I have brought this up in another post somewhere. Please put your answers in the comments.
I am going to give you the thoughts coming up right now …
In philosophy, why is knowledge based in referring to what past authors said or wrote?
For example, what is the value, say, for what purpose am I referring to another author if I came up with cause as evidencing four aspects which constitute the Being of a thing?
All Beings have a form. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the form that it is. The cause of a Being is its formal sense.
All Beings have, or are, matter. What the reason is for this thing to exist is that it matters; the material which constitutes a thing is the cause of its existence. The tree is the cause of the table, for example. Or electricity is the cause of the internet. Of course, because there is plenty of material, the essential Being of a thing can have various material causes. The cause of a universal thing, a Being, matters, or is derived from material.
All Beings have, or are, motion. What we as philosophers generally know as an efficient cause. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the motion that it evidences. The agency which is the thing is that which it does, the motion it is involved with.
All Beings have and end, or what we know as telos, in the ancient Greek. What the reason is for a thing to exist is that it evidences its own end, or as I say here and there, parameter.
All of these causes interrelate and confirm one another to arrive at modern idealism.
— Cid Nate.
Now, a significant modern philosophical question is: With what purpose I am involved in comparing, say, what I came up with here out of the blue, through sheer observation and its resultant description, to Aristotle’s causes?
(comment now, please)
I wonder, because I have to ask myself why a reference to someone from a long time ago is required to give my ideas credence and validity?
What am I doing when I reference someone who is dead?
I can understand referencing someone who is alive because we are involved with global capitalism. But to place all knowledge on a level field to say that the books of the dead people are equal to the comments from people living — I ponder if that is a valid proposition. But then moreso, what exactly is the purpose I am involved with in understanding that knowledge in this way?
My formulation, the reason I come upon with goes to that in early human history:
Somehow, words had more substance somehow. Somehow, if I quote an ancient Greek meaning, what I am writing gains more substance. And, I imagine, that the reason why I believe and feel ancient philosophers have more substance contained in their words is because (again) those people were closer to some essential truth of existence due to their Being closer to the arrival of consciousness from our of prehuman and prehistorical “non-consciousness”.
Which is to say, then, that the universe was informing them and their terms to a more true situation of Being.
Why would this be the case?
(please comment :|)
Leave a Reply