Essays + NEWS
Dear Friends,
Please read the details for the Summer changes to our meeting below.
In the meantime this Sunday we are discussing: What is an idea? Despite
the popularity of this the term 'idea' in philosophy through the ages,
our understanding of the term 'idea' today is very much different from
that of the past. So what makes the 'idea' so important in philosophy
and for us? These are some of the issue I try to look at in my essay below.
Ruel has also sent us the link to his essay:
Hello Lawrence,
Below is the link to what I wrote on Sunday´s PhiloMadrid topic:
http://ruelfpepa.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/what-is-an-idea/
See you on Sunday,
Ruel
---------
NEW SUMMER MEETINGS SCHEDULE
In July (NOT this Sunday) we will be meeting on SATURDAY at the Centro
Seogviano at 6.30pm. The centro will be closed in August, we'll organise
meetings for drinks later, and in September we will also be meeting in
September.
--------
From David Butler - visit to the British Cemetery Madrid
If you are interested in the modern history of Madrid this is the place
to start with.
best Lawrence
Redacto el presente mensaje tanto en español como en inglés con el
objeto de comunicarles que llevo una visita guiada más antes de los
calores del verano
El punto de encuentro será la entrada del Cementerio y la hora será a
las 11.00 horas
La fecha:-
sábado, día 5 de julio y daré las explicaciones en español.
Si prefiere hacer la visita en una fecha no programada y siempre que
formen un grupo de un mínimo de 8 personas, avíseme a <butler_d_j@yahoo.es>
TOMEN NOTA DE NUESTRA PÁGINA WEB < www.british cemeterymadrid.com> donde
se pone la dirección.
*********************************************************************
I am writing this note in both Spanish and in English to inform you that
before it gets too hot I will take one more guided visit round the
Cemetery, open to all who are interested
We will meet at 11.00 a.m at the Cemetery entrance
Saturday, 5th July : the visit will be in Spanish
If you would like a visit on a different date and you can form a group
of 8 persons or more, let me know at <butler_d_j@yahoo.es>
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF OUR WEBSITE< http://www.britishcemeterymadrid.com/
-----from Lawrence
What is an idea?
If ever there was a term in philosophy that has changed its meaning and
subject matter over the millennia it must surely be "idea".
Plato's meaning of the term 'idea' was something what we might call
today a blueprint. However, Plato's perfect blueprint would have been
made up of a real object. A blueprint of a plane is not the same as a
constructed copy of that plane. Indeed we would agree that a blueprint
seems to be more perfect than the actual construction of the plane. And,
moreover, the very nature of constructing something from paper plans
introduces in the process natural errors, such as the accuracy in
cutting a metal panel, or just simple human errors, e.g. loose screws.
So the representation of the blueprint is never as perfect as the
blueprint itself.
An equally more modern analogy might be the DNA coding in a gene, which
at face value seems to be more consistent than human made blueprints.
But even early modern philosophers (Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc) linked
the term idea to mental imagery or mental reconstructions. What is
important for us here is that ideas are mental objects or experiences
and there is no hint that they are representations of things out there.
For example, we now accept that words themselves carry meaning, but that
the two are not a single entity. Indeed we distinguish language parts
into semantics and syntax, but what is clear is that the language we use
is very much in the public domain. But we all agree that ideas are in
our private domain and we now accept them to be in what some would call
our mind, although for pedantic like me it would be the brain.
Today we use the term idea as a semantic tool to convey the equivalent
mental states of beliefs, opinions, mental plans and even
representations of the world out there; for example, having a good idea
of the metro plan of stations, etc. But what is the difference between
ideas and these related concepts such as beliefs, opinions, mental
(memory) images of things out there, plans and so on?
Indeed the ubiquitous meaning and use of idea, which in
theFreedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idea) is quite a
few screens long, suggests that this is a very versatile term for us.
Two things are immediately different about the term idea from some other
terms firstly, ideas do not seem to carry emotional effect, consider: I
believe I should visit the countryside vs my idea is to visit the
countryside. The use of 'idea' here is close to meaning I have a plan
and it seems like it is a good plan, whereas 'believe' carries the
emotional passion of a self aware person. The second difference is that
in the modern use of idea the prime meaning of the term is that it is a
mental event first. By analogy, the use of the term 'idea' is like using
the term "a can of cola" as opposed to "a bottle of cola" the word 'can'
defines the receptacle of the cola.
