YGodler wrote:Institutions must presuppose choice/creativity, even if they seek to control or limit them. Choice and creativity are existing things which seem inaccessible to human understanding in principle.
YGodler wrote:So all kinds of things exist, but only some can be theorized/understood.This seems to resonate with the familiar post-Newtonian distinction between the intelligibility of theories (which is possible) and the intelligibility of the world (which is impossible).
DT Cochrane wrote:
If a decision is dictated by an ordering mechanism, then it is not choice. If, however, it is truly a creative choice, then it is not ordered.
DT Cochrane wrote:Could the world be known in its entirety, a la the dream of Laplace? No. It is a creative venture. There are ex nihilo emergences. But, that doesn't mean the world is unintelligible.
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it...
The ensidic is the component capable of being separated and assembled into identities. The magmatic is the part defying classification.
I also don't share in the same inconceivabilities as Newton had.
There are other things that are inconceivable to me, but that is an epistemological failing, rather than an ontological fact. We denude humanity of its incredible ability to engage with existence, transform our knowledge of that existence and then augment that existence when we mistake our epistemological limitations for ontological barriers, which is precisely what Newton does in this passage. It is the same with Hegel, when he declares that we are at the End of History because thought has now captured reality, i.e. Absolute Knowledge.
We shouldn't confuse ordering mechanisms that may be currently inconceivable - owing to the principles limiting our thought - with ordering mechanisms that are forever necessarily beyond us. I think this distinction between the epistemological and the ontological may be at the root of our disagreement, and may be causing us to debate at cross purposes.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests