Jacob, you wrote to Rick:
"Rick, I have no theory on 'Truth.' My interest is strictly on the abstract concept of 'The True,' as an 'Idea,' 'Form,' or 'Universal,' derived from Plato's writings. Yet my musings are in no way related to Plato's thoughts. In stricter words, I'm not a Platonist, but a Positivist. Plato lacked the scientific information available nowadays."
But Jacob, Plato believed that the realm of Ideas was a *real* world, perhaps even more real than our own. There the universals held their purity, and only in mixing with others did the imperfect world we know it come to be. Being more Aristotilean in my own thinking, I would object to this by pointing out that there IS no *real* Idea. Ideas (or properties or essences, or whatever you want to call them) are not real *in themselves*, but only describe the *way* real things *are*. The Idea of things is actualy distinct from what makes them real (which Ibn Sina properly distinguished as Existence). Hume (I think) once asked of Kant a question that boiled down to what we would say was a trade of a $5 bill for the Idea of a $20. This was to point out that Kant *really* didn't believe that an Idea of $20 was real at all...
Agreed, Bo. Now I understand the $ question you mentioned in your original post. Hume was apparently bantering --not bartering-- with Kant...
"My endeavor is to explain the world at large, exposing scientific advances in a way that I believe is enlightening. My credentials for such purpose are my vast general knowledge and my experience as a researcher of renown, having contributed to science and to world health. My findings served also to eliminate views that had been accepted as scientific 'truths.'"
If muddling around on Earth makes one an expert on the Heavens, then so be it. We'll see...
Abstruse comment. Nonalethic.
"After retiring, I found a new interest, which came to be embodied in what I call D-SP. I've written both on 'The Good,' and on 'The True,' which I 'found' to be explained by evolution."
Well, Jacob, Aristotelean ethics boiled down to saying that we ought to do what is in our best natures. "Our best nature" turned out to be derived, in part, from what we do. Thus the "naturalistic" fallacy is to suppose that because something IS so, that it OUGHT to be so, or that something OUGHT to be so, because something else IS so. It's an error in thinking, like all other fallacies, failing the rules of inference.
Agreed. But I do not follow Aritotle's thinking on ethics. In fact, I define Ethics strictly, separating it from Morals, as expresed on my essay on AXIOLOGY (Value Judgments). I do not fall into the 'naturalistic fallacy.'
I only interpret according to Evolution, without implying that it is the 'correct' way for the physical laws to act. We are the forced products of those physical laws. I do not necessarily agree with them, as evinced by my dreams where I fly and walk on water...
Without knowing the details, to suggest here that what we OUGHT to do (the good) can be derived from something with IS so (evolution) seems to fall into this catagory.
Completely wrong interpretation of my writings. The D-SP doesn't judge nor does it offer counsel or consolation. It detachedly attempts to explain the world, based on scientific advances and their evolutionary aspects. No moralizing at all, but explaining what 'moralizing' is.
"Finding 'The True' took longer; I'd been looking for it for quite a while, and only lately I realized that I had 'found' it in what I called 'The Three Laws of Being.' But the final clinch came about when just recently I realized that The True has three points of view, namely the scientific, the theological, and most relevantly, the philosophical, or human, one."
Philosophy fascinates me because as soon as someone opens their mouth to speak, their assumptions and suppositions come rolling out. Philosophy is relevant because we LIVE it every day. Our basic assumptions, our unasked questions, our first truths we cling to, without ever thinking about them: THAT is our philosophy. By definition, of course.
The D-SP attempts to change that definition. Only then can "basic assumptions" be realistically modified by those who do not cling to them. D-SP can affect only people who are willing to bite the forbidden fruit of Eden, following the Cartesian doubt.
To suggest that somehow science and theology can be separated from philosophy, that science has NO basic assumptions, that theology has no unasked questions, seems to defy the very meaning of the term "philosophy". Perhaps you can explain this better.
Classifying is the first step to science. Aristotle did just that. I've explained that all Sciences step from basic assumptions, called AXIOMS. Theology is based on DOGMAS. Theologians delve on those areas that are not yet 'dogmatic.' Philosophy deals with the in-between areas of human interest. The D-SP does it in its own way, as explained in the INTRODUCTION. (See the Homepage.)