Dear Ginny,
I have really enjoyed discussing Latin and second language acquisition theory with you. I am really not that arrogant, my good lady. My bark is much worse than my bite. :-) Just ask my wife, who doesn't want to hear me prattle on about whatever.
Have a nice trip. Maybe we can play trivial pursuit the next time we meet.
Have a good life,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
as part of saying farewell, i want to submit a paper i am in the process of writing that deals with the dutch calvinist philosopher herman dooyeweerd.
please enjoy and prosper!.
dooyeweerd on leibniz.
I am going to leave BEFORE I git unmasked, mate.
No worries,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
what is your opinion on free will versus determinism?
my feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic.
as a person, i believe in free will.
Dear larc,
I'll post some information from Ellis' book tomorrow after noon. I am getting ready to turn in for the night. I will just post some brief comments tonight.
Cordially,
Dan
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
as part of saying farewell, i want to submit a paper i am in the process of writing that deals with the dutch calvinist philosopher herman dooyeweerd.
please enjoy and prosper!.
dooyeweerd on leibniz.
As part of saying farewell, I want to submit a paper I am in the process of writing that deals with the Dutch Calvinist philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. Please enjoy and prosper!
____________________________________________________________________
Dooyeweerd on Leibniz
In order to understand Dooyeweerd’s treatment of Gottfried Leibniz, we must first review the fifteen Dooyeweerdian modal spheres and discuss the role that they play in his system of thought. Therefore, this essay will first present a brief review of Dooyeweerd’s modalities and then it will discuss his critique of Leibnizian monadological thought.
According to Dooyeweerd, there are evidently fifteen modal spheres or aspects of reality. These “universal modalities of temporal being” are “different modes of the universal ‘how’ which determine the aspects of our theoretical view of reality” (Dooyeweerd 1:3). That is, the fifteen temporal aspects are indissolubly interrelated and one sphere should not be deified to the detriment of the other spheres. As Dooyeweerd notes: “In this inter-modal cosmic coherence no single aspect stands by itself; every-one refers within and beyond itself to all others” (1:3).
While scholars debate the exact nature or makeup of Dooyeweerd’s list of modalities, it appears that we can safely delineate the approximately fifteen modal spheres thusly: the quantitative, spatial, kinematic, physical, biotic, sensitive, analytical, formative, lingual, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, and pistic. Knowing these spheres and their respective place in the modal hierarchy is a conditio sine qua non for grasping Dooyeweerd’s critique of Leibniz’ thought.
Dooyeweerd contends that the aspects are neither absolute nor reducible to one another. Therefore, a sphere should not be improperly elevated, absolutized or deified. If one sphere or modalitiy is elevated above another modal aspect, inevitable antinomies (essential paradoxes) and harm necessarily result. Leibniz’ mistake was to elevate or absolutize the quantitative sphere or the mathematical science-ideal. Dooyeweerd makes this point throughout his discussion of Leibniz.
For instance, he notes that Leibniz holds sin to be a privation of mathematical clarity and distinctness (1:227). Why, God even rules “by the grace of metaphysical-mathematical thought,” and “the creative will of the deity is bound to the eternal metaphysical verities” of mathematical thought (1:227). Nowhere is this point clearer than in Leibniz’ monadological system.
