When man began to wonder......wonder about what he sees...what he feels..what he thinks, he had to come to one conclusion; whether he called it experiences, thoughts, feelings, observations or ideas, the only origin of all these was his own mind.
That is, only his very individual mind. Outside that mind, you could say, nothing exists. There is only private consciousness. So infact there only exists one reality: MY MIND.
But that seems so contradictory to everyday life, for there is you.....you have a minds of your own, havent you? But here problems begin, for it is only my mind who suggest the existence of other minds. What proof do I have except my own mind and what it suggests to me.
How can I so to speak go outside my private mind and say " I know that you are there!" You are not products of my imagination. You are real, arent you? This all boils down to that fundamental question: what can I know with absolute certainty.
A central aim of the metaphysical tradition had been the discovery of an immutable cognitive object that could serve as a foundation for knowledge.
For Dewey knowledge is a product of an activity directed to the fulfillment of human purposes and truth means that holding a certain belief leads to benificial consequences.
So this whole philosphical quest for that holy grale, that rockbottom certain cognitive object, which would serve as the foundation of our knowledge is a misconception in the eyes of Dewey.
Given that we only have the content of our mind, we can formulate the question: does there really exist something out there independent of my mind? This is the fundamental debate between Idealism and Realism.
What position takes Dewey in this controversy? He makes me think of Thomas Reid actually, the common sense philosopher. The mind, knowledge, isnt a static object of philosophical contemplation, it is a process and this process is an interaction with an external world.
An example: I hear a sound that frightens me, really creepy. On further inverstigation I discover that the sound simply is caused by the wind blowing through a hole in the wall.
Now tell me, what is the real reality, my first impression of the sound -that was in my mind first - or my subsequent observation? One of the two should be the real reality, shouldnt it?
But this approach is based on the traditional conception of substances and their properties, the static ontological interpretation. According to Dewey these experiences only effects a change in the inter-dynamics of the organism-environment relationship of the initial situation--a change in reality.
Distinguished from the metaphysical tradition this means that there is an appearance in my mind, the frightening sound, and a stable source of knowledge, the hole in the wall and the wind, so that we should have to conclude that there are appearances and an utlimate reality. Not true according to Dewey, there is a change in interaction only.
Neither does it mean that our expereinces are constantly in error because subsequent inquiry shows that things are different. Dewey stresses the point that sensations, hypotheses, ideas, etc., come into play to mediate our encounter with the world only in the context of active inquiry.
Once inquiry is successful in resolving a problematic situation, mediatory sensations and ideas, as Dewey says, "drop out; and things are present to the agent in the most naively realistic fashion."
This all may be hard to digest this very moment, but it means that Dewey just accepted as a postulate that there exists an external world with which the organism is in constant interaction only changing its strategies to get the best results.
And finally, to bring in an argumet from the future: Wittgenstein will argue that if we had only private experiences, not only they would be incommunicable, but also we could not describe or speak about them to ourselves, for the use of language implies rules which are communal and have to be established and checked with respect to public objects.
In other words, when we use language it implies that we are not imprisoned in the private experiences of our own mind. We interact with a public world and this explains Dewey's zeal for political, social and educational matters, motivated by his pragmatic philosophy.
The Discussion
[13:42] Herman Bergson: So far on John Dewey...
[13:43] itsme Frederix: So Deweys interest in social/public a.so.o. is calculated economics to get succes?
[13:43] Herman Bergson: What do you mean Itsme?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: I think it was a little deeper than that
[13:44] itsme Frederix: the act should be succesfull
[13:44] Herman Bergson: yes but not economically if that is what you mean...
[13:44] : Samuel Okelly raises hand
[13:44] Mickorod Renard: to take this in a diferent way,,,if we had an experience,,and couldnt comunicate it,,,it is likely that it is only in our mind and not real?
[13:44] Herman Bergson: morally, socially, psychologically....all that
[13:44] : Samuel Okelly raises hand
[13:44] itsme Frederix: well calculated investing taking a risk hoping for succes?
