P
past_perfect
Guest
I don’t want to hijack a thread, or revive another, but I do feel that it might be interesting for some of you who have been entrenched in a debate that apparently cannot be resolved to get a slightly different perspective.
I must ask for your indulgence though, if some of the following is either plainly incomprehensible or offends your refined taste for the English language – which isn’t my own native tongue. Secondly, I will attempt to introduce some concepts of contemporaneous philosophy that apparently haven’t even been translated yet – which is pretty incredible in itself – I was stupefied when I discovered that the most eminent figure of current German philosophy, Heinrich Rombach (1923-2004), hasn’t even been mentioned in the English version of the Wikipedia as yet. Some of his concise and precise definitions are difficult to translate – so I will have to work with approximations and explanations rather than translations in some instances. That has to do with fact that German philosophers tend to make up words whenever they feel that the existing vocabulary doesn’t accurately transport the meaning they desire.
Roxanne’s attempt to define standards for objective moral absolutes based on Kantian rationalism rather than Randian ramblings is admirable, but still an exercise in futility. That has to do with the fact that despite Kant’s impeccable logic he was trying to impose a system on human nature and explain it within those confines.
Rombach, following the line of Heidegger and Husserl and using the existing tools of phenomenology, distinguishes between three prevalent models or approaches to describe reality and being itself.
Historically the oldest one is substance, followed by system and currently structure. His main work is called “Strukturontologie”, which could be translated as structural ontology (this however is currently used in an entirely different context by different disciplines).
Substance is the prevalent model of thought of antiquity and the middle ages – the attempt to reduce all things perceivable to their essence, their substance. To give an example, wheat is the substance or essence pervading all possible forms of its existence – be that as a seed, bud, ripe plant or flour – those would be mere appearances, attributes and permutations of the inherently invisible substance.
System is the basis of modern science and contrary to asking about the substance or essence of things, it is focussing on the function. A system can include the description of interaction and relationship. It is still the prevalent model of thought and pervades all disciplines of science and politics.
Structure is a comparatively new element in (western) philosophical schools of thought, although it can be traced back to the 13th century. Both system and structure are focussing on the function of the elements involved. However, system assumes that in a given set of circumstances (“if… then condition”) the outcome is predictable. In structure, the interaction of the elements constitutes structure, whereby it is entirely unpredictable how the elements develop in respect to the structure, or how the structure itself is going to develop based on the interaction of the elements. One example would be language and the use of a pause. It is impossible to predefine whether a pause is “just a pause” or whether it will serve to underline or even qualify what has been said. It is only possible to determine that in the very moment the pause is used. This shows that language can be seen as a structure, whereas a programming language for instance would be a system – the freedom of non-predefinition the elements have in structure is simply not given in code as a closed system.
I borrowed and translated parts of these definitions from an introduction to structural ontology by Thomas Diener to give you a rough idea what Rombach is attempting to introduce.
It is the idea of inter-dynamics and (relative) unpredictability. This of course is just the starting point for a very comprehensive and intricate web of thought he develops. I hope it will get a little clearer when I try to apply it to the question at hand.
One of the points discussed was the question of whether a transcendent ethical absolute is hardwired into human nature, which can be adequately deduced by logical reasoning. I would suggest that this is not the case, because human nature is nothing static, but a dynamic process in itself. One element certainly is rationality, the second irrationality (emotions), a third transcendence (intuition), and the fourth interaction based on social constructs and biological imperatives. The interplay between those elements and their almost infinite variety of subsets form a structure, which in itself is transitory, unpredictable but still not random or chaotic.
I would uphold that human nature is nothing we can reduce to a logical abstract, but constitutes an individual dynamic process we undergo. In other words – human nature is nothing we are born with, but something we constantly form, define and discover in the duration of our life. We render our own interpretation of human nature by living, experiencing, expressing, and interacting with others. One could say however, that this is not an entirely active process. It would be equally permissible to say that it is the other way round – namely that whether we want that or not, human nature is asserting itself by itself – and a certain confluence of elements in play can induce a limited subset of possible outcomes. Even that parts of the structure themselves can be “frozen” by choice or circumstance – which would then become a system. Structure bereft of dynamic formative interplay of the elements is a system. System is by definition closed, structure open and dynamic. A structure can include one or several closed systems, a system can never include a structure.
Human nature is not being, it is becoming.
Confused? It’d be a first if I managed to make myself clear from the outset. So instead of rambling on now, I’d rather have some feedback on where you need clarification or see contradictions. Please forgive me if those answers aren't rapidly forthcoming, as their formation might include an non-predefined number of cigarettes, cups of coffee and deliberately slow cogitations on a stroll around the block.