For Leibniz, force is the “essential attribute of the bodies in the universe” (Frost 39). In fact, the entire cosmos is composed of units of force called monads (force-atoms). Monads are eternal and indestructible. They are also “windowless” or self-sufficient, thus possessing autarchy (completely subsisting in a self-contained manner). Furthermore, the monads are infinite and spaceless “animated points of force” (Dooyeweerd 1:230). The upshot of this philosophical notion, according to Dooyeweerd, is the reduction of the individual with its “qualitative individuality” to the mathematical science ideal. Therefore, the ideal of personality is now capable of being calculated and is in danger of losing its freedom to the Faustian ground motive that seeks to dominate nature by means of “mathematic thought” (1:232). Choice or free will then becomes a matter of choosing the strongest desire determined by the windowless minute units of force: “Leibniz’ standpoint in the problem of freedom of the will—the stumbling block between the science-ideal and the ideal of personality in Humanistic philosophy—is thereby implicitly determined” (1:238). Any influence the monads have on one another is ultimately caused by the intervention of God--by the Ideas of God (1:237). Consequently, Dooyeweerd indicates that the antinomy between the ideal of personality and quantitative thought are manifestly evident in Leibniz’ system. Personality is thereby brought under the complete domination of the quantitative modal aspect: “This subjugation was accomplished by means of the lex continui, the principle of universal order and coherence in the cosmos” (1:239).
Another consequence of Leibniz’ absolutization of mathematical thought is seen in his theologia, wherein God is said to be the supreme monad, who has no limitations as actus purus. At first, it seems that Leibniz' deity is a throwback to the god of Aristotle (pure thought thinking itself). There is a difference between the God of Leibniz and the god of Aristotle, however, for Leibniz holds that God is “identical with the final hypostasis of the mathematical-science ideal.” Leibniz’ theism therefore seems to subtly become “logical-mathematical pantheism” (1:234). Dooyeweerd explicitly writes that Leibniz' deity is simply the hypostasis of pure creative thought. Harmony and God are one and in this way, Spinoza’s famed dictum deus sive natura becomes Harmonia universalis, id est Deus” (1:240).
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Ginny,
:Dunsscot:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that the knowledge of A foreign language or several such tongues most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're very funny. You say that knowledge of one or more foreign languages most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence. "Some type of linguistic intelligence" could mean anything--average, below average, or above average linguistic intelligence.:
Please allow me to clarify and tweak my comments above. They were admittedly vague. When I used the word "knowledge," I had a high level of proficiency in mind as well as the effort involved in learning the language. I might also add that one's situation in life must also be taken into consideration. Has the student passed the critical learning period when he or she acquires another language? Is he or she learning a foreign language that is dead? The student then has no culture to immerse himself or herself in directly. In your terms, I am talking about people who are above average when it comes to speaking or reading other languages.
:I agree that there are people who grasp foreign languages quite easily. I don't, however, judge a person's linguistic intelligence by how many languages he knows. Take for example our colleagues in Norway. Besides knowing several dialects of Norwegian, Kent, Jan, and Norm also speak Swedish, Danish, German, and English. Do they have higher levels of linguistic intelligence than you, me, or Jayhawk? Or have the exposure and schooling factors come into play?:
I do not know if Kent or Jan possess more linguistic intelligence than you, me or Jayhawk. But I can say that I have witnessed both sides of the coin. Some people have to be given a 'C' and shuffled through Latin 101/102. Others end up taking Greek 3 or 4 times and then finally give up. Some can barely learn the alphabet of the Hebrew or Arabic language. Others, however, just grasp these languages and become R-3s on the reading proficiency scale. I think my friend Rolf Furuli (University of Oslo) is quite intelligent when it comes to languages. I also know professors who can carry on conversations (fluently) in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Japanese, and so on. Most individuals, even if they were exposed to these cultures and had the requisite schooling still could not accomplish this task. I have even heard of students who spent all semester trying to learn how to conjugate a French verb. They go home frustrated and in tears almost. It seems that some people more easily learn languages than others. They grasp syntax, morphology, phonology and grammar. I think these individuals have a unique type of intelligence.
:Let's suppose a diplomat speaks several foreign languages. He is not especially good with foreign languages, but worked very hard to master them to further his career. Does his knowing one or more foreign languages clearly signal a higher linguistic intelligence?:
What if he is fluent in one or more languages or can actually teach three or four languages?
:I hope you understand my point. Knowledge of one or more foreign languages is not in itself a clear signal of higher linguistic intelligence.:
I agree. My comments pertain to ease of acquisition, fluency and proficiency as well as the ability to acquire foreign languages after one passes the critical language period.