[13:45] Cailleach Shan: If it's not real Mick how can it have been experiential?
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: mmm?
[13:46] Selaras Partridge: Maybe Mick meant objectively real?
[13:46] : hope63 Shepherd raises hand
[13:46] Flight Band - slow: All Go
[13:46] itsme Frederix: Sam raised a hand
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Hope?
[13:46] : hope63 Shepherd raises hand
[13:46] Varick Vendetta: well if you thought you saw a ghost, did you not experience seeing a ghost even if its not there?
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: stuck
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: well you would be able to say u saw a ghost
[13:47] Herman Bergson: I think you should take a differnt approach Mickorod..
[13:47] Selaras Partridge: If I thought I saw a ghost, what I experienced was thinking I saw a ghost... Not sure if I experienced seeing a ghost.
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: I was just turning wittgenstein around
[13:47] Herman Bergson: seeing a gohst is not a problem....the subsequent actions you take tell you the meaning of your experiences
[13:47] : Rodney Handrick raises hand
[13:48] Herman Bergson: RODNEY?
[13:48] Varick Vendetta: but does that matter to the mind, if you think you saw it and believe you saw it, even if there really wasn't anything there, don't you still have the experience of seeing it
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: Isn't that an issue of whether or not you believe beyond your five physical senses
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: Or the better question is what substance do hallucination have?
[13:49] Stanley Aviatik: Stanley would raise his hand if he could
[13:49] Herman Bergson: In a pragmatic way of thinking it doesnt matter how many senses you have...what you do and how successful it is , is what counts
[13:49] Sage Hartmann: You said early you thought dewey was opposed to ontologies (as opposed to models), but isn't he in some sense still defining an ontology that simply treats processes and model-constructions as more primitive than the things they describe?
[13:50] Herman Bergson: OK STANLEY..:-)
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)0
[13:50] Stanley Aviatik: How would dream thoughts come into the equation?
[13:50] : itsme Frederix raises hand
[13:50] : Samuel Okelly raises hand
[13:51] Herman Bergson: Ok..two questions .Sage and you Stanley..
[13:51] arabella Ella: do you think Dewey's ideas are leading towards Gilbert Ryle and his ideas on dispositions?
[13:52] Herman Bergson: To reply to Sage..maybe you are right..Dewey was not the man who thought in terms of a kind of statc ontology..the process and interaction were most important to him
[13:53] Herman Bergson: And dreams Stanley..well.. to what action do they lead?
[13:53] Herman Bergson: you are asleep then..:-)
[13:53] Stanley Aviatik: No just bad lag
[13:53] Saddly Offcourse: lol
[13:53] Herman Bergson: or did I misinterpret your remark?
[13:53] Tiara Calvert: :)
[13:54] Saddly Offcourse: (I wasn't asleep, i was having bad lag)
[13:54] itsme Frederix: sleep is also action!, you must feel comfortable in the environment
[13:54] itsme Frederix: its an act of trust sometimes
[13:54] itsme Frederix: if you got killed it was not succesfull (in a way)
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: is conceptual confusion going on here?
[13:55] Varick Vendetta: what if dewey is wrong about that part, perhaps the actions does not matter as much as the thoughts produced by experience which subsequently lead to an action, but does not have to.
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: i am sorry to disrupt but have to leave .
[13:55] Herman Bergson: I think we must keep it in the right context..what it is all about here is the process of acquiring knowledge
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: bye gem
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Bye Gemma
[13:55] arabella Ella: bye Gemma nice to c u
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gem
[13:55] itsme Frederix: epistomology! oke
[13:55] : Samuel Okelly raises hand
[13:55] Saddly Offcourse: if Pragmatism is outcome based...it's sort of an evolutionary thinking, like about memes directing actions?
[13:55] Annabelle Laminsk: Me too. Bye bye everyone, thank you Herman.
