Nous

[james03]

According to Plato, nous is the highest form of human understanding and is responsible for our ability to grasp eternal, unchangeable truths. According to Aristotle, nous was the intellectual faculty that enables us to grasp the first principles or fundamental truths of reality.

The Scholastics inherited the concept, calling it in Latin intellectio intuitio. According to the Scholastics, intellectio intuitio is that type of intellectual perception that goes beyond discursive reasoning or deductive logic. It is a direct, immediate, and non-inferential understanding of a concept or truth.

I've always believed that there are two fundamental parts to man:

1.  I exist.
2.  I know/recognize that I exist.

Descartes proof of existence, Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am, is a nice proof.  However we can simply say, "I perceive.".

[Michael Wilson]

St. Thomas would disagree with Descartes; man when he begins to perceive, he perceives "other" things apart from himself; and he also perceives that they exist; and his mind makes a judgement as to their reality by the enunciation of their existence in the word or concept: "Is" i.e. This exists. It is the first and most fundamental principle of all knowledge.

[Aethel]

According to Plato, nous is the highest form of human understanding and is responsible for our ability to grasp eternal, unchangeable truths. According to Aristotle, nous was the intellectual faculty that enables us to grasp the first principles or fundamental truths of reality.

The Scholastics inherited the concept, calling it in Latin intellectio intuitio. According to the Scholastics, intellectio intuitio is that type of intellectual perception that goes beyond discursive reasoning or deductive logic. It is a direct, immediate, and non-inferential understanding of a concept or truth.

I've always believed that there are two fundamental parts to man:

1.  I exist.
2.  I know/recognize that I exist.

Descartes proof of existence, Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am, is a nice proof.  However we can simply say, "I perceive.".

I would like your response to proponents of coherence theory that believe that the Cogito isn't substantiated.

Classical foundationalism, which is the root of Thomism, holds that man comes to know things by taking pieces of information as a whole and making a whole system from there; and that at a certain point when it comes to things being reduced to their absolute simplistic essence, we have to assume the true of that essence or we run the risk of circularity.

Coherence theory is cynical of this and holds that people operate paradigmatically - we hold to narratives and systems of thought that are usually imposed on us, and when we gather information, we modify that paradigm like pieces of rotten wood on a boat until we get to a point where the paradigm collapses and a person needs a totally new paradigm. As the root of thought is paradigmatic, people are thus allowed to criticize people's thoughts on the circular definitions because those simplistic things are defined according to a pre-existing paradigm.

For a coherence theorist, the cogito operates within a paradigm that assumes a number of things to be true - for example, what it means to think; what it means to be; what it means to be an I; what logical deduction itself means and the rules thereof; all of these are assumptions according to a modified Classical Catholic paradigm that aren't demonstrated outside of that paradigm. A person might have a totally distinct conception of what it means "to be" and "to think" then traditional Western notions of those things (for example, for the Buddhist, there is no such thing as real ontological being and there is no actor to think, only illusions of broader scale systems)

How would you respond to that?

[james03]

St. Thomas would disagree with Descartes; man when he begins to perceive, he perceives "other" things apart from himself;

Descartes was not discussing any of this (at least at this point), i.e. how a man begins to perceive.  He was proving that he exists, and his proof is correct.  That's the limit of what Descartes was trying to do with that statement.  It was the starting point for a lot more philosophy which you can disagree with.

Being pendantic.  "I think about something".  Doesn't matter how he reached that point, he is stating a fact.  Then he addresses two cases and proves no matter what, he exists.

I actually like the approach, especially when dealing with godless heathens.

[Khalid]

According to Plato, nous is the highest form of human understanding and is responsible for our ability to grasp eternal, unchangeable truths. According to Aristotle, nous was the intellectual faculty that enables us to grasp the first principles or fundamental truths of reality.

The Scholastics inherited the concept, calling it in Latin intellectio intuitio. According to the Scholastics, intellectio intuitio is that type of intellectual perception that goes beyond discursive reasoning or deductive logic. It is a direct, immediate, and non-inferential understanding of a concept or truth.

I've always believed that there are two fundamental parts to man:

1.  I exist.
2.  I know/recognize that I exist.

Descartes proof of existence, Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am, is a nice proof.  However we can simply say, "I perceive.".

I would like your response to proponents of coherence theory that believe that the Cogito isn't substantiated.

Classical foundationalism, which is the root of Thomism, holds that man comes to know things by taking pieces of information as a whole and making a whole system from there; and that at a certain point when it comes to things being reduced to their absolute simplistic essence, we have to assume the true of that essence or we run the risk of circularity.

Coherence theory is cynical of this and holds that people operate paradigmatically - we hold to narratives and systems of thought that are usually imposed on us, and when we gather information, we modify that paradigm like pieces of rotten wood on a boat until we get to a point where the paradigm collapses and a person needs a totally new paradigm. As the root of thought is paradigmatic, people are thus allowed to criticize people's thoughts on the circular definitions because those simplistic things are defined according to a pre-existing paradigm.

