BELOW_IS_LESS_INTERESTING

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

2023-09-03 07:20

digest

.

James’ “pragmatism” attempts to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, observing truth as concrete workings. The argument between materialism and theism becomes meaningless when nothing can be derived from future experiences or actions. The fragment “A Matter of Fact” highlights the conflict between materialism and spiritualism, with materialism sinking into a sea of disappointment and spiritualism grappling with a world of promise.

The fragment “The Problem of Free Will” highlights the conflict between free will and determinism, with free will implying novelty and connecting to the past what the past does not contain. The free-will theorist, however, argues that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me.

In “Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered,” Pragmatism harmonizes the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, emphasizing the observation of truth as concrete workings. In “What Pragmatism Means,” he emphasizes that pragmatism adheres to facts and concreteness, observing and generalizing truth as working in particular cases.

In “Three Kinds of Reality,” questions are raised about how pragmatism reconciles the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, how the debate between materialism and theism should be resolved, and how the conflict between free will and determinism should be resolved. In “utilitarianism and truth,” truth is considered to be an idea operating within experience, not a “congruence” with facts. In “Pragmatism,” truth is described as that which is useful to life. Study Group 4 of “Experience Process and the Creation of Meaning” presents the pragmatist perspective that “correctness is usefulness.”

In “The Present Dilemma in Philosophy,” James states that “pragmatism” becomes meaningless when the arguments of materialism and theism derive nothing from future experience or action. Matter and God refer to the forces that create this world, and the difference between materialism and theism presents a very different outlook on experience from the perspective of the future. The real objection to materialism is not positive but negative, that it is not a permanent guarantee for our more idealistic interests, but an achiever of our most distant hopes. The concept of God, on the other hand, assures us at least this practical advantage, regardless of how clear it may be. From these perspectives, the question of how the conflict between rationalists and empiricists affects our daily lives and social culture, and how these conflicts should be resolved, becomes important.

The fragment “How should the conflict between rationalists and empiricists be resolved?” shows that pragmatism has an anti-intellectualist bent to rationalism and states that truth is defined by its relationship to experience. This is one answer to the question, “How should the conflict between rationalists and empiricists be resolved?” This could be one answer to the question, “How should the conflict between rationalists and empiricists be resolved?

The fragment “utilitarianism” states that truth is that which is useful to life. It states that there is no “truth in itself, eternal and universal.” All ideas have a practical meaning. To be” is to “serve the purpose of. Ideas are plans of action.

In the fragment “Pragmatism,” he states that it doesn’t matter either way whether “what is useful is right” or not, because such a discussion of the definition of rightness is not useful. He states that the reason we are operating on the binary variable of “right/wrong” in the first place is due to the need to conserve thought because of the low computational power of the human hardware. The “useful-is-right attitude” is especially useful when discussing the correctness of decisions.

Fragment “Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning” Study Group 4 states that the idea is that correctness is determined by its usefulness. This position states that there are many different schemes, but if they produce the same results, they can be considered the same.

The fragment “Pluralistic Pragmatism” states that truth is nurtured inside all finite experiences. They lean on one another, but the whole, if there is such a whole, is not leaned on anything, it states.

The fragment “Rationalism” states that it believes that true knowledge is given from within by reason. Plato laid the foundation for rationalism, stating that he divided knowledge into knowledge by perception and knowledge by reason. He states that knowledge by perception varies from person to person and from time to time, and therefore is not truth. Truth, he said, must be found from within oneself through reason. Specifically, he said, we must recall the idea of identity. In today’s terms, the idea of identity is a category. Descartes’ concept of the real object is also analogous to Plato’s idea. From Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz were derived. Leibniz is described as the most thoroughgoing in his rationalism. He states that the New Theory of Human Enlightenment is a critique of Locke’s theory of human enlightenment from the standpoint of rationalism. Kant said, “Both enlightenment and sensibility are necessary. The key is balance. Kitaro Nishida says, “The question is how to connect enlightenment and sensibility.

extra info

TITLES: ["AI Reading Notes", "Pragmatism", "Pragmatism", ""Experiential Processes and the Creation of Meaning" Study Group 4", "🤖2023-08-16 18:02", "Pluralistic Pragmatism", "Rationalism"] generated: 2023-09-03 07:20

previous notes

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered BELOW_IS_LESS_INTERESTING

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

2023-09-02 07:22

digest

.

