KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA106 (Muller)

 

Commentary 61 (to R20 Muller)

 

THE OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

by Serge Patlavskiy

1 October 2009, posted 3 October 2009

 

 

<1>

[Herbert Muller] wrote:

"[1] I have some difficulty understanding your point of view, especially since you have stated that you think metaphysics and ontology are not needed. Therefore I would appreciate clarification of what you propose."

 

<2>

[S.P.] I was not stating that "metaphysics and ontology are not needed". In my C41 <8> I have said that "the proposed classification of intellectual products makes unnecessary such concepts as "ontology" and "metaphysics"." I mean not abandonment, but, rather, optimization. There is a known problem that when one starts talking about metaphysics or ontology, the scientist replies that those matters pertain to Philosophy, but not to Science. So, I have suggested using some universal language. Now then, instead of metaphysics and ontology we may talk about the MT-level intellectual products. The Applied ADC Theory (the theory which takes any intellectual product as its object of study) has all necessary tools for dealing with intellectual products, so the very Philosophy with most of its medieval terminology seems to become redundant (I mean here Philosophy as the "love to wisdom", but not History of Philosophy with all its personages).

 

<3>

There would be little point in denying the very possibility of the existence of such a theory, if only because of the fact that nobody takes the liberty to deny that, say, Physics takes any (or most of) physical phenomena as its objects of study. If Philosophy is a love to wisdom, and any wisdom is an intellectual product of a certain level, then it becomes evident and natural that Philosophy "engulfs" by the Applied ADC Theory.

 

<4>

There are many scientific problems (say, the problem of studying consciousness) which, to be resolved, require going to the meta-theoretical level. Hitherto, this level was treated as an exclusive and sacred domain of Philosophy. But Philosophy has demonstrated its total inability to respond to the needs of modern Science. But, with the advent of the Applied ADC Theory the situation changes radically -- this theory explores the MT-level being based on some objective (to wit, scientific) approach. And time will show what will be the outcome of this obvious conflict of interests.

 

<5>

Philosophy more and more speaks not in arguments, but in names: Husserl and Heidegger said this, Jaspers and Merleau-Ponty said that. The atmosphere is like in a Museum of Natural History. The irony is that their truths are "stale". The essence of the absolute truth is in that it must be always fresh -- it must be re-discovered by us, here and now, again and again. Only in such a case it will have some practical value.

 

<6>

[Herbert Muller] wrote:

"[4] For this reason I would still like to ask you to respond to my earlier question : "if reality is in fact mind-independent, how can anyone think and write about it ? Either you know or speculate about it, and then it is in your mind and not mind-independent; or it is not in your mind, and you don't know about it, and then you cannot think about it"."

 

<7>

[S.P.] Any question may be asked, but not all questions are answerable in a discussion between the concrete discussants. So, the formulated above question is not answerable within my explanatory framework. The case is that by "reality" I mean Noumenal Reality and Phenomenal Reality. The first one is mind-independent (not known yet, but already being thought about); the second one is mind-dependent (given in perception, or existing in our minds as an approximate model of Noumenal Reality). When I say "the model of Noumenal Reality", I mean that I know Phenomenal Reality, and I think about Noumenal Reality. Can we think about something that we don't know yet? I think we can. Moreover, we must. Otherwise there would be no progress in Science and Technology.

 

<8>

If in Herbert's question we replace the word "reality" by "Noumenal Reality and Phenomenal Reality", we will receive nonsense.  That is why his question is not answerable within my explanatory framework.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Serge Patlavskiy

     e-mail <prodigyPSF (at) rambler . ru>