[13:56] arabella Ella: bye annabelle
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: bye anna
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ty herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Bye Anna
[13:56] Qwark Allen: cya all
[13:56] Sage Hartmann: bye annabelle =)
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ;-D
[13:56] Ganymede Blackburn: Have a good day at work, Annabelle. :)
[13:56] Mickorod Renard: by quarq
[13:56] Selaras Partridge: So... would Dewey say that the truth of the matter depends on your actions? So if the person who thought she saw a ghost went on to sprinkle holy water around or whatever to ward off the ghost, or if she talked to the ghost, then we could say that she did see the ghost? If she disregards it as a hallucination, then we say she didn't see the ghost?
[13:56] itsme Frederix saw Sam raising his hand, but no succes
[13:57] Herman Bergson: Yes Saddly I think there is a close realtion to Dewey's pragmatism and theory of evolution
[13:57] Saddly Offcourse: =)
[13:57] : Varick Vendetta raises hand
[13:57] Herman Bergson: OK SAMUEL..SHOOT
[13:57] Samuel Okelly: “come into play to mediate our encounter with the world only in the context of active inquiry.” Wouldn’t this mean that if I were to be hypnotised into believing that the person I met was Elvis, I would, in reality, meet Elvis?
[13:58] Stanley Aviatik: That was similar to my point about dreaming
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: Isnt Dewey advocting a concrete world over abstraction
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Well Sam if you would sing like Elvis after this experience it might have been succesfull and true
[13:58] Herman Bergson: I think that this relates to my remark on how to respond to the creepy sound....
[13:59] Herman Bergson: there is no other reality, just a change of reality due to a change of how the organism inteacts with it
[13:59] Samuel Okelly: well here the active inquiry has lead to a specific and verificable encounter hasnt it?
[14:00] Samuel Okelly: (to the subjective mind that is)
[14:01] : Varick Vendetta raises hand
[14:01] itsme Frederix: Sam if you really met Elvis, but did not sing like him after that - nobody would have know, nobody could have told you met him - unsuccesfull
[14:01] Herman Bergson: But what puzzles me is, that you already say that the person is hypnitized...there you already have a specific situation
[14:01] Ganymede Blackburn: This makes me think of the ritual of communion, where to the believers, a wafer and a cup of wine becomes the flesh and blood of christ. Reality is our perception of it, and this example illustrates it well, I think.
[14:02] Herman Bergson: I mean.....you create anunreal mental state and ask about real experiences
[14:02] hope63 Shepherd: what is a real mental state..
[14:02] : Tiara Calvert raises hand
[14:02] Herman Bergson: TIARA
[14:03] Tiara Calvert: Thank you, I need to ask this because frankly I am uncertain I am following. Everyone here is very well versed I feel rather out of my league. Would I be following if I felt Dewey was interested in the mechanics of how we arrived at our truths? And that he felt that whatever process that would entail, that in the end our inner mind accepted the simpliest answer to create our own comfort level? Am I totally lost? :)
[14:03] Herman Bergson: STOP....
[14:03] Herman Bergson: all you take your time to read...
[14:04] hope63 Shepherd: tiara. i think you are following
[14:04] Mickorod Renard: if I discovered that I was just in my own mind and nothing existed outside,,,then it would be uninspiring to continue existing,,therefore to have idea of outside existance is a survival thing too
[14:04] Herman Bergson: I agree Hope
[14:04] Varick Vendetta: What about thought processes that lead to neutral or detrimental results? According to Dewey, these would be untrue, but if they used the same process of knowledge to derive, and there is even agreement between individuals that such a thing is true, is it still not true?
[14:05] Herman Bergson: oops..Varick...:-)
[14:06] itsme Frederix: Vairick, you mention results and say according to Dewey ... is it according to Dewey - why?
[14:06] Herman Bergson: YEs..I am a bit puzzled by this one..:-)
[14:07] Varick Vendetta: well, according to dewey only ideas that have a benificial effect are true.