James’ “pragmatism” attempts to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, observing truth as concrete workings. The argument between materialism and theism becomes meaningless when nothing can be derived from future experiences or actions. The fragment “A Matter of Fact” highlights the conflict between materialism and spiritualism, with materialism sinking into a sea of disappointment and spiritualism grappling with a world of promise. The same practical interpretation is given to the issue of free will.

The fragment “The Problem of Free Will” highlights the conflict between free will and determinism, with free will implying novelty and connecting to the past what the past does not contain. The free-will theorist, however, argues that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me.

In “Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered,” Pragmatism harmonizes the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, emphasizing that it observes truth as a concrete working. In “What Pragmatism Means,” the authors emphasize that pragmatism adheres to facts and concreteness, observing and generalizing truth as a function of particular cases. In “PRAGMATISM,” pragmatism is proposed as the mediator between positivism and rationalism, emphasizing that truth is the good of belief and resolving conflicts between truths.

In “Three Kinds of Reality,” questions are raised about how pragmatism reconciles the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, how the debate between materialism and theism should be resolved, and how the conflict between free will and determinism should be resolved. In “utilitarianism and truth,” truth is considered to be an idea operating within experience, not a “congruence” with facts. In “Pragmatism,” truth is described as that which is useful to life. Study Group 4 of “Experience Process and the Creation of Meaning” presents the pragmatist perspective that “correctness is usefulness.”

In “The Present Dilemma in Philosophy,” James states that “pragmatism” becomes meaningless when the arguments of materialism and theism derive nothing from future experience or action. Matter and God refer to the forces that create this world, and the difference between materialism and theism presents a very different outlook on experience from the perspective of the future. The real objection to materialism is not positive but negative, that it is not a permanent guarantee for our more idealistic interests, but an achiever of our most distant hopes. The concept of God, on the other hand, assures us at least this practical advantage, regardless of how clear it may be. From these perspectives, the question of how the conflict between rationalists and empiricists affects our daily lives and social culture, and how these conflicts should be resolved, becomes important.

extra info

TITLES: ["🤖🔁The Present Dilemma in Philosophy", "Pragmatism and Antinomianism", "Pragmatism in Plain Sight", "Pragmatism and Truth"] generated: 2023-09-02 07:22

previous notes

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered BELOW_IS_LESS_INTERESTING

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

2023-09-01 07:19

digest

.

James’ “pragmatism” attempts to reconcile rationalism and empiricism, observing truth as concrete workings. The argument between materialism and theism becomes meaningless when nothing can be derived from future experiences or actions. The fragment “A Matter of Fact” highlights the conflict between materialism and spiritualism, with materialism sinking into a sea of disappointment and spiritualism grappling with a world of promise. The same practical interpretation is given to the issue of free will.

The fragment “The Problem of Free Will” highlights the conflict between free will and determinism, with free will implying novelty and connecting to the past what the past does not contain. The free-will theorist, however, argues that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me.

In “Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered,” Pragmatism harmonizes the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, emphasizing that it observes truth as a concrete working. In “What Pragmatism Means,” the authors emphasize that pragmatism adheres to facts and concreteness, observing and generalizing truth as a function of particular cases. In “PRAGMATISM,” pragmatism is proposed as the mediator between positivism and rationalism, emphasizing that truth is the good of belief and resolving conflicts between truths.

Fragment

.

In “Three Kinds of Reality,” questions are raised about how pragmatism reconciles the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, how the debate between materialism and theism should be resolved, and how the conflict between free will and determinism should be resolved. In “utilitarianism and truth,” truth is considered to be an idea operating within experience, not a “congruence” with facts. In “Pragmatism,” truth is described as that which is useful to life. Study Group 4 of “Experience Process and the Creation of Meaning” presents the pragmatist perspective that “correctness is usefulness.”