For a coherence theorist, the cogito operates within a paradigm that assumes a number of things to be true - for example, what it means to think; what it means to be; what it means to be an I; what logical deduction itself means and the rules thereof; all of these are assumptions according to a modified Classical Catholic paradigm that aren't demonstrated outside of that paradigm. A person might have a totally verified conception of what it means "to be" and "to think" then traditional Western notions of those things (for example, for the Buddhist, there is no such thing as real ontological being and there is no actor to think, only illusions of broader scale systems)

How would you respond to that?

Jay Dyer moment.

[james03]

How would you respond to that?

Short answer, they are idiots.

So digging in:

we hold to narratives and systems of thought that are usually imposed on us, and when we gather information, we modify that paradigm like pieces of rotten wood on a boat until we get to a point where the paradigm collapses and a person needs a totally new paradigm

We "hold".  So was holding "imposed" on us, where does that come from?  And what is the "us" that this is being imposed on?  What is the "we" that modifies the paradigm?  What is the basis of this modification?  Also, this has a marxist savor of dialectic, but that's an aside.

They are idiots trying to abstract the problem of "I" and sweep it under the rug.

all of these are assumptions according to a modified Classical Catholic paradigm that aren't demonstrated outside of that paradigm.

Ironically this "sloppiness" in Catholic philosophy was what Descartes was fixing.  He wanted a starting point that only the incoherent or insane could disagree with.  The Thomists weren't wrong, but they pooh-poohed such questions.  I read a Thomistic rebuttal of Idealism/Epistemology and the author basically said we don't have to answer such challenges because they are silly.

[Aethel]

I actually like the approach, especially when dealing with godless heathens.

I tend to fancy myself more like Pythagoras than an Aztec savage.

I'm just following Vatican II's hierarchy of truths, some godless heathenry is better than others

(I'm joking)

[Aethel]

How would you respond to that?

Short answer, they are idiots.

So digging in:

we hold to narratives and systems of thought that are usually imposed on us, and when we gather information, we modify that paradigm like pieces of rotten wood on a boat until we get to a point where the paradigm collapses and a person needs a totally new paradigm

We "hold".  So was holding "imposed" on us, where does that come from?  And what is the "us" that this is being imposed on?  What is the "we" that modifies the paradigm?  What is the basis of this modification?

The fact that coherence theory is itself a paradigm that is connected to other Western notions of being doesn't contradict the claim that we use paradigms to explain things before describing things by themselves.

It is circular, yes (as using a paradigm doesn't justify why paradigms are used), but as I said, reducing things to their simplest essence results in circularity, inevitably, regardless of what paradigm I use. It's a question of whether its simple things that form the system or whether the system forms those conceptions of simple things; if we assume paradigms as the origin, then yes, we can question the meanings of those simple things and demand justification according to different paradigms.

Also, this has a marxist savor of dialectic, but that's an aside.

It does have that flavor because contemporary coherence theory does have origins in Hegel and Spinoza / dialectical thought, just as Marxism itself has origins in those same ideas.

Obviously I have sympathies to Hegel and Spinoza, that's not something I dispute. I even agree with some Marxist critiques, although Marxism as a whole is cancer, and its narrative structure (which seems to be the exclusive part of Marxism that Neoliberal social Justice types latch onto) makes it a parasitic ideology.

[AlNg]

there is no such thing as real ontological being and there is no actor to think, only illusions of broader scale systems)

The scientific method is not based on illusions, but involves carrying out experiments to determine whether or not there is agreement with the expectations of a given hypothesis. 

[james03]

The fact that coherence theory is itself a paradigm that is connected to other Western notions of being doesn't contradict the claim that we use paradigms to explain things before describing things by themselves.

THEY are making their claim, and what they claim is self-contradictory, i.e. their very statement can't be trusted, according to them.  Therefore sane people disregard it.

but as I said, reducing things to their simplest essence results in circularity, inevitably, regardless of what paradigm I use.

It results in Incompleteness.  Thus in order for things to exist, there must be something outside the system that is infinite.  The Necessary Being.

And that Infinite is the basis for:
1.  I exist.
2.  I perceive that I exist.

[Aethel]

there is no such thing as real ontological being and there is no actor to think, only illusions of broader scale systems)

The scientific method is not based on illusions, but involves carrying out experiments to determine whether or not there is agreement with the expectations of a given hypothesis. 

Well
1. For the Buddhist or Hindu, all of material reality is an illusion of an underlying divine spiritual essence that is one in all things, and they would argue that just because material reality is illusory does not mean that one cannot operate and follow coherent principles in accordance to that illusion.