I must ask for your indulgence though, if some of the following is either plainly incomprehensible or offends your refined taste for the English language – which isn’t my own native tongue. Secondly, I will attempt to introduce some concepts of contemporaneous philosophy that apparently haven’t even been translated yet – which is pretty incredible in itself – I was stupefied when I discovered that the most eminent figure of current German philosophy, Heinrich Rombach (1923-2004), hasn’t even been mentioned in the English version of the Wikipedia as yet. Some of his concise and precise definitions are difficult to translate – so I will have to work with approximations and explanations rather than translations in some instances. That has to do with fact that German philosophers tend to make up words whenever they feel that the existing vocabulary doesn’t accurately transport the meaning they desire.
Roxanne’s attempt to define standards for objective moral absolutes based on Kantian rationalism rather than Randian ramblings is admirable, but still an exercise in futility. That has to do with the fact that despite Kant’s impeccable logic he was trying to impose a system on human nature and explain it within those confines.
Rombach, following the line of Heidegger and Husserl and using the existing tools of phenomenology, distinguishes between three prevalent models or approaches to describe reality and being itself.
Historically the oldest one is substance, followed by system and currently structure. His main work is called “Strukturontologie”, which could be translated as structural ontology (this however is currently used in an entirely different context by different disciplines).
Substance is the prevalent model of thought of antiquity and the middle ages – the attempt to reduce all things perceivable to their essence, their substance. To give an example, wheat is the substance or essence pervading all possible forms of its existence – be that as a seed, bud, ripe plant or flour – those would be mere appearances, attributes and permutations of the inherently invisible substance.
System is the basis of modern science and contrary to asking about the substance or essence of things, it is focussing on the function. A system can include the description of interaction and relationship. It is still the prevalent model of thought and pervades all disciplines of science and politics.
Structure is a comparatively new element in (western) philosophical schools of thought, although it can be traced back to the 13th century. Both system and structure are focussing on the function of the elements involved. However, system assumes that in a given set of circumstances (“if… then condition”) the outcome is predictable. In structure, the interaction of the elements constitutes structure, whereby it is entirely unpredictable how the elements develop in respect to the structure, or how the structure itself is going to develop based on the interaction of the elements. One example would be language and the use of a pause. It is impossible to predefine whether a pause is “just a pause” or whether it will serve to underline or even qualify what has been said. It is only possible to determine that in the very moment the pause is used. This shows that language can be seen as a structure, whereas a programming language for instance would be a system – the freedom of non-predefinition the elements have in structure is simply not given in code as a closed system.
I borrowed and translated parts of these definitions from an introduction to structural ontology by Thomas Diener to give you a rough idea what Rombach is attempting to introduce.
It is the idea of inter-dynamics and (relative) unpredictability. This of course is just the starting point for a very comprehensive and intricate web of thought he develops. I hope it will get a little clearer when I try to apply it to the question at hand.
One of the points discussed was the question of whether a transcendent ethical absolute is hardwired into human nature, which can be adequately deduced by logical reasoning. I would suggest that this is not the case, because human nature is nothing static, but a dynamic process in itself. One element certainly is rationality, the second irrationality (emotions), a third transcendence (intuition), and the fourth interaction based on social constructs and biological imperatives. The interplay between those elements and their almost infinite variety of subsets form a structure, which in itself is transitory, unpredictable but still not random or chaotic.
I would uphold that human nature is nothing we can reduce to a logical abstract, but constitutes an individual dynamic process we undergo. In other words – human nature is nothing we are born with, but something we constantly form, define and discover in the duration of our life. We render our own interpretation of human nature by living, experiencing, expressing, and interacting with others. One could say however, that this is not an entirely active process. It would be equally permissible to say that it is the other way round – namely that whether we want that or not, human nature is asserting itself by itself – and a certain confluence of elements in play can induce a limited subset of possible outcomes. Even that parts of the structure themselves can be “frozen” by choice or circumstance – which would then become a system. Structure bereft of dynamic formative interplay of the elements is a system. System is by definition closed, structure open and dynamic. A structure can include one or several closed systems, a system can never include a structure.
Human nature is not being, it is becoming.
Confused? It’d be a first if I managed to make myself clear from the outset. So instead of rambling on now, I’d rather have some feedback on where you need clarification or see contradictions. Please forgive me if those answers aren't rapidly forthcoming, as their formation might include an non-predefined number of cigarettes, cups of coffee and deliberately slow cogitations on a stroll around the block.
Rewrite the whole thing though? That would kinda conflict with my own laziness... I am willing to compromise nevertheless and promise a more "down to earth" approach in my answers to explain anything dubious. Rombach is actually very easy to read (provided you understand German) and took great pains to be easily accessible - in stark contrast to people like Hegel and Schopenhauer, who revelled in their "suchness" as such until they sounded grand enough to be easily misunderstood.
, he would very quickly fall.