Question

.

1. how does pragmatism reconcile the conflict between rationalism and empiricism?
2. how should the debate between materialism and theism be resolved?
3. how should the conflict between free will and determinism be resolved?
4. how does free will imply newness and connect to the past what the past does not contain?
5. how does the free-will theorist argue that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me?

extra info

TITLES: ["🤖🔁Three Kinds of Reality", "What Pragmatism Means", "🤖🔁Pragmatism", " 🤖🔁Pragmatism and Religion", "The Present Dilemma in Philosophy"] generated: 2023-09-01 07:19

previous notes

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered BELOW_IS_LESS_INTERESTING

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

2023-08-31 07:22

digest

.

James’s “pragmatism” harmonizes the conflict between rationalism and empiricism and observes truth as concrete workings. The argument between materialism and theism becomes moot when nothing can be derived from future experience or action. Objections to materialism are negative, pointing out that there is no guarantee against ideal interest. The concept of God, on the other hand, guarantees practical superiority.

The fragment “A Matter of Fact” highlights the conflict between materialism and spiritualism, with materialism submerged in a sea of disappointment and spiritualism grappling with a world of promise. The same practical interpretation is given to the issue of free will.

The fragment “The Problem of Free Will” highlights the conflict between free will and determinism, with free will implying novelty and connecting to the past what the past does not contain. The free-will theorist, however, argues that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me.

Questions include how pragmatism reconciles the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, how the debate between materialism and theism should be resolved, how the conflict between free will and determinism should be resolved, how free will implies novelty and something not contained in the past connected to the past; how the free will theist argues that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me.

Fragment

.

In “Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered,” pragmatism reconciles the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, emphasizing the observation of truth as a concrete working.

In “What Pragmatism Means,” he emphasizes that pragmatism adheres to facts and concreteness, observing and generalizing truth as it works in particular cases.

In PRAGMATISM, pragmatism is proposed as the mediator between positivism and rationalism, emphasizing that truth is the good of belief and resolving conflicts between truths.

In “The Difference Between Oke and Barrel,” we discuss the difference between a vat and a barrel.

extra info

titles: ["Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered"],"🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered", "🤖🔁What Pragmatism Means", "🤖PRAGMATISM", "The difference between a tub and a barrel"] generated: 2023-08-31 07:22

previous notes

🤖🔁Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered

• James’s “pragmatism” harmonizes the conflict between rationalism and empiricism, observing truth as a concrete working.

  • Pragmatism broadens the search for God and pursues it with both logic and the senses.

• Arguments about materialism and theism become meaningless when nothing can be derived from future experiences or actions.

  • Matter and God refer to the forces that create this world.
  • The difference between materialism and theism presents a very different outlook on experience in terms of the future.

• The real objection to materialism is not positive but negative.

  • It is not a permanent guarantee for our more idealistic interests, nor is it an achiever of our most distant hopes.
  • On the other hand, the concept of God, regardless of how clear it is, at least guarantees this practical advantage.

• The book fragment “A Matter of Fact” highlights the conflict between materialism and spiritualism.

  • While materialism is submerged in a sea of disappointment, spiritualism is grappling with a world of promise.
  • The same practical interpretation is given to the issue of free will.
  • Those who believe in free will believe in it as a principle that enhances human dignity, while determinists say that each individual human being produces nothing, but merely transmits to the future the thrust of the entire universe in the past.

• The book fragment “The Problem of Free Will” highlights the conflict between free will and determinism.

  • Free will implies newness and connects to the past what the past does not contain.
  • But how can the free-will theorist be responsible for me, the previous me, if the free act is a mere novelty, born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me?

Question

.

1. how does pragmatism reconcile the conflict between rationalism and empiricism?
2. how should the debate between materialism and theism be resolved?
3. how should the conflict between free will and determinism be resolved?
4. how does free will imply newness and connect to the past what the past does not contain?
5. how does the free-will theorist argue that the free act is a mere novelty, something born out of nothing and added to me, not the previous me?

---

This page is auto-translated from [/nishio/Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered](https://scrapbox.io/nishio/Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered) using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.