An equally important reflection is that when we use the term idea we do
not usually use it to reflect a long temporal endurance. For example,
when I say 'I have a good idea of the plan of the Metro in Madrid' this
would be relative to me being familiar with any changes the Metro might
make to the network. But when I say 'I believe that the Metro in Madrid
is a very efficient transport system' I mean this irrespective of
whether I use the Metro (often), whether I will ever use the Metro again
or even whether I will remain in Madrid for the rest of my life.
But as I said, an idea is always linked to a mental state or event, and
it is this feature of the term distinguishes the term since ideas always
belong and originate from us as self aware individuals, unlike say
believes that might be the influence of propaganda. People still believe
thing, even though they might never have originated a belief in their
life (maybe I exaggerate here) but most can generate ideas even if they
amount to nothing.
The surprise might seem that this term has quite a historical ancestry
and yet the meaning has changed more often than a wind vane. But there
is one consistent feature about the term 'idea' and it is that ideas
happen in the mind or brain.
Ideas also feature heavily in problem solving situations: I have a good
idea of the Metro plan is a solution on how to get from station A to B,
but I believe the Metro is a very good system, is not a solution to
anything. Similarly, 'my idea is to go from A to B which is closer to C'
is a solution that might need further investigation from my part, but
'my opinion is to go from A to B then C' is just that an opinion which
does not imply I any further action.
It seems that we are not only conscious that ideas are mistaken but that
they imply in their meaning "you might be mistaken" or "maybe you are
not 100% correct" whereas "I know the Metro plan very well" leaves not
margin of error, unlike "I have a good idea of the Metro plan...(but I'm
not necessarily up to date with all the stations)"
Maybe it is not surprising that the early philosophers interpreted the
term 'ideas' very close to images or mental representations since their
life was mainly one of visual sense perceptions. We can safely assume
that Plato did not come across such concepts saying "mind the gap" when
leaving the Underground train (the equivalent on the Madrid Metro is
more convoluted). Nor did Locke or other past philosophers for that
matter, have a smart phone, as our modern day philosopher, Alfonso
Vallejo, keeps reminding us. This complexity in our lives must clearly
reflect and influence our thinking and hence our ideas. I would
therefore contend that it is not surprising that the term 'idea' is a
very important one, given it direct reference to the brain, but that the
meaning should change given the increasing evolution of our experiences
into more knowledge laden experiences; mind the gap presumes how trains
and platforms function etc etc.
What I find most fascinating about the meaning of the term 'idea' is
this seemingly uncertainty built into meaning of the term. "I have a
good idea" does not imply I have the best idea! So how do we arrive to
this implied uncertainty? My inclination is to think that our
experiences are always consolidated with probabilistic certainty. Thus
unconsciously we include this important uncertainty into the meaning of
the word 'idea'. This is a factor that does not seem to exist in the
meaning of 'belief', 'I know', and 'opinion' and so on. But such ideas
are always subject to further confirmation.
Best Lawrence
-------
tel: 606081813
philomadrid@gmail.com <mailto:philomadrid@gmail.com>
Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.__com.es/
<http://philomadrid.blogspot.com.es/>
PhiloMadrid Meeting
Meet 6:30pm
Centro Segoviano
Alburquerque, 14
28010 Madrid
914457935
Metro: Bilbao
-----------Ignacio------------
Open Tertulia in English every Thursday from 19:30 to 21h at
O'Donnell's
Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal)
http://sites.google.com/site/__tertuliainenglishmadrid/
<http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/>
----------------------------
from Lawrence, SUNDAY PhiloMadrid meeting: What is an idea?+ NEWS
PhiloMadrid - Pub Philosophy Meetings in Madrid
Showing posts with label What is an idea?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label What is an idea?. Show all posts
26 May 2011
from Lawrence, this Sunday meeting: what is an idea?
Please read important request:
Dear friends,
This Sunday we are certainly discussing an important issue in philosophy
and maybe a few other disciplines for good measure. What is an idea?
The subject is an old issue in philosophy dating back to early times of
Greek philosophy and maybe even that is not early enough. No matter how
old this problem is, I don't seriously believe we are about to solve it
some day soon. But in the meantime let's try on Sunday at 6:30pm at the
Centro Segoviano.
The important request is that we should be most grateful if late comers
would buy and pay for their drinks before they join us at the table. Now
that was a great idea!
See you Sunday,
Lawrence
Meet 6:30pm
Centro Segoviano
Alburquerque, 14
28010 Madrid
914457935
Metro: Bilbao
What is an idea?
I am tempted to think that the concept of an idea in philosophy has been
somewhat a Jack of all trade and a master of none. I mean that the
history of what is an idea is long and varied. Changing and flipping as
the fashion of the time dictated.
