Glaucon (Greek: Γλαύκων) (born circa 445 BC) son of Ariston, was the philosopher Plato's older brother. He is primarily known as a major conversant with Socrates in the Republic (Plato), and the questioner during the Allegory of the Cave. He is also referenced briefly in the beginnings of the dialogues of Plato Parmenides (Plato) and the Symposium (Plato).
While I of course understood this conversation between Plato and Glaucon, there is a statement of reference that needs to be explained. So that it is not misunderstood that "the object" and "state of the one who questions and the one questioned," are shown to be like "God as the Geometer?" It is an "innate feature to the state of enquiry." That it follows alongside mapping, which advanced my own position of "methodology by intuition." An accumulated to a state called"Correlation of Cognition."
So by introducing "this brother"( a figure in mind to advance the developmental methodology,) to create this "state of being" within us, is much like an artistic endeavour of a plot, a writer, since one may not have had this conversation other then to move this story forward. How?:)
So I am glad there is a Glaucon who would move the conversation for advancement.
As Socratic method requires both a questioner and one questioned to move forward, Glaucon, who is the most honest about his ignorance amongst the friends, will help “build” the ideal philosophical city by engaging Socrates without fighting his ideas.
Self Evident
We hold (they say) these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. In what are they created equal? Is it in size, understanding, figure, moral or civil accomplishments, or situation of life?Benjamin Franklin-The Gentleman's Magazine, vol. 46, pp. 403–404)
Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.
"Deduction" is an interesting thing left on it's own. While we think it only as one avenue to the methodology of approach, it is not without pointing out that the "inductive part" is part of this philosophical adventure too. That it should leave one to understand that the "infinite regression" leaves one on a precipice of change. That what is self evident, becomes the "new stepping stone for advancement."
A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES
Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.
Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.
.......and again.
Alain Connes
Where a dictionary proceeds in a circular manner, defining a word by reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element", a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition.
Hi Plato,
ReplyDelete“I see your position now as the opportunity for developing things that I see hanging out there. You spoke on deduction?
New post today speaks to that.”
Excuse me for taking the license to move your comment and my reply to the more appropriate posting. First, let me say that I was mistakenly under the impression that you had already read some of my humble noodlings. I therefore assumed that you were thus aware of my philosophical viewpoint as to what represents both truth and the methodology from which it can only be discovered. I have referred as my role in respect to yours, as it pertains to the ancient Greek perspective, as being your Glaucon. This will remain the case if this serves to be the limits of our exchange. However, if the truth be known as to what is closest to my centre would be the perspective of Einstein, as I see this as both the extension and evolution of this program. Now don’t take me wrong, for I in no way understand that I have the power of mind of Einstein, yet at the same time would not deny I have what I consider a clear understanding of him from the philosophical standpoint.
I find your diagram of the Aristotelian perspective intriguing. However, if you would like in simple terms how I see things it is as follows. To begin, the method of induction should only lend support of the deductive and not the other way around, which unfortunately is the way that most of modern science proceeds (so they say). Next this deduction must spring forth from what you refer to be self evident truth or intuitive reason. However, unlike Aristotle who did not find truth in Plato’s perfect forms, I understand that they exist and serve to be the source of this self evidence or intuition. The perfect forms however are not of the realized but rather the potential realm. Where induction serves to reinforce all of this is when it can be shown to disprove or support reason to doubt the deductive inspired by the intuitive. This again runs counter to the prevailing perspective. So they therefore believe to think, rather then think to believe.
Best,
Phil
"the unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks viewed things from the perspective of introspection, where this introspection would lead to virtuous individuals that would then form themselves into a thus virtuous society or state. Socrates "often was contended to have proclaimed:Wisdom’s End
At extreme energies( blackhole collapse) who is to say with the uncertainty principal that Einstein even in face of quantum Mechanics did not understand some greater relevance to position and momentum?
So indeed the uncertainty of all that information confined to a space and what are currently sciences looking for today?
Is there then "no geometry and first principles" with which to examine the very contents of the blackhole? Better yet, to say that no "first principle is self evident?"
I thought the diagram to be in an oscillatory mode in context of our exchange from the centre outward/inward. In a sense, a description of the continuity of this exchange, geometrically based.
It was thus acknowledge Klein's ordering of geometries. That the road from Einstein leads to a finer understanding of Lagrangian positions in space.
Is there then an deeper understanding of the collision process and elements within this context that are "relativistic by nature" with regard to these collisions.
How can what is out there in space, be relevant to what happens at a quantum level?
Phil I have much to remember as I try to develop a better understanding. I hope you will be patient.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteI have no religious affiliations to any religious organizations.
Although I find that the contents of certain aspects of them of value from a philosophical standpoint. Is there some value in looking at Einstein's comments as you explore the very nature of our reality in truth and beauty?
Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.
I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.
Hi Plato,
ReplyDeleteYou Said: “I have no religious affiliations to any religious organizations.”
“Is there some value in looking at Einstein's comments as you explore the very nature of our reality in truth and beauty?”
Is this to suggest that I do? That would be the furthest from the truth unless of course it would be considered as Einstein has. I noticed the quote you made which I’m familiar with, yet for me it to is far too open to interpretation. The statement he made in this regard that I consider the most clear is the one presented in my post “Why Einstein’s Moon”. Here he states clearly that he believe in no “God” which would be of substance or description as he says:
“And yet, that the primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.”
So any God of faith or description is not as he uses or means the term. He clarifies this when he goes on to say:
“But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.”
To understand what Einstein is talking about requires the heart of a scientist fused to the soul of a philosopher. The likes of Plato, Descartes, Einstein and some others had this, yet they are the few. You also seem to present yourself as someone who does and yet I am puzzled why you should need to ask. I cannot explain simply beyond what Einstein said. My humble (and oft times crude) arguments presented in my posts attempt to bring my readers closer to the light, yet I realize as your namesake did long ago that they can only see for themselves. So am I religious as say Richard Dawkings describes, certainly not. Am I religious as Einstein admits; most certainly. As for if it being critical to understanding the role of truth and beauty in the world and what then is the good; I explain this as saying that there is no completion of understanding without the how, what and why. To think otherwise,as not I yet those others would suggest, will have one remain with the shadows.
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteThanks for offering the views on religiosity's.
“But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.”
It was this quote in fact that created some problems for me, in that what I was seeing in terms of my own conceptualizations would have not been appropriate to Einstein.
I point out Liminocentric, mandalic information, as showing relevance to a mapping process that would had also been relevant to the way mathematics would takes one closer to that Alain Conne's "reference to another, the basic concepts of mathematics are infinitely closer to an indecomposable element, a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition," element in terms of coming closer to the source. Why I thought it would have been nice to see Lee Smolin's comments in regards to the mathematics. Oh well.
Well to me above, this would not in itself been appropriate to given God such a abstract notion, yet I am stuck, to what should have manifested in the very beginning of this universe, defined in a mathematical way.
I just wanted you to know that I am looking at what you are saying in consideration of truth and beauty and science and philosophy. Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb
"With better observations additional epicycles and eccentric were used to represent the newly observed phenomena till in the later Middle Ages the universe became a 'Sphere/With Centric and Eccentric scribbled o'er,/Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb'-- Dorothy Stimson, The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe (New York, 1917), p. 14. The quotation is from John Milton's Paradise Lost, Book 8, 11.82-85.
Hi Plato,
ReplyDelete“a kind of elementary particle" of thought with a minimal amount of ambiguity in their definition," element in terms of coming closer to the source.”
Don’t take it that I exclude the possibility of consciousness being a possibility as to the nature of the cosmos. I do feel however that the truth of this is still to be decided. It should also not be assumed that such existed prior to the beginning yet rather could have been a consequence of it. Also it could be considered that it was also perhaps the only beginning that could eventually foster and give birth to such. These all form to be part of the question that needs to be answered. One I can truly hope can be discovered.
“I just wanted you to know that I am looking at what you are saying in consideration of truth and beauty and science and philosophy. Cycle and Epicycle, Orb in Orb”
I’m humbled that you would take note of my thoughts of struggle and wonder. However, in truth if I am anything, it is simply defined by this. I only point to what I feel others have missed or oft times deny as relevant in their own quest to understand. I also take no credit for this insight; for it truly belongs to the ones I have come to honour and trust. If I’m anything it is simply the echo of those who I mention. I advise that the source holds more truth then the echo, as the light does so compared to the shadows.
Also, you have both encouraged and inspired me to give more service in this regard and I truly thank you. On reading about the orbs again, I have formed a thought that I will later write in my blog that will extend it further as to attempt to show the relevancy and truth of dimension and how perception can be sharpened by this insight.
Best,
Phil
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Plato,
ReplyDelete"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.
P. J. O'Rourke"
I have to tell you that I truly enjoy your quote of the day. Like the old saying "we are what we eat" I find that this relates to the conscious to translate "we are what we read". It is obvious then that your mind has had a healthy diet, one that you share with others.
Best.
Phil
Phil:I find that this relates to the conscious to translate "we are what we read".
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the book "Stranger in a Strange land by Robert A. Heinlein" and the "Grokking process."
Like many influential works of literature, Stranger made a contribution to the language: specifically, the word "grok." In Heinlein's invented Martian language, "grok" literally means "to drink" and figuratively means "to understand," "to love," and "to be one with." This word rapidly became common parlance among science fiction fans, hippies, and computer hackers, and has since entered the Oxford English Dictionary among others. Heinlein wrote most of the novel completely in dialogue, containing often long monologues, and only has a few pages of narration that depict the state of the world during the ensuing plot.
