a sentence that is either true or false, in other
words, typically a declarative sentence
or a sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence.(2)

Remark: (1) & (2)
extract from the book: A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Mr.
Patrick Hurley, university of San Diego

But, please, don't prove it now, prove it in some other ways in
somewhere else!
...............................

Finally, dear sir, you are worrying too much. All familiar classmates,
within almost a year,
never did they have a chance to see me turned my face with a negative
emotion on every heated discussion
or how they talked sometimes in a way I didn't agree with.
I talk straight out, but employ smile to melt some misunderstanding!

Why not next time I make you a muffin, like the first time I met you,
to erase all your perplexity.

Give you good night.

..........................

epilogue:

Can we think like this:

Because I propose many philosophical terms in my prose, bewildered
readers would then
jump into the garden of philosophy, without any better alternative! if
they really care.
If they don't, who cares?

It's only you and me, my dear sir.

Give you good night!

.................................

On 5月11日, 上午2時39分

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: logomachy -- vit, 09:39:02 10/11/08 Sat