“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Aristotle's Four Causes provide a framework for understanding why things exist and change. They are essential to his philosophy and can be applied across various disciplines. The four causes are:
Material Cause: This refers to what something is made of. For example, the material cause of a wooden table is the wood itself.
Formal Cause: This is the form or essence of a thing, essentially what it is. For the table, its formal cause is the design or blueprint that defines its structure.
Efficient Cause: This cause pertains to the agent or process that brings something into existence. In the case of the table, the efficient cause would be the carpenter who constructs it.
Final Cause: This represents the purpose or goal of a thing. The final cause of the table is to provide a surface for various activities, such as dining or working.
Keep working on Plato's 10th (1st) motion. Motionless motion. It moves itself AND others!
Concept of Forms: Plato posits that non-material abstract forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality. These forms are perfect and unchanging, existing in a realm beyond the physical world.
Examples: For instance, the Form of Beauty itself is perfect, while beautiful objects in the physical world are mere imitations of this ideal.
Epistemology: Knowledge is derived from understanding these forms, which are accessible through reason rather than sensory experience.
Key Differences
Nature of Reality: Plato emphasizes an ideal, unchanging reality, while Aristotle focuses on the physical world and its changes.
Knowledge Acquisition: Plato believes knowledge comes from understanding forms, whereas Aristotle argues that knowledge is gained through observing and analyzing the physical world.
So if Plato were right (theory of Platonic Space)... then Ecclesiastes. The forms (Rockets, DNA, Computers) have always existed, even if never implemented until recently.
Aion: Aion is a Hellenistic god associated with time, often depicted with a circular shape symbolizing the cyclical nature of time and the universe. He is sometimes shown with snakes wrapped around him, representing eternity and the continuous flow of time. Aion embodies the concept of time as a long, unending period, distinct from other time-related deities like Chronos and Kairos .
Aion is often illustrated at the center of a circle or hoop, which can symbolize the zodiac or the cyclical nature of existence. His imagery emphasizes the eternal aspect of time, contrasting with the more linear interpretations of time found in other mythologies.
1. The Mode of Operation (Decoding vs. Composing)Hermeneutics is an act of decoding. It assumes that meaning is embedded within a text, action, or culture, and works to unveil it. It asks: "What does this mean, and what is its truth?"
Narrative is an act of encoding. It takes raw, chaotic, chronological data (life events, historical data) and shapes it into a meaningful structure. It asks: "How do these events connect to tell a cohesive story?"2.
The Treatment of Time Hermeneutics experiences time through historical distance. It is concerned with how a reader in the present can understand a text written in the past, navigating the "fusion of horizons" (as Hans-Georg Gadamer put it).
Narrative configures time sequentially. It creates internal time (past, present, future) within the framework of a plot, transforming mere chronology ("this happened, then that happened") into causality ("this happened, which caused that to happen").
3. The Ultimate Goal Hermeneutics aims for comprehension and truth. The goal is to reach a valid understanding of an author's intent, a text's cultural significance, or one's own existence.
Narrative aims for coherence and dramatic truth. The goal is to make a sequence of events believable, engaging, and structurally sound, even if the narrative is entirely fictional.
Is that why you don't understand Nietzsche, because he wrote aphorisms?
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms to reject rigid philosophical systems, combat health issues like poor eyesight, and invite active, open-ended interpretation from his readers.
Rejection of Dogma and Systems
Distrust of grand systems: Nietzsche believed that building a rigid, all-encompassing philosophical system showed a lack of intellectual integrity and an urge for final dogma. Thinking in sparks: He preferred short, punchy fragments that capture a single, powerful thought rather than forcing life into a tidy, artificial structure.
Embracing pluralism: Aphorisms allow for multiple, changing perspectives and keep the door open for future interpretation instead of closing off debate
Metamodernism is a cultural and philosophical paradigm that emerges after postmodernism, characterized by an oscillation or synthesis between modern enthusiasm and postmodern irony.
Core Characteristics
Oscillation: It moves back and forth between opposing poles, such as hope and melancholy, naivety and knowingness, or unity and fragmentation.
Beyond Cynicism: It reacts against the deep cynicism, radical relativism, and detached irony of postmodernism while retaining its critical awareness.
New Sincerity: It seeks a return to genuine engagement, empathy, meaning-making, and deep interior felt experiences.
Key Contrasts
Modernism: Believed in absolute truths, grand utopian narratives, and strict rational progress.