It's an odd sort of way to look at comprehension and a deeper level of understanding, and from the writer's perspective, circumstances of it's character. Language articulation can be useful in this way, and I know as a youth I was influence by that word.
But yes in regards to the quote, democracies understood and the public opinion that forms it, are always signs of change. Knowing what to "put out there" is half the battle in regards to one's ideal in society.
Phil:Don’t take it that I exclude the possibility of consciousness being a possibility as to the nature of the cosmos. I do feel however that the truth of this is still to be decided. It should also not be assumed that such existed prior to the beginning yet rather could have been a consequence of it.
ReplyDeleteAS strange as it seems Phil, when you look a Supercosmlogists who think "outside the box," this is a literal interpretation of what I think Veneziano is saying?(before the "beginning of time")
For another it could denote the type of conference applicable to that title?:)
Of course current trends in the technologies of "collision particles" have presented aspects of properties that are fluid in nature? A different type of geometry perhaps?
"A second obstacle arises from the theory’s reliance on the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking to explain why each of the elementary particles we see in the world has different properties. While this is a beautiful idea, there is a certain ad hoc quality to how it is realized. To this date, no one has so far observed a Higg’s particle and we have only a very imprecise idea of their properties. Page 61, The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin ISBN 0-19-510837-x 1997
The organizational ability of such thinking has to recognize a pattern in nature, before, it manifests?
UNcertainty at such a level would be in my view, presenting a very wide pallet of experience, and a "selective understanding" derived from that thinking? It would require an "introspective view" of who is and how such an understanding took place.
The selected comment/quote above attests that you see much more of what I am saying.
Phil:Also it could be considered that it was also perhaps the only beginning that could eventually foster and give birth to such. These all form to be part of the question that needs to be answered. One I can truly hope can be discovered.
An interesting point about mathematics, whether it is an invention, or, it is discovered could be place here then?
A thought that arises for me is "Plato's symbol" for what God was to mean to him?
BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? PLATO
Hi Plato,
ReplyDelete“AS strange as it seems Phil, when you look a Supercosmlogists who think "outside the box," this is a literal interpretation of what I think Veneziano is saying?(before the "beginning of time")”
If time is an emergent entity, rather then fundamental, then is perplexing why the universe had a beginning. For if time is both infinite and eternal and the universe is neither, it might be of reason to be limited in magnitude and yet why the wait? This also must form to be part of the explanation.
“The organizational ability of such thinking has to recognize a pattern in nature, before, it manifests?”
And yet what are patterns without the perception or awareness of them? Take the example of Cantor’s revelation that the set of natural numbers although infinite are yet an infinitely small subset of the set of real numbers. Now look at what some have offered to define what random might be as being a sequence that cannot be described by less elements then it contains. Now imagine that if all is mathematical that somewhere in this larger set it must be contained, then to have it be unique it must then be realized. For example what is the difference between the infinite extension of PI and the description of random if a circle was not to be conceived to exist? So conception and true infinity are both mandate if the circle is to be real. The question then, can infinity exist without be realized and if not then conception is not a part yet is required for its existence. So this is Cantors mystery of the Aleph.
“BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life?”
As I have shown it would be possible to be infinite as to be eternal and yet not infinite to be immortal as one remains but a small subset of the other. In then being such, although reality may be conceived the magnitude of its instigation will remain to elude.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteThe Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity".
That is full, this is full
From the full, the full is subtracted
When the full is taken from the full
The full still will remain — Isha Upanishad.
However, there are some currently-accepted circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is black holes. Physicists have verified that, when a star experiences gravitational collapse, it will eventually shrink down to a point of zero size, and thus have infinite density. This is an example of what is called a mathematical singularity, or a point where the laws of mathematics, and therefore of physics, break down. Some physicists now believe the singularity may be physically real, and have since turned their attention to finding new mathematics where infinities are possible.
I was looking at your examples and trying to match up what you are saying, as well as, creating a new post in terms of "The Continuum: The Blackhole" to show how this aspect of the galaxies in forming parts of the universe, while being part of the whole, is contributing to the nature of a "new universe."
It is actually helping to dictate that nature of the current universe(dark energy dark matter) while in defining the current state, is producing the elements for a new universe.
omega equals 1?
Any corrections are most helpful.
Gabriele Veneziano
ReplyDelete"The new willingness to consider what might have happened before the big bang is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked back and forth for millenia. In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in a 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?" Scientific America, The Time before Time, May 2004
How is any gravitational collapse to be understood if it did not initiate a beginning to a new process? Is a circle not adequate?