:As for S.A.T. and I.Q. scores, neither do I put a lot of stock in them. I mentioned them only because it seemed to me that you have been strutting around the board like a banty rooster, displaying your proficiency in Latin like a bright red cockscomb, while making snide remarks about another poster's level of education. If you consider academic accomplishments a measure of a person's intelligence, I figured we could save some time and find out who is big dawg. (Please excuse the mixed animal metaphors. ):
AF probably had a better education than I did. He certainly went to a prestigious school. Moreover, while I chided him about Latin and you fail to see that it is a male thing and an AF/Duns thing, I have not simply "strutted around" because I "know" Latin. Would you like to go toe to toe in Greek or Hebrew? :-) How about philosophy or theology? I am also now working on my German proficiency. Yes, I think I do possess linguistic intelligence. Especially when it comes to foreign languages. I also think I possess a high degree of conceptual intelligence. Duns is an INTP.
Academic accomplishments do not mean that much to me either. Education, something that is not directly tied to scores and grades (IMHO), is what counts in my book. A number of people have taken Latin courses. How many know how the language functions internally? How many know about linguistic principles in general? I would be willing to put my education against your education any day. I have acquired more knowledge about different fields up to this point in my life than you may ever acquire in your lifetime. So there, there! :-)
:So you're more knowledgeable in Latin than AlanF--whoooeeee! As it says in the Desiderata, "If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself." Or as Will Rogers puts it, "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.":
I must agree with your quote from Will Rogers.
:You're O so generous, Dunsscot. Anastrophe wasn't listed in my Rhetorical Handbook, so I looked up both terms online. Here are the results:
:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latin Definitions
hyperbaton
departure from normal word order; the separation of companion words to achieve a dramatic effect or a particular sound
This is something up with which I will not put.
anastrophe
The inversion of normal word order:
That is something up with which I will not put.:
Your answer is not wrong, Ginny. I was simply trying to be precise. Anastrophe is one example of hyperbaton. But hysteron proteron is another. We could look at matters this way: Hyperbaton is the superordinate, while anastrophe is a hyponym that we epistemically and categorically subsume under the said superordinate. To be precise, hyperbaton takes in other rhetorical devices and it is done for rhetorical effect. One may anastrophize a prepositional phrase and not do it strictly for effect. So while the source you cite is not wrong, it is also not specific as it should be.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
what is your opinion on free will versus determinism?
my feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic.
as a person, i believe in free will.
Larc:
:Duns,
Since we both agree that although we may have free will, we are not "volitionally unlimited", as you put it. I used extreme cases to establish this point. It may be that more subtle genetic factors may put limits on our behavior as well. An interesting avenue of study in this regard, is twin studies. Identical twins most often have very similiar characteristics even when raised apart. Some examples I have seen are striking. They are also very similiar in their intelligence level, suseptability to scizophrenia and alcoholism, to name a few examples.:
Have you read what Plotnik has to say about the various factors that influence the personalities of identical twins? He notes that certain researchers have broken down the contributing factors to the development of one's personality in the following way:
genetic factors 40%
nonshared environmental factors 27%
error (i.e., certain influences cannot be determined yet) 26%
shared environmental factors 7%
Another point to keep in mind is what we mean by intelligence. Similarity in IQ scores does not necessarily = similar intelligence.
