|
IX The aim of this book is expressed in its title: to show pragmatism at work.
X people do not choose what it is that they need, rather, this is something that is determined for them by their mode of emplacement in the world's scheme of things.
[JLJ - 'mode of emplacement in the world's scheme of things' - a much simpler term is the one I use, 'predicament'.]
p.1 philosophy... its mission... facilitating the realization of a satisfying life through better understanding the ways of the world and our place within it.
[JLJ - Yes, and pastor Rescher will preach the gospel of his interpretation through the 100 or so books he has written about it. I yawn through most of what he has written. Some of it is useful. Philosophy can be used as a guide to understanding where one wonders out loud 'why?'. To those who do not wonder 'why?' it can only preach to empty pews.]
p.3 philosophy is a venture in question-resolution - a cognitive enterprise addressing the traditional "big questions" about ourselves and our place in the world's scheme of things.
[JLJ - Does philosopy seek to "answer" as in finally, resolved-for-all-time, debate-is-now-over-and-we-can-now-move-on-to-other-things, or does it instead suggest, propose, offer for consideration, argue the case for, or simply put forward what "might" be the answer? Rescher presents his position on the matter in question, and the arguments - such as they are - to support them. As long as you do not address your critics, sure, you can write books full of "answers".]
p.3-4 philosophy is distinct from science in that science is oriented to accounting for the world's concrete observed occurrences as such, whereas philosophy is oriented primarily towards ways in which we humans can, do, and inductively should think about things.
[JLJ - You should never say should. Oops...]
p.4 philosophy is a matter of rational inquiry, a cognitive enterprise, a venture in question-resolution subject to the usual standards of rationality.
[JLJ - Yes, but are we vain or naive enough to think that these "questions" have answers that we can discern? A rabbit, pondering the nature of the fields, the sky, the earth, and other creatures, try as it may, will never uncover the facts of the genetic code, and how rabbits come into existence, why things are as they are, etc. What makes us think that we are any different? Perhaps the nature of philosophy ought to be to ponder how to 'go on,' from where we are, right here and right now, encumbered as we are, with our various investments and obligations, and with our various capabilities - known, unknown, and perceived, and in our current predicament...?]
p.4 We philosophize because it is important to us to have answers to our questions.
[JLJ - Yet the answers provided are and forever remain the opinion of the author, backed by whatever argument is provided. They aspire to the truth, but the answers provided do not rise to the level of science and might even be provided outside of any discussion that might disagree. We philosophize instead because philosophy is the wise root of any undertaking. We ought to be able to ask and answer 'why?' to whatever it is that we do, or start to do, or continue to do, or start again to do, or stop doing. We ask 'why' until we are comfortable with the answer, and this answer literally becomes our philosophy for the matter in question.]
p.10 Ideally, philosophical inquiry proceeds in four stages:
- Question projection...
- Resolution survey...
- Rationale canvas...
- Evaluative harmonization
[JLJ - 5. Frustration when no one reads what you have written, in which case you go back to step 1 and repeat until dead...]
p.13 We want not just an "answer" of some sort, but a viable and acceptable answer - one whose tenability we are willing to commit ourselves... Philosophizing thus consists in a rational rebuilding of the structure of our beliefs in the effort to do what we can to erect a solid and secure edifice out of the ill-assorted contents placed at our disposal by our initial restrictions to belief.
p.18 So in the end philosophies disagree because philosophers disagree, and philosophers disagree because of variations in the bodies of experience they bring to bear upon the isse or rational substantiation.
[JLJ - But Nicholas, a philosophy, no matter how how it is constructed, will only amount to an opinion published in a readable form such as a book. The majority of people in the world will ignore it, and most of these people will have happy and successful lives. Philosophy - truth be told - is only an opinion which aspires to be much more, and like graffiti on a subway wall, will have a brief time period where it is read and noticed and commented upon, before it is covered up by the ideas of others, and ultimately will either be dismissed or explained away by those whose opinions differ, by those who continue to argue when the original author has himself/herself been quieted by death.]
p.22 The goal at which philosophy aims is rational guidance in understanding our place in the world's scheme of things
[JLJ - So, you are assuming that the 'answer' is figure-out-able?]
p.30 Aristotle's apt dictum holds with special force with matters of philosophical reasoning: "it is the mark of a sagacious man to look for precision in each [c]lass of things only insofar as the nature of the subject admits."
p.33 All too clearly, the first principles on which our philosophical inquiers pivot cannot be validated with reference to further consdierations that are somehow more basic... Accordingly, since first principles cannot be justified in terms of other, yet more fundamental premisses, they will - if justified at all - have to be justified in terms of their consequences. Their validation requires a systemic approach.