Postmodernism: Deconstructed those grand narratives, using irony and skepticism to show that everything is relative.
Metamodernism: Accepts the postmodern critique that absolute truths are flawed, but still yearns for sincerity, value, and construction of meaning anyway.
AI Overview Metamodern hermeneutics is an approach to interpretation that oscillates between modern commitments to truth and meaning and postmodern awareness of irony, plurality, and deconstruction.
Core Characteristics
Oscillation: Instead of picking absolute certainty (modernism) or total relativism (postmodernism), it holds both attitudes at once, moving back and forth between earnest belief and critical distance.
Reconstructing Meaning: It uses postmodern tools to critique texts without staying trapped in cynicism, aiming instead to recover a constructive, deep sense of purpose.
Integration: It seeks to integrate different viewpoints—or epistemes—to find functional connections rather than dismissing conflicting narratives.
Application in Biblical and Theological Interpretation
The Metamodern Mood: Scholars like Seán M.W. McGuire apply these ideas to scripture, such as in Biblical Hermeneutics in the Metamodern Mood, blending the cultural theory of metamodernism with traditional frameworks like a revised Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience).Bespoke and Fluid Faith: As noted by The Gospel Coalition, interpreters often lean toward a personalized or "bespoke" spirituality, picking elements from different traditions while remaining deeply skeptical of how truth is weaponized for control.
Navigating Complexity: It uses philosophical tools like Gadamer's hermeneutics to acknowledge that interpretation is multivalent and deeply communal, requiring self-awareness about how we arrive at our conclusions
Post-structuralism rejects meta-narratives—also called grand narratives—because it views all universal, all-encompassing systems of thought as unstable, localized, and tied to relations of power.
What is a Meta-Narrative?
Definition: A meta-narrative is a grand, overarching story or absolute truth claims meant to explain history, society, human behavior, and knowledge.
Examples: Broad ideological frameworks like Marxism, Enlightenment progress, absolute liberalism, and universal scientific laws.
The Postmodern Shift: Most users on r/askphilosophy agree that skepticism toward these frameworks defines the shift into postmodern thought, famously summarized by philosopher Jean-François Lyotard as an "incredulity towards metanarratives."
Why Post-Structuralism Rejects Meta-Narratives
Unstable Meaning: Post-structuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida argue that language and signs never have fixed or permanent meanings, making any universal framework impossible to anchor securely.
Power and Knowledge: Michel Foucault demonstrated that what a society accepts as "truth" or "grand knowledge" is actually produced by institutional power dynamics, rather than objective facts.
Plurality Over Totality: Instead of one grand story, post-structuralism favors fragmentation, relativity, and localized narratives (petits récits) that reflect diverse, individual human experiences.
Think of catepillar becoming a butterfly (Michael Levin) The old "grand" meta narrative of catepillar doesn't suit the butterfly. So he builds a new one. 2D becomes 3D thinking. Meta-Meta. Only some catepillar memories remain (I like 'green" because they fed me in the green spot.)
//Is that why you don't understand Nietzsche, because he wrote aphorisms?
Really. To understand idiomas and other such things in foreign lang/culture -- hardest task.
Especially if it cross-culture. Niet-kun was German.
So, what really happen -- you trying to feed me with Ams spoon a Nazi soup. ;-p Fresh and boiling to boot. And even do not allow to huff at spoon. "You'll miss all taste"
Meanwhile, Golem's primitive creators remained wallowing in their own crapulence., not having changed at all other than becoming increasingly stupid (Idiocracy)
Intellectual bravery is the willingness to advocate for, engage with, and align oneself with ideas and values despite the threat of negative social or personal consequences. It is the courage to think differently, challenge the status quo, and risk being wrong, criticized, or isolated in the pursuit of truth.
Core Dimensions of Intellectual Bravery Challenging Orthodoxy: Speaking out against widely accepted dogmas, established norms, or institutional consensus when evidence dictates otherwise.
Willingness to Fail: Accepting the risk of making mistakes or being proven wrong in public to discover deeper truths.
Confronting Discomfort: Engaging with opposing viewpoints that deeply challenge your own worldview rather than retreating into an echo chamber.
Admitting Ignorance: Publicly changing your mind or saying "I don't know" when presented with new facts, risking a loss of status or perceived authority.
