[FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

Fri Dec 4 00:05:02 EST 2020

Coming very late to the party... like all the things we talk about here
"foundationalist" can have many meanings. I would assert that the most
basic meaning is that you believe there is some firm starting point for our
thought that *could *be found.

I am tempted to add "and you think we would be better off if we could find
it", however, I think most anti-foundationalists would agree with that part
to. That is, most anti-foundationalists would agree that *if *a firm
foundation was out there to be found, *then *we would be better off if we
could find it. The difference is that the anti-foundationalist doesn't
think the firm starting point can be found, and therefore sees searching
for it as a fools errand.

The metaphor of a "firm foundation" is about being able to build without
worry that the floor will collapse underneath you. It is about thinking
that there is something you can put at the base of your thinking that will
itself never be in danger of needing revision, even if the structures you
build on top prove to be unstable. The clearest example of such an effort
is Descarte's argument that you can doubt everything *except *that
when-you-are-doubting-*you*-are-doubting. Did that turn out to be firm? Not
as much as Descarte had hoped, but the hope itself is clear.

At any rate, you could presumably try to be a foundationalist with any type
of thing serving as the foundation (e.g., logic, metaphysics, epistemology,
truth, experience, metaphor, triads, turtles, etc.).

<echarles at american.edu>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:40 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Glen,
>
>
>
> Sorry to put you through all that.  I now remember that I was totally
> wrong.  I guess it just goes to show that I am such younger sibling that I
> can turn anybody into an older brother.
>
>
>
> You went on to write:
>
>
>
> And the very definition of a foundationalist is that something like truth
> is the foundation of logic. You seem to have it flipped. You seem to be
> saying that a foundationalist believes logic is the foundation of truth or
> somesuch. I thought foundationalist meant a) a foundation for all logics
> can be found and b) that foundation may be tied to something else ... like
> reality ... or convergence.
>
>
>
> Here would be a good place for us to remember that I am not a philosopher,
> and so should not be talking at all.  However, having cast care to the
> wind, I now assert that foundationalism is the belief that we can trace all
> right thought back to a few postulates from which all truths arise by
> deduction.   This leads to a fascination with paradoxes, upon which any
> system may founder.  It also leads in biology to a fascination with firsts,
> the first life, the first consciousness, etc.  I don’t think either of us
> are foundationalists.
>
>
>
> I don’t quite know how arguing could force you to think if disagreement
> does not produce a tension of some sort.  Why wouldn’t I just go on
> believing the silly things I believe no matter what somebody else says.
> Oooops!
>
>
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:05 PM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world
>
>
>
>
>
> [sigh] I was adopted. My older sister was also adopted. I have no younger
> siblings that I know of, though they may exist.
>
>
>
> And I'm not contrarian because I want to "stay ahead". I'm contrarian
> because too many people around me are too satisfied to sit on the haunches
> of their preconceptions without trying to think of *other* ways to think.
>
>
>
> Why bother to argue if there is no convergence? Because exercising my
> ability to think in OTHER WAYS feels good. I enjoy arguing not because
> arguing is enjoyable, but arguing forces me to think in ways I don't
> normally think.
>
>
>
> I do not believe logics are arbitrary. Traditional logic does arise from
> language and semantics. But modern logic has broken free and is more
> syntactic. Technology and progress are good things. And some of the
> non-arbitrary logics actually match human reasoning better than others. But
> the logic doesn't *need* the human reasoning. The human reasoning needs the
> logic.
>
>
>
> And the very definition of a foundationalist is that something like truth
> is the foundation of logic. You seem to have it flipped. You seem to be
> saying that a foundationalist believes logic is the foundation of truth or
> somesuch. I thought foundationalist meant a) a foundation for all logics
> can be found and b) that foundation may be tied to something else ... like
> reality ... or convergence.
>
>
>
> And to reiterate, I'm not happy or happier when I disagree. But I am
> *productive* when there is someone present with whom I disagree. If
> everyone around me agrees with me, I am useless, get bored and move on.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/1/20 12:27 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Ad hominem comments:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ok, in the absence of good data, I will assume that I am correct.  You
> are the older brother two younger siblings;  I am the younger brother to
> two older siblings.  My psychology is to be constantly catching up;  your
> psychology is to be constantly trying to stay ahead.  Normally that goes on
> until the older sibling dies and the younger sibling gets to catch up by
> saying something wise at the memorial service.  Unfortunately,  I am at
> least twenty years older than you, so I am doomed never to catchup.  I am
> Sisiphus, perpetually rolling my damned stone up your damned hill.  But I
> love you anyway.
>
> >
>
> > */[NST===> Then /*why are we bothering to argue.  It creates a tension
>
> > in me that we disagree; I infer that  no such tension is felt by you.
>
> > I revert to my ad hominem argument above. */<===nst] /*
>
> >
>
> > */[NST===>I am not (today) making a claim that logic depends on
>
> > content;  I am only making the claim that logic gro/**/ws out of
>
> > experience in much the same way that truths do and that, therefore,
>
> > logic arises from content, and is, usually, related to it.<===nst] /*
>
> >
>
> > */[NST===>I guess /**/we do disagree, then.  You believe that logics
>
> > are pulled out  of our … um…; I believe that they arise from the trod
>
> > down midden of experience.  They are proposals about how truth is to
>
> > be found. I am therefore not a foundationalist./*  */<===nst] /*
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > */[NST===>I return to my ad hominem argument.  I am seeking to agree;
>
> > you are happier /**/when you disagree.  B.I.L.Y.A. /* */<===nst] /*
>
>
>
> --
>
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201204/1a9ed9f5/attachment.html>