[JLJ - Could 'inquiers' above be 'inquiries'? With Rescher, who never writes second edition works to correct his many errors, and to whom the word 'editor' is absent from his personal dictionary, one can never be sure...]
p.42 Philosophical error generally roots in oversimplification.
[JLJ - Philosophical error roots in wanting to feel good about our answers. Some questions have no answers, so we likely invent and keep the ones that feel good to us.]
p.45 The aim of metaphysics is to provide a cogent explanation for the nature of existence-in-general.
[JLJ - ...that is, if there actually is a 'cogent explanation'...]
p.69 Whether the existence of the world is itself a good or bad thing is for the moment irrelevant.
[JLJ - The central question of philosophy is and should be, 'How do I go on, from where I am now, in my current predicament, possessing what I do, and limited in such a way, and confronted by the fact that my time in being is limited?']
p.73 Our presence in this world - our Dasein as the German philosophers call it - is but a thing of the moment. Everything we are, have, and do stands on the brink of the abyss of non-being.
[JLJ - ...yet we must do something, at every waking moment. Being, whatever it is, however brief, does not tell us how to be. We either come up with a plan for how to 'go on,' and execute it, or else we must improvise one during our day. We daily face a situation, a predicament, to some degree foreseeable and largely of our own choosing. We revel in a world full of conflict and opportunity, driven by a spirit and hunger of unknown depth, origin and limits.]
p.99 We react not just to what there is but to what we think there to be... We operate in our thought-world and often unhesitatingly treat this as the real and actual world.
[JLJ - Well perhaps the act of practical thinking helps us position ourselves in the real world so that we are ready for whatever happens. Evolution has so matched the act of thinking with successful operation in the real world, that the two are practically one and the same.]
p.100 Valuing - assessment as positive or negative... is... something that only an intelligent being can do.
[JLJ - Yet we can construct an artificially intelligent entity with an ability to "play" complex games of strategy. A rabbit can decide whether to freeze or run. Valuing in my philosophy is properly seen as part of a scheme to 'go on.']
p.100 We ongoingly have to make choices among alternatives - actual and putative alike. And there is no sensible way for an intelligent being to effect those choices other than through a resort to evaluation.
[JLJ - In my philosophy, evaluation can practically exist only as part of a scheme to go on which calls for an evaluation to be performed in such and such a way. There are a million ways that you can perform an evaluation, but critically few that result in an informed and wise pathway for action. Even choices themselves exist as part of a scheme to 'go on.' Evaluation is without purpose, when we separate it from the (often practical) scheme to 'go on' that it is or ought to be a part of.]
p.118 The rational person values things precisely because he is convinced that they have value.
[JLJ - One must choose ones values, before one can value something. Values might also belong to a scheme for going on. Rescher clings to his vague rationality, because he does not value strategy or scheming or tricks that often work, in the face of uncertain opportunity.]
p.121 why take a stance one way or the other on religious issues? ...We are simply so constituted that this sort of thing comes our way as we mature in our social context... it is only fitting that a rational being should address the big issues of existence or nonexistence, life and death, meaning and vacuity.
[JLJ - It is fairly clear that Rescher is not one to canvass neighborhoods, knocking on doors, seeking to convert others to his faith...]
p.121 Does what I do with this life of mine really matter? ...It appears that only religion can provide a rationale for the conviction that what we do with our lives ultimately matters, and that it makes a difference in the universe
[JLJ - The puzzling question of how to go on, when death ultimately awaits us, demands an answer, and religion provides one.]
p.122 By and large, your mode of religious beliefs and practice is a matter of indifference to me.
[JLJ - ...but not to the 'door knockers' that visit apartments and dwellings of all kinds in the United States. To those out to convert the masses, such statements invite endless arguments. I would think that we can even reverse the argument, Nicholas: 'By and large, your mode of philosophy and practice is a matter of indifference to me'.]
|