Why it Matters Intellectual bravery is the primary engine behind scientific breakthroughs, social reform, and ethical progress. Without it, individuals and organizations succumb to groupthink, repeating the same mistakes because challenging the leadership or majority is deemed too risky
Weren't the genes for making butterfly proteins always in him (they just hadn't been activated because his circumstances didn't warrant their activation)?
"Smarter" doesn't mean knowing everything through having lived as an immortal. It means discovering what one needs to know when one needs to know it. It's not entirely "Epimethean". It's many time "Promethean". Finding analogous circumstances and making a risk calculation in application.
58 comments:
The.younger generation(s) will be stuck with fixing the f'ing mess the baby boomers and the fossils in congress created.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...
Same as... ALWAYS!!!
;p
The ancients would agree.
Lindy wins again!
;p
Yeah... until they fail!
Power to youth! ;-p
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Yeah. Computers. Space flights. DNA. AI. Yawn.
There was discussion among phylosophers.
First argued "there's NO motion".
Second just rised up and started walking around him.
PS Well. Both of em dead. And long ago. So their arguments... nullified?
Aristotle's Four Causes provide a framework for understanding why things exist and change. They are essential to his philosophy and can be applied across various disciplines. The four causes are:
Material Cause: This refers to what something is made of. For example, the material cause of a wooden table is the wood itself.
Formal Cause: This is the form or essence of a thing, essentially what it is. For the table, its formal cause is the design or blueprint that defines its structure.
Efficient Cause: This cause pertains to the agent or process that brings something into existence. In the case of the table, the efficient cause would be the carpenter who constructs it.
Final Cause: This represents the purpose or goal of a thing. The final cause of the table is to provide a surface for various activities, such as dining or working.
Keep working on Plato's 10th (1st) motion. Motionless motion. It moves itself AND others!
In-form-ation,,,
Theory of Forms:
Plato's Theory of Forms
Concept of Forms: Plato posits that non-material abstract forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality. These forms are perfect and unchanging, existing in a realm beyond the physical world.
Examples: For instance, the Form of Beauty itself is perfect, while beautiful objects in the physical world are mere imitations of this ideal.
Epistemology: Knowledge is derived from understanding these forms, which are accessible through reason rather than sensory experience.
Key Differences
Nature of Reality: Plato emphasizes an ideal, unchanging reality, while Aristotle focuses on the physical world and its changes.
Knowledge Acquisition: Plato believes knowledge comes from understanding forms, whereas Aristotle argues that knowledge is gained through observing and analyzing the physical world.
So if Plato were right (theory of Platonic Space)... then Ecclesiastes. The forms (Rockets, DNA, Computers) have always existed, even if never implemented until recently.
Oh, NOW I remember them, said the man with the Great Soul "μεγάλη ψυχή"
Theory of Big IF? ;-p
Walking round and round. Round and round. Round and...
Aion: Aion is a Hellenistic god associated with time, often depicted with a circular shape symbolizing the cyclical nature of time and the universe. He is sometimes shown with snakes wrapped around him, representing eternity and the continuous flow of time. Aion embodies the concept of time as a long, unending period, distinct from other time-related deities like Chronos and Kairos
.
Aion is often illustrated at the center of a circle or hoop, which can symbolize the zodiac or the cyclical nature of existence. His imagery emphasizes the eternal aspect of time, contrasting with the more linear interpretations of time found in other mythologies.
Oh, like the Big Bang...
The old is new, again!
Naaah. That one Big Big Theory ;-p
What IF Theory. From whataboutism -- ultimate of "sciences". ;-p
Yawn
Godel Incompleteness...
Naaah...
epiphenomena
hermeneutics... yawn
more precisely your lack of skill in it.
in short
your error -- you give too much credit to mere words
instead of understand*ng that they are just a decorum.
yawn
lol! I favour meta-narratives over GRAND narratives? How very meta-modern of me...
Yep.
Exactly this lack of understanding.
Yawn.
Detailed Breakdown of Differences
1. The Mode of Operation (Decoding vs. Composing)Hermeneutics is an act of decoding. It assumes that meaning is embedded within a text, action, or culture, and works to unveil it. It asks: "What does this mean, and what is its truth?"
Narrative is an act of encoding. It takes raw, chaotic, chronological data (life events, historical data) and shapes it into a meaningful structure. It asks: "How do these events connect to tell a cohesive story?"2.
The Treatment of Time
Hermeneutics experiences time through historical distance. It is concerned with how a reader in the present can understand a text written in the past, navigating the "fusion of horizons" (as Hans-Georg Gadamer put it).