:Culture: I used the cultural example of language because it is a clear cut one. I did mention that other cultural traits can be as easily learned as well. We can take it beyond traits to religion. A Buddist family in a Buddist country will have Buddist children. There is no free will here.:
The Buddhist family will have children who are Buddhist nominally. This fact does not mean that the child never thinks for himself or herself or questions the beliefs of his or her parents. Children brought up in Witness homes are not necessarily JWs. They are children of JWs. But they have to ultimately decide whether they will accept or reject JW beliefs. As I said earlier, most thinkers see free will in terms of free volition. They do not think that it means one is totally unlimited. Sartre thought that humans are free even in the face of the limitations that factical existence brings. Sartre even noted that I am always free to say, "No!" I can always refuse to engage in evil acts or anything that offends my sensibilities. That, my friend, is free will (according to Sartre). The words of Hebrews 2:14-15 have actually been concretized and reified in the life of numerous Christian existents, who have refused to share in evil moral acts and have instead chosen to dedicate themselves to God. These believers are no longer hindered by the fear of death that results in a type of bondage. A number of Christians have fittingly articulated the Sartrean, "No!" in the face of evil.
:Without extensive exposure later to other ideas they will never change.:
I disagree. Phenomenological realists point to examples of individuals who possessed a distinct and disparate Weltanschauung at a time when an entire culture looked at life through a different grid.
:Before we can go further with the cultural aspect of the discussion, you would have to provide a rather detailed sociological definition of "invulnerables.":
I never really followed up on this sociological term, but I did find certain articles on the inet about invulnerables. I need to email my former sociology professor and obtain information from her on invulnerables. I can do that tonight.
:The term "self awareness" is acceptable to me. We certainly can make an analysis of our own thought processes, not simultaneously while thinking, but after we have had a sequence of thoughts. However, the thoughts we produce are a function of our genetics, environment, and unique learning. Sometimes they are even influenced by our social group. Although our ideas "feel like" they are free and unique, there are many prerequisite conditions for them to exist.:
I find it difficult to accept this explanation because there is no mention of a priori ideas or inborn dispositions affecting our behavior. How can you really know that our thoughts "Are a function of genetics, environment, and unique learning" or our social group only? Science cannot plumb the unfathomable depths of man as man. It is no surprise that Sartre speaks of man as homo absconditus and metastable. He says that existence precedes essence. If Sartre is even partly right, one cannot reduce man to genetics and culture. There is an aspect of man that is hidden and unfathomable. Science cannot vitiate the "mystery" of the human existent.
:Regarding the therapist who performed better once he left determinism and acepted the concept of self awareness. As I stated on a previous thread, some therapists are fuzzy thinkers. What he probably did when he changed his paradigm was to change from a machine like determinist to someone who showed more empathy for his patients. His shift in thinking and behavior has nothing to do with the theory we are dicussing. Most cognitive behavioral therapists are determinists and take into account self awareness, in fact, they capitalize on it. Their major objective is to get the patient to become aware of their thinking process, understand how their thinking is causing them emotional prolems, then teach them how to think more rationally, dispute irrational thinking and reduces their own emotional suffering. The process gives a heightened awareness to the patient regarding their own thinking. Thus, they are changed from automatic thinkers to self aware thinkers.:
The therapist I had in mind was Dr. Albert Ellis (the founder of rational-emotive therapy). He has written a book entitled _Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy_. He claims that rational-emotive therapy has produced better results than Freudian or behaviorist determinism. I might also add that your view of self-awareness differs from mine. If I am really self-aware, then I can perform mental acts akin to Viktor Frankl's. He did not simply change from an "automatic thinker" to a self-aware thinker. I think his account deserves another read.
Have you also read Joseph F. Rychlak's essay on free will? He addresses a number of your concerns in the book _Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Psychological Issues_ (7th edition). See page 68.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
I also love this passage from Virgil's Aeneid concerning the Greeks:
Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera (credo equidem) vivos ducent de marmore vultus.
Translation: Others shall more delicately hammer out bronze statues--as if they were breathing--(indeed I believe it) and they will bring forth living faces from marble.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
Ginny,
:Dunsscot,
quote:A knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is only evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. But Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg show that there are many different types of intelligence.