[14:07] itsme Frederix: a neutral could be very benifical in some cases I think
[14:07] Herman Bergson: No...interactions that lead to a result are..not ideas
[14:08] Herman Bergson: truth according to Dewey is not having the right ideas, but doing the right things...
[14:08] itsme Frederix: Herman talking about ideas/species is a result isn't it?
[14:08] Herman Bergson: and right is what is benificial in the given circumstanses
[14:08] Samuel Okelly: so reality is the perception of truth?
[14:09] Varick Vendetta: well thats what I mean, but actions are only done because of certain ideas that are entertained.
[14:09] Herman Bergson: only a provisionary truth Samuel
[14:09] Cailleach Shan: lol isn't that a contradiction. I always though 'truth' was an absolute~!
[14:09] itsme Frederix: expectations? Vairick
[14:10] Herman Bergson: That Cailleach is the main idea Dewey left behind....truth is not an absolute
[14:10] hope63 Shepherd: truth got lost in the quantum theory,cal
14:10] : Selaras Partridge raises hand
[14:10] hope63 Shepherd: as an absolute
[14:10] Varick Vendetta: and if benificial action is the only truth, does that mean observing a flower as being yellow, and saying its yellow, because it has no beneficial effects, is untrue?
[14:10] Herman Bergson: SELARAS
[14:10] : itsme Frederix raises hand
[14:11] Selaras Partridge: is this like perspectivism?
[14:11] Herman Bergson: What is perspectivism Selaras?
[14:11] : Rodney Handrick raises hand
[14:11] Herman Bergson: Ok let Selaras answer first
[14:12] : Sage Hartmann raises hand
[14:12] Selaras Partridge: I'm not sure if this is right, but my idea of perspectivism is that it also leaves behind the idea of a single truth... instead insisting that everything has multiple perspectives
[14:12] Selaras Partridge: different ways we can look at things that are just as valid (rather than a singular truth)
[14:12] Herman Bergson: That would fit in here, I would say..
[14:12] arabella Ella: but dewey does not allow for multiple perspectives does he herman?
[14:12] Rodney Handrick: Yes, but isn't truth just like a lie subjective?
[14:13] itsme Frederix: Hope not quantum but thruth as absolute got lost in evolutin/Darwin, because replication is the base for thruth - succesfull replication (if I got thet right)
[14:13] Herman Bergson: ITSME
[14:13] itsme Frederix: yes Herman
[14:13] : Sage Hartmann raises hand
[14:13] Herman Bergson: Ok..you got your say Iguess?
[14:14] itsme Frederix: sure, any comment?
[14:14] Herman Bergson: SAGE?
[14:14] Sage Hartmann: This is related to selaras' question and your earlier comment on relativism - does dewey say anything about the 'convergence' of these pragmatic rules? Are there no constraints on your rules vs. mine or any expectation of when they should or shouldn't be a conensus that must emerge?
[14:15] Ganymede Blackburn: Goodnight, everyone. I'm no longer awake. :)
[14:15] Saddly Offcourse: if they are both valid, that is the truth
[14:15] Herman Bergson: Bye Ganymede..
[14:15] Cailleach Shan: lol Ain't it the truth Gany!!
[14:15] Rodney Handrick: Goodnight Gany
[14:15] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gany
[14:15] Stanley Aviatik: bye bye blackbird
[14:15] Sage Hartmann: gn gany =)
[14:16] Mickorod Renard: bye ganny
[14:16] itsme Frederix: Sage .... 'convergence' isn't that the holy grale again
[14:16] Herman Bergson: Still pondering about Sage's question...
[14:16] Sage Hartmann: only if everything converged itsme
[14:17] itsme Frederix: everything, one thing is enough - one thing to rule them all
[14:17] Herman Bergson: The rules you refer to, Sage, are also the result of the interaction between organism and environment
[14:18] itsme Frederix: the rules change in time
[14:18] Herman Bergson: I think it is interesting to read Varicks note ..