Narrative configures time sequentially. It creates internal time (past, present, future) within the framework of a plot, transforming mere chronology ("this happened, then that happened") into causality ("this happened, which caused that to happen").
3. The Ultimate Goal
Hermeneutics aims for comprehension and truth. The goal is to reach a valid understanding of an author's intent, a text's cultural significance, or one's own existence.
Narrative aims for coherence and dramatic truth. The goal is to make a sequence of events believable, engaging, and structurally sound, even if the narrative is entirely fictional.
//How very meta-modern of me...
While visibly dunno what "meta" mean (because of lack of hermeneutic understanding?)
I doubt it.
Is that why you don't understand Nietzsche, because he wrote aphorisms?
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms to reject rigid philosophical systems, combat health issues like poor eyesight, and invite active, open-ended interpretation from his readers.
Rejection of Dogma and Systems
Distrust of grand systems: Nietzsche believed that building a rigid, all-encompassing philosophical system showed a lack of intellectual integrity and an urge for final dogma.
Thinking in sparks: He preferred short, punchy fragments that capture a single, powerful thought rather than forcing life into a tidy, artificial structure.
Embracing pluralism: Aphorisms allow for multiple, changing perspectives and keep the door open for future interpretation instead of closing off debate
Meta-Modernian:
Metamodernism is a cultural and philosophical paradigm that emerges after postmodernism, characterized by an oscillation or synthesis between modern enthusiasm and postmodern irony.
Core Characteristics
Oscillation: It moves back and forth between opposing poles, such as hope and melancholy, naivety and knowingness, or unity and fragmentation.
Beyond Cynicism: It reacts against the deep cynicism, radical relativism, and detached irony of postmodernism while retaining its critical awareness.
New Sincerity: It seeks a return to genuine engagement, empathy, meaning-making, and deep interior felt experiences.
Key Contrasts
Modernism: Believed in absolute truths, grand utopian narratives, and strict rational progress.
Postmodernism: Deconstructed those grand narratives, using irony and skepticism to show that everything is relative.
Metamodernism: Accepts the postmodern critique that absolute truths are flawed, but still yearns for sincerity, value, and construction of meaning anyway.
Maybe you're not as meta as you think you are...
AI Overview Metamodern hermeneutics is an approach to interpretation that oscillates between modern commitments to truth and meaning and postmodern awareness of irony, plurality, and deconstruction.
Core Characteristics
Oscillation: Instead of picking absolute certainty (modernism) or total relativism (postmodernism), it holds both attitudes at once, moving back and forth between earnest belief and critical distance.
Reconstructing Meaning: It uses postmodern tools to critique texts without staying trapped in cynicism, aiming instead to recover a constructive, deep sense of purpose.
Integration: It seeks to integrate different viewpoints—or epistemes—to find functional connections rather than dismissing conflicting narratives.
Application in Biblical and Theological Interpretation
The Metamodern Mood: Scholars like Seán M.W. McGuire apply these ideas to scripture, such as in Biblical Hermeneutics in the Metamodern Mood, blending the cultural theory of metamodernism with traditional frameworks like a revised Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience).Bespoke and Fluid Faith: As noted by The Gospel Coalition, interpreters often lean toward a personalized or "bespoke" spirituality, picking elements from different traditions while remaining deeply skeptical of how truth is weaponized for control.
Navigating Complexity: It uses philosophical tools like Gadamer's hermeneutics to acknowledge that interpretation is multivalent and deeply communal, requiring self-awareness about how we arrive at our conclusions
Post-Structuralism:
Post-structuralism rejects meta-narratives—also called grand narratives—because it views all universal, all-encompassing systems of thought as unstable, localized, and tied to relations of power.
What is a Meta-Narrative?
Definition: A meta-narrative is a grand, overarching story or absolute truth claims meant to explain history, society, human behavior, and knowledge.
Examples: Broad ideological frameworks like Marxism, Enlightenment progress, absolute liberalism, and universal scientific laws.
The Postmodern Shift: Most users on r/askphilosophy agree that skepticism toward these frameworks defines the shift into postmodern thought, famously summarized by philosopher Jean-François Lyotard as an "incredulity towards metanarratives."
Why Post-Structuralism Rejects Meta-Narratives
Unstable Meaning: Post-structuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida argue that language and signs never have fixed or permanent meanings, making any universal framework impossible to anchor securely.