So at the beginning, we have to start somewhere, we have Plato's notion
of ideas being perfect and unchangeable. The Forms existed in the
universe of metaphysics but have epistemological implications for us.
And our epistemological notion is nothing near the perfection ideas of
what the forms are.
Hume considered that ideas where vague reconstructions of perceptions
that are based on experience. Locke and Hume more or less agreed on the
point of experience.
In more modern times, Dawkins compares, at least some ideas, as having
the same kind of properties as genes; that is they can evolve and
survive in the same way that genes evolve and survive in the biological
world. Religious beliefs can be sort of memes.
Ideas, as I have already said, seem to be imprecise concepts and we try
to understand what they are by the language and mental tools we have at
a given time. However, one thing is clear, despite Plato's slight
objection, ideas reside in the realm of the mental. Of course today we
know at least that ideas reside in the brain.
But what is exactly residing in the brain? On the one hand, it cannot be
just the neurons or collection of neurons that give rise to the idea
since the neurons that gave rise to the idea must have been in the brain
before the conception of the idea. So there is a bit of a paradox here,
the same neurons (figuratively speaking) but yesterday they were not the
idea we have today. Something must have happened. This is analogous to
walls, before a wall can be constructed the bricks must first exist.
However, the bricks themselves on the back or a lorry do not make a
wall. And the wall won't exist no matter how much we mix and match the
bricks. Something else must take place.
Even in common use the notion of an idea is just as vague. Ideas can be
opinions, convictions, principles, but in all cases ideas are mental
activates. At least we all agree that ideas are mental events, to use
the vernacular, or brain events to be precise.
This makes ideas clearly fall in the domain of epistemology, and for
those who are punctilious about these things, by virtue of being brain
events this also makes ideas fall in the realm of the physical – that
is, metaphysical instead of epistemological.
Today we do not find this duality so contradictory since today we accept
that information, as far as we are concerned, must be represented in a
physical form. Clearly there is a dual relationship between ideas as
epistemological events and ideas as metaphysical events.
Once again we should not find this strange, since we have had a
manifestation of this phenomenon since writing has been invented. The
meaning of a written concept, such as –the white cat- does not exist in
the physical words (that you about to see) – the white cat. The physical
words do not include in them the meaning of what they say; this is not
to be mixed up with autologous and heterologous words, this is about
properties and not meaning (English is an autologous word because it is
written in English). Ironically the meaning of words resides in our
brain as language speakers of English. The metaphorical similarity with
genes is not lost here. The genes (plus the extras) that make up the
liver in us do not have liverness in them.
So what are ideas? Ideas belong to a set of mental/brain events some of
which we would identify as intuition, knowledge, hunches, thinking,
imagination, reasoning, and beliefs, to mention the most obvious. So
from what is an idea? Cannot really be investigated without at the same
time investigating what are ideas for?
So instead of asking what are ideas? we also have to ask what are ideas
for? I am of course, not trying to shirk away fro the original question
itself, since even if we can associate an idea with a specific number of
neurons, and we can see them with some FMRI machine, we still have the
issue of joint duality between meaning (what the idea represents) and
physical manifestation of the idea (neurons and whatever other physical
elements are at play).
Furthermore, by enquiring what are ideas for, helps us investigate
another issue, which I think helps us clarify the subject. The issue is
how do we achieve the meaning of ideas (does it make sense?) since these
surely sprout in our private brain? If language, according to
Wittgenstein, cannot be private, can ideas be private? After all ideas
must make sense over time in the same way that language must make sense
over time if, that is our language has to have any meaning at all. How
do we know that yesterday's idea that the cat needs to go to the vet, is
today the same idea?
Hence, the function question about asking what ideas are for. But first
let's have a look at what ideas are not. On the one hand we have
believes that are mental events of what is true or false ( the cow
cannot jump over the moon). On the other hand we have imagination that
seems to be some sort of quasi random generator of representations of
the world based on quasi real world concepts (the cow jumps over the
moon). I would places ideas as mental events that represent in us what
we think and believe is possible in the real world ( the cow can be put
in a spaceship and send it around the moon and back).