[14:18] Herman Bergson: Varick ..could you distribute your note to all present here?
[14:19] Varick Vendetta: of course
[14:19] arabella Ella: yes please varick
[14:19] Herman Bergson: We wont dicuss it now, but it is interesting to read his interpretation
[14:19] Herman Bergson: I wil insert the note in the blog..
[14:20] Stanley Aviatik: Many thanks Varick
[14:20] Mickorod Renard: ty
[14:20] Tiara Calvert: ty
[14:20] Samuel Okelly: thank you V :)
[14:20] Varick Vendetta: ok... did I miss anyone?
[14:20] Osrum Sands: :)
[14:20] Selaras Partridge: thanks Varick
[14:21] Herman Bergson: My firiends, you gave me a tough ride today...and I appreciate it..:-)
[14:21] itsme Frederix: seems we need a class on Vairick!
[14:21] Cailleach Shan: Ta Varick..
[14:21] Rodney Handrick: yes, thanks Varick
[14:21] Cailleach Shan: The Truth According to Varick!!! That's good.
[14:21] Herman Bergson: So I thank you for this really good discussion..
[14:21] Mickorod Renard: thankyou Herman
[14:22] Varick Vendetta feels special now
[14:22] Stanley Aviatik: Yes, thanks again for all your hard efforts Herman
[14:22] Herman Bergson: my pleasure Stanley
[14:22] Samuel Okelly: thanks herman.., once again lots to think about :)
[14:22] arabella Ella: thanks herman
[14:22] Selaras Partridge: thanks for the lecture, herman!
[14:22] Herman Bergson: but it wasnt an easy one today..(^_^)
[14:23] Sage Hartmann: thxs for the note varick :)
[14:23] Stanley Aviatik: agreed!
[14:23] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman
[14:23] Sage Hartmann: Thx for the discussion herman, everyone :)
[14:23] Tiara Calvert: Thank you
[14:23] Saddly Offcourse: (its been terrific, again, bye! =) )
[14:23] Varick Vendetta: thanks for the lesson herman... I'm going to have to reconsider dewey's ideas of truth now tho
[14:23] Jeb Larkham: yeah thanks Herman
[14:23] Rodney Handrick: Hmm..that happens from time to time
[14:23] itsme Frederix: " Where there is absence of action, there will be good order. "
[14:23] Herman Bergson: OK..DONT FORGET THE PHOTOSHOOT...
[14:24] Herman Bergson: get on the red seat if you want Aristotle to take your picture for our yearbook
[14:24] Herman Bergson: I'd love to see you all in the yearbook
[14:25] hope63 Shepherd: varick, i just read the first sentence of your note.
[14:25] Mickorod Renard: yes,,like where there is a police trafic control there is always mayhem
[14:25] Herman Bergson: well done Hope..lol
[14:25] hope63 Shepherd: i would add a word to the third line
[14:25] Samuel Okelly: tc every1, see you all next time :)
[14:25] hope63 Shepherd: .... can only be "considered" true..
[14:26] Herman Bergson: Ok Samuel...thnx for attending
[14:26] Varick Vendetta: ah, well. I may add that to mine
[14:26] hope63 Shepherd: could it be that that is deweys logic?
[14:26] Stanley Aviatik: Go for it Aristotle - I'm ready!
[14:27] arabella Ella: Ari do you mind if i do mine some other day please?
[14:27] Herman Bergson: Arabella you arent in the yearbook either..??????!!!!
[14:27] AristotleVon Doobie: Yes that will be fine Ara
[14:27] arabella Ella: yes i know herman but i need another outfit for the pix this one is not appropraite ;)
[14:28] Rodney Handrick: I think I'm already in the yearbook
[14:28] Herman Bergson: We stil have 38 phiosophers to go Arabella...plenty of time
[14:28] Herman Bergson: Yes you are Rodney..:-)
[14:28] Herman Bergson: thnx
[14:28] AristotleVon Doobie: I will send everyone a note on the procedure to get the photo to me.
[14:28] Cailleach Shan: Thanks Herman... Spent most of the time reading the previous 3 lectures.
[14:28] Cailleach Shan: Bye all.
[14:28] Mickorod Renard: ok cool
[14:28] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Cal
[14:28] Rodney Handrick: Bye Cal
[14:28] Jeb Larkham: bye
[14:28] Mickorod Renard: bye caill
[14:29] Varick Vendetta: bye cal
[14:29] Herman Bergson: Bye Cailleach..:-)
[14:29] hope63 Shepherd: bye cal..:)
[14:29] itsme Frederix: as always Herman thx and hope to see/hear you next class
[14:29] Sage Hartmann: lol arabella - it's not? =O
[14:29] Herman Bergson: What happend to your mind Arabella....?
[14:29] Rodney Handrick: bye all
[14:30] Herman Bergson: Did you get an implant?
[14:30] Jeb Larkham: bye
[14:30] Jeb Larkham: thanks herman and bye all
[14:30] Ninjah Valeeva is Offline
[14:30] Mickorod Renard: bye rod
THE NOTE ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
Some Remarks on Dewey
by Varick Vendetta
According to Dewey's logic, knowledge is a process and something can only be true when it is found to be useful in allowing humans to achieve their goals or desires. A single person's knowledge, however, depends on his or her own experience. And so, there were two question brought up. Does this logically suggest absolute relativism for human knowledge and what direction, if any, does Dewey's process of knowledge have?
To understand if absolute relativism applies, we must examine the human creature. A single mind can only know of what knowledge its experience has brought it to. So it must be true that human knowledge is at least highly relative on the scale of the individual. However, man is a social creature, and knowledge is shared within communities through communication. The relative knowledge of the individuals is joined together with the relative knowledge of the other individuals. It could be said, then, that the individual knowledge becomes less relative to the minds it comes in contact with through the sharing of knowledge. This creates a sort of communal knowledge available to all those in the community. Then, you may think, wouldn't the knowledge of communities still be relative to one another? Logically the answer must be yes, even in communal knowledge, the individual minds still have knowledge that relative to one another despite the communal knowledge. However, at the same time, no one person belongs to a single community. This leads to several more things to think about.
An individual mind contain knowledge that only that individual mind can obtain due to its individual experience. It can gain communal knowledge through the interaction of other minds within a community. This displays that knowledge must not be forced into an absolute relativity, but the relativity still seems to be there. So how relative is knowledge? Is communal knowledge relative to other communities? Again looking at the individual, we will see that most people do not belong to a single community of minds. Individuals move from community to community. Since this is the case, this must mean that outside of a certain community the communal knowledge received from the community know becomes relative individual knowledge in another community. However, the knowledge from one community can become communal knowledge of another community through the same interaction that made relative individual knowledge communal knowledge in the first community. Through this process of exchange of knowledge, knowledge of smaller communities can become knowledge of larger communities. Even with the exchange of information between communities, communal knowledge is still relative, just not absolutely relative.
Does the process of knowledge have a direction? It would seem to me that the way knowledge is spread from person to person, and community to community, is almost synonymous with Socrates', or Plato's, idea of dialectic. In dialectic, opposing minds are pitted against each other in hopes to refine an idea to agreement between the two minds in hopes that the process will lead to a more accurate description of truth. The process in which knowledge is shared and refined happens the exact same way. Simply change the word idea to knowledge and exchange the idea of two minds working on an idea to many, and you have the process of knowledge. Thus, it seems logical to assume that the process of knowledge is on a continual path that comes closer to representing truth with the passing of time through the exchange of knowledge.
It would seem that, in conclusion, that knowledge is in fact relative, but is not absolutely relative because of a process of correspondence, conjecture, and refinement. Knowledge, because of the same processes that prevent absolute relativity, is a process that better represents truth as time moves on, giving it direction.
|
|