Power and Knowledge: Michel Foucault demonstrated that what a society accepts as "truth" or "grand knowledge" is actually produced by institutional power dynamics, rather than objective facts.
Plurality Over Totality: Instead of one grand story, post-structuralism favors fragmentation, relativity, and localized narratives (petits récits) that reflect diverse, individual human experiences.
Think of catepillar becoming a butterfly (Michael Levin) The old "grand" meta narrative of catepillar doesn't suit the butterfly. So he builds a new one. 2D becomes 3D thinking. Meta-Meta. Only some catepillar memories remain (I like 'green" because they fed me in the green spot.)
Assembly blocks of intelligence adapted for new functions. New connections, new flows. Detachment-Line of Flight-Re-attachment. Schizoid.
Stop making catepillar proteins. Start making butterfly proteins. Which genes do I express now?
Did Greeks knew what Infinity is?
Yawn
//Is that why you don't understand Nietzsche, because he wrote aphorisms?
Really. To understand idiomas and other such things in foreign lang/culture -- hardest task.
Especially if it cross-culture. Niet-kun was German.
So, what really happen -- you trying to feed me with Ams spoon a Nazi soup. ;-p
Fresh and boiling to boot.
And even do not allow to huff at spoon. "You'll miss all taste"
Aperion? Did Zeno ever solve his Achilles paradoxes?
Nietzsche was all about "embodied" concepts. Like muscle memories. The translation comes in the form of the resulting movements. ;p
//Maybe you're not as meta as you think you are...
Of Course I'm not. Yawn.
Because, to be meta I need to be way way MORE smarter.
By definition.
While your phylosophers teach you, that to be "smarter"...
it's easy-peasy ;-p
you just need to fillow em.
Withour any own/side thought(s). %^P
Whatever.
It all outdated.
And overshadowed by modern discoveries.
While Niet-kun -- cannot discover anything new.
Like, imagine sci-fi plot -- Niet-kun (or any other egghead) resurected.
Meets modern worl and its wonders. Learns new stuff piled since his death.
How do you think -- will he change his mind? ;-p
PS How to you my narrative? ;-)
Lem
allready DID it all.
You just not listening. Yawn.
His Golem XIV is exactly story of caterpilar of Humanity turning into butterfly.
You're right, how could he possibly contemplate existence again without a Smart-phone and an internet connection? / sarc
...not even Gnothi Seauton...
Golem was a human? Or an Ubermensch?
Meanwhile, Golem's primitive creators remained wallowing in their own crapulence., not having changed at all other than becoming increasingly stupid (Idiocracy)
So Lem wouldn't be utterly and completely flumoxed by all the technological progress that mankind has made since 2006?
;-p
Intellectual bravery is the willingness to advocate for, engage with, and align oneself with ideas and values despite the threat of negative social or personal consequences. It is the courage to think differently, challenge the status quo, and risk being wrong, criticized, or isolated in the pursuit of truth.
Core Dimensions of Intellectual Bravery
Challenging Orthodoxy: Speaking out against widely accepted dogmas, established norms, or institutional consensus when evidence dictates otherwise.
Willingness to Fail: Accepting the risk of making mistakes or being proven wrong in public to discover deeper truths.
Confronting Discomfort: Engaging with opposing viewpoints that deeply challenge your own worldview rather than retreating into an echo chamber.
Admitting Ignorance: Publicly changing your mind or saying "I don't know" when presented with new facts, risking a loss of status or perceived authority.
Why it Matters
Intellectual bravery is the primary engine behind scientific breakthroughs, social reform, and ethical progress. Without it, individuals and organizations succumb to groupthink, repeating the same mistakes because challenging the leadership or majority is deemed too risky
Weren't the genes for making butterfly proteins always in him (they just hadn't been activated because his circumstances didn't warrant their activation)?
Who knows?
Like I can say for Lem, can I?
"Smarter" doesn't mean knowing everything through having lived as an immortal. It means discovering what one needs to know when one needs to know it. It's not entirely "Epimethean". It's many time "Promethean". Finding analogous circumstances and making a risk calculation in application.
No Meta-Thinking here see I. ;-p
No ability to think *outside* of proposed narrative.
Still mere words treating as only reality too strong in you see I.
Cromagnions... was not dumber than us. Why they not built rockets into Space?
Yawn
Who knows?
Post a Comment