Also, I'm not advocating that position, I'm just giving their perspective. "It's the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle


2. The Scientific Method requires a presupposition of Uniformitarianism and pure Materialism, otherwise we could not rely on the objectivity of the results. What if a bunch of demons and angels were pulling pranks on scientists and were messing with them whenever they measured the weight of lead? There would be no way to actually study science.

It's another question entirely if that uniformitarianism is justified
1. For the purposes of scientific inquiry
2. As a metaphysical truth outside the realms of scientific inquiry

Both may be entirely possible, but both may be not.

Nevertheless, you need to presume uniformitarianism as a metaphysical truth to be able to perform science for the purposes of scientific inquiry.

[Aethel]

It results in Incompleteness.  Thus in order for things to exist, there must be something outside the system that is infinite.  The Necessary Being.

And that Infinite is the basis for:
1.  I exist.
2.  I perceive that I exist.

This is a different question. The Cogito is a question of epistemology and ontology (we know being because being able to know presupposes being), and coherence theory advocates are critiquing the Cogito on the grounds of epistemology (whether our literal conception of "being" is really a product of an assumed paradigm rather than us actually analyzing "being")

THEY are making their claim, and what they claim is self-contradictory, i.e. their very statement can't be trusted, according to them.  Therefore sane people disregard it.

You can use logic and evidence to dispute the truth value of various paradigms. But I think Coherence Theorists are making the claim that everyone isn't as trustworthy as they claim.

And one's perception of epistemological certainty doesn't make it so. Perhaps it's objectively the case we all aren't as objective in our claims than we parade around as such, even if that makes "sane people" uncomfortable.

I think it's a very difficult thing to dispute that we are all influenced by pre-existing paradigms; Ben Shapiro, as an example, is undoubtedly influenced by his Talmudic Judaism. Maimonides informs a lot of his thinking, for example. His arguments against gay marriage, as an example, are often not that sophisticated and weaker compared to his other positions, which makes me think his perception on that is a product of his religious paradigm.

It's a chicken and egg question, the paradigm and the object or the object and the paradigm. Even if it's the case we aren't objective as we think and paradigms influence our thinking, did knowledge of the thing predominately formulate paradigms for people or did our pre-existing paradigms inform the knowledge of the thing predominately.

If it's the case that pre-existing paradigms inform our thinking of conception of things, the cogito doesn't justify knowledge of existence, because it makes a bunch of unjustified claims about simplistic things according to a pre-existing Catholic paradigm (which itself needs to be justified)

[james03]

You can use logic and evidence to dispute the truth value of various paradigms. But I think Coherence Theorists are making the claim that everyone isn't as trustworthy as they claim.

Therefore they contradict themselves by making any claim.  Their theory is incoherent simply by making any claim.

and coherence theory advocates are critiquing the Cogito on the grounds of epistemology (whether our literal conception of "being" is really a product of an assumed paradigm rather than us actually analyzing "being")

And thus Descartes.  Assumed by whom?  And what does "assume" even mean?  It means thinking.  Thus, I Think (and perceive), necessitates that I exist.

I think it's a very difficult thing to dispute that we are all influenced by pre-existing paradigms;

Shifting the goal posts.  Of course we are "influenced" by pre-existing paradigms.  That's the job of parents, to influence their kids with pre-existing paradigms.  But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals like nous.

[Khalid]

The entire project of modern Epistemology relies on a host of presuppositions and concepts that neither the coherentists nor the foundationalists (which the Thomists don't really fall under despite holding some concepts in common) are capable of "justifying" - for the simple reason that they set out to accomplish an impossible task. They want to answer the question "How do you know what you know" starting from a universal doubt which takes nothing for granted - while the very question itself is only possible to utter once an individual has been alive for some time and possesses a great deal of certain knowledge and the question itself only arises in cultures that have undergone centuries if not millenia of philosophical "development". This fact alone should discredit the whole ordeal: that the only foundationalists and coherentists and foundherentists on earth are a bunch of nerds
(and even they don't live out their theories, save for a convicted few whom are always driven insane such as Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Kant) with more knowledge than wisdom, and that both children and your average idiot operate under a completely alien Epistemology to that of any school of modern philosophy. Yet, miraculously, children are able to have "justified true beliefs" (a definition for knowledge which is as unjustified itself as it is mechanistic and asinine) and even to know things! Not just mere phenomena either, but real things that exist.

Maybe it's my Salafism coming out, but I think Tertullian said it best:

Unhappy Aristotle! Who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions — embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those fables and endless genealogies, 1 Timothy 1:4 and unprofitable questions, Titus 3:9 and words which spread like a cancer? 2 Timothy 2:17 From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, while it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Wisdom 1:1 Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?". Amen.

[AlNg]

you need to presume uniformitarianism as a metaphysical truth to be able to perform science for the purposes of scientific inquiry.

I don't think so. You can believe that nature does exhibit certain regularities but is not necessarily absolutely uniform.