If ideas are mental events of what is ontologically possible, then surly
the function of ideas is to represent in our brain the world as it
should be (maybe even ought to be). A kind of plan a bricklayer would
use to build a wall. The plan is not the wall, loose bricks are not the
wall, but a wall are the bricks (plus the extras) that follows the shape
of a plan. Now, we cannot put bricks in the plan, it is made of paper,
nor do architects have brain bricks also made of clay, maybe like play
bricks. What the architect, the bricklayer, the plan and the client have
in common is the versatility of shapes. And the wall must conform to
this shape which also conforms to the shape in the brain of the others
and the shape on paper. Somehow the brain is able to squeeze the mental
juice out of the metaphorical physical orange in the brain.
Of course, shapes of walls and ideas of a cow on a spaceship are some
kind of a gold standard that the real wall and the cow is a space ship
are just practical reorientations. Maybe Plato had a point about ideas
being imprecise representations of the perfect Forms (Forms should not
be confused with shapes). Its like saying all roads lead to Rome, but
somehow Plato found himself in New York.
The big caveat here is the assumption that all things being equal. The
meaning-over-time test of ideas, I mention above, is heavily dependent
on the need that our memory had not materially deteriorated since
yesterday. And an even bigger assumption is the need that the our brain
today is functioning in the same correct way as it did yesterday. And
maybe the biggest assumption of all is that our brain is a normal
healthy brain. If our brain is not functioning properly how can we tell
if our ideas are representations of the world out there or maybe simply
false beliefs or random events of the imagination?
But what trumps ideas over other mental events such as false beliefs or
imagination is that it should be possible to represent ideas in real
life. We can actually can put a cow in a space ship and send it round
the moon. But no amount of jumping will get a cow over the moon.
On the other hand some ideas seems as good as done, but at the very last
minute when we compare idea with reality it all falls down. For example,
what is the status of an idea that a politician will be elected in the
polls if they materially reduced the salary of a few million people?
Some ideas are simply not reproducible in the ontological world, even
they seem good at the time. Or as Dawkins might say, some genes are hell
bent in unnaturally deselecting themselves.
Best
Lawrence
from Lawrence, this Sunday meeting: what is an idea?
Dear friends,
This Sunday we are certainly discussing an important issue in philosophy
and maybe a few other disciplines for good measure. What is an idea?
The subject is an old issue in philosophy dating back to early times of
Greek philosophy and maybe even that is not early enough. No matter how
old this problem is, I don't seriously believe we are about to solve it
some day soon. But in the meantime let's try on Sunday at 6:30pm at the
Centro Segoviano.
The important request is that we should be most grateful if late comers
would buy and pay for their drinks before they join us at the table. Now
that was a great idea!
See you Sunday,
Lawrence
Meet 6:30pm
Centro Segoviano
Alburquerque, 14
28010 Madrid
914457935
Metro: Bilbao
What is an idea?
I am tempted to think that the concept of an idea in philosophy has been
somewhat a Jack of all trade and a master of none. I mean that the
history of what is an idea is long and varied. Changing and flipping as
the fashion of the time dictated.
So at the beginning, we have to start somewhere, we have Plato's notion
of ideas being perfect and unchangeable. The Forms existed in the
universe of metaphysics but have epistemological implications for us.
And our epistemological notion is nothing near the perfection ideas of
what the forms are.
Hume considered that ideas where vague reconstructions of perceptions
that are based on experience. Locke and Hume more or less agreed on the
point of experience.
In more modern times, Dawkins compares, at least some ideas, as having
the same kind of properties as genes; that is they can evolve and
survive in the same way that genes evolve and survive in the biological
world. Religious beliefs can be sort of memes.
Ideas, as I have already said, seem to be imprecise concepts and we try
to understand what they are by the language and mental tools we have at
a given time. However, one thing is clear, despite Plato's slight
objection, ideas reside in the realm of the mental. Of course today we
know at least that ideas reside in the brain.
But what is exactly residing in the brain? On the one hand, it cannot be
just the neurons or collection of neurons that give rise to the idea
since the neurons that gave rise to the idea must have been in the brain
before the conception of the idea. So there is a bit of a paradox here,
the same neurons (figuratively speaking) but yesterday they were not the
idea we have today. Something must have happened. This is analogous to
walls, before a wall can be constructed the bricks must first exist.
However, the bricks themselves on the back or a lorry do not make a
wall. And the wall won't exist no matter how much we mix and match the
bricks. Something else must take place.
Even in common use the notion of an idea is just as vague. Ideas can be
opinions, convictions, principles, but in all cases ideas are mental
activates. At least we all agree that ideas are mental events, to use
the vernacular, or brain events to be precise.
This makes ideas clearly fall in the domain of epistemology, and for
those who are punctilious about these things, by virtue of being brain
events this also makes ideas fall in the realm of the physical – that
is, metaphysical instead of epistemological.
Today we do not find this duality so contradictory since today we accept
that information, as far as we are concerned, must be represented in a
physical form. Clearly there is a dual relationship between ideas as
epistemological events and ideas as metaphysical events.
Once again we should not find this strange, since we have had a
manifestation of this phenomenon since writing has been invented. The
meaning of a written concept, such as –the white cat- does not exist in
the physical words (that you about to see) – the white cat. The physical
words do not include in them the meaning of what they say; this is not
to be mixed up with autologous and heterologous words, this is about
properties and not meaning (English is an autologous word because it is
written in English). Ironically the meaning of words resides in our
brain as language speakers of English. The metaphorical similarity with
genes is not lost here. The genes (plus the extras) that make up the
liver in us do not have liverness in them.
So what are ideas? Ideas belong to a set of mental/brain events some of
which we would identify as intuition, knowledge, hunches, thinking,
imagination, reasoning, and beliefs, to mention the most obvious. So
from what is an idea? Cannot really be investigated without at the same
time investigating what are ideas for?
So instead of asking what are ideas? we also have to ask what are ideas
for? I am of course, not trying to shirk away fro the original question
itself, since even if we can associate an idea with a specific number of
neurons, and we can see them with some FMRI machine, we still have the
issue of joint duality between meaning (what the idea represents) and
physical manifestation of the idea (neurons and whatever other physical
elements are at play).
Furthermore, by enquiring what are ideas for, helps us investigate
another issue, which I think helps us clarify the subject. The issue is
how do we achieve the meaning of ideas (does it make sense?) since these
surely sprout in our private brain? If language, according to
Wittgenstein, cannot be private, can ideas be private? After all ideas
must make sense over time in the same way that language must make sense
over time if, that is our language has to have any meaning at all. How
do we know that yesterday's idea that the cat needs to go to the vet, is
today the same idea?
Hence, the function question about asking what ideas are for. But first
let's have a look at what ideas are not. On the one hand we have
believes that are mental events of what is true or false ( the cow
cannot jump over the moon). On the other hand we have imagination that
seems to be some sort of quasi random generator of representations of
the world based on quasi real world concepts (the cow jumps over the
moon). I would places ideas as mental events that represent in us what
we think and believe is possible in the real world ( the cow can be put
in a spaceship and send it around the moon and back).
If ideas are mental events of what is ontologically possible, then surly
the function of ideas is to represent in our brain the world as it
should be (maybe even ought to be). A kind of plan a bricklayer would
use to build a wall. The plan is not the wall, loose bricks are not the
wall, but a wall are the bricks (plus the extras) that follows the shape
of a plan. Now, we cannot put bricks in the plan, it is made of paper,
nor do architects have brain bricks also made of clay, maybe like play
bricks. What the architect, the bricklayer, the plan and the client have
in common is the versatility of shapes. And the wall must conform to
this shape which also conforms to the shape in the brain of the others
and the shape on paper. Somehow the brain is able to squeeze the mental
juice out of the metaphorical physical orange in the brain.
Of course, shapes of walls and ideas of a cow on a spaceship are some
kind of a gold standard that the real wall and the cow is a space ship
are just practical reorientations. Maybe Plato had a point about ideas
being imprecise representations of the perfect Forms (Forms should not
be confused with shapes). Its like saying all roads lead to Rome, but
somehow Plato found himself in New York.
The big caveat here is the assumption that all things being equal. The
meaning-over-time test of ideas, I mention above, is heavily dependent
on the need that our memory had not materially deteriorated since
yesterday. And an even bigger assumption is the need that the our brain
today is functioning in the same correct way as it did yesterday. And
maybe the biggest assumption of all is that our brain is a normal
healthy brain. If our brain is not functioning properly how can we tell
if our ideas are representations of the world out there or maybe simply
false beliefs or random events of the imagination?
But what trumps ideas over other mental events such as false beliefs or
imagination is that it should be possible to represent ideas in real
life. We can actually can put a cow in a space ship and send it round
the moon. But no amount of jumping will get a cow over the moon.
On the other hand some ideas seems as good as done, but at the very last
minute when we compare idea with reality it all falls down. For example,
what is the status of an idea that a politician will be elected in the
polls if they materially reduced the salary of a few million people?
Some ideas are simply not reproducible in the ontological world, even
they seem good at the time. Or as Dawkins might say, some genes are hell
bent in unnaturally deselecting themselves.
Best
Lawrence
from Lawrence, this Sunday meeting: what is an idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)