:I disagree that a knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. It is more likely evidence of schooling or exposure to other languages and cultures. In Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Howard Gardner focuses on poetry and literature in his chapter on linguistic intelligence; foreign languages are given only a mention in passing.:
I think that the knowledge of A foreign language or several such tongues most certainly signals some type of linguistic intelligence. Admittedly, those individuals who have been taught foreign languages from an early age or who have been exposed to different cultures from youth on may acquire languages that the average guy or girl would not acquire. But I have personally witnessed both sides of the coins when it comes to language acquisition. There are some people who could take French 101 ten times and still not get it. Conversely, I had two professors as an undergraduate, who grasped foreign languages quite easily. These gentlemen were exceptional when it came to language acquisition. What is so strange about one person being more intelligent in one area of life than another? I know certain folks who pick up math concepts just like THAT. But I am not one of those individuals. But I could run circles around most mathematicians all day when it comes to learning languages and understanding the way they work internally. I also easily grasp theories and philosophical concepts. Not everyone can perform these activities with such ease. Gardner's theory seems to allow for the type of intelligence I am positing.
:In my reading of his work, Howard Gardner's main point is that reason, intelligence, logic and knowledge are not synonymous. Neither is academic success the only criterion to measure intelligence.:
I agree.
:I have enjoyed reading Howard Gardner's books, and given the reference to Sternberg's wit and playful sense of humor, I think I will enjoy his work, too. Thank you for mentioning him.:
You're welcome. I think you would really like Sternberg's works on the triarchic theory of mind and learning styles. These two books have profoundly shaped my view of intelligence. It seems that intelligence is much more multifaceted than was once thought.
quote:I am only asking this question for fun. Are you having fun yet? :-)
:I have mixed feelings. The part of me that is playful and competitive and curious would like to give the right answer to your question.
Another part of me does not want to play your game because based on what I've seen of your writing elsewhere on this board, I don't quite believe your question is just for fun.:
It really IS for fun!
:If I give what you consider a wrong answer, I wonder if you will gloat over me as you have over AlanF because you know Latin and he does not? I suspect your intent. Wouldn't it be easier if we just compare S.A.T. and I.Q. scores and get it over with?:
First, I do not put a lot of stock in S.A.T. or I.Q. scores. Remember Sternberg and Gardner? :-) Secondly, I "gloated" over AF's lack of proficiency in a certain area because he is AF. I was also making a general point that I hope he eventually grasped. AF himself is often extremely picky when it comes to criticizing the WT. He has also established himself as a jack of all trades vis-à-vis the WT. In other words, he has employed Greek, Hebrew and now Latin resources to discredit the WT and her representatives. But he shoulda stayed on the porch when it came to challenging Duns in Latin. I have now been studying Latin for a few years and have taken advanced courses in this classical language. Duns has read Virgil, Catullus, Petronius, and even a little Cicero. I am now primarily focusing on ecclesiastical Latin. So, AF did not know who he was messin' wit' when he decided to git off the porch and run with the big dawgs. But I promise not to gloat this time.
:I've looked through the Handbook of Rhetorical Devices, and I'll give your question one last go. Even though summa cum laude and magna cum laude are adverbial phrases, perhaps you consider them an example of hyperbaton?:
In a general sense, you are correct. Both phrases are examples of hyperbaton. More specifically, they are anastrophized prepositional phrases. But anastrophe is a form of hyperbaton. Therefore, I will give you credit. Behold! No gloating.
Cordially,
Big Dog
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
what is your opinion on free will versus determinism?
my feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic.
as a person, i believe in free will.
I am getting ready for bed, larc. I just wanted to tell you that you got me so interested in the topic of free will from a scientific standpoint that I ordered a book on free will titled _The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will_. I should get it in the next couple of days.
Later,
Duns
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
:Dunsscot,
Not knowing your intent, I don't see that your phrases are a clear and cohesive example of any particular rhetorical device. Parallelism, perhaps?:
Let me phrase the question this way. What do summa cum laude and magna cum laude have in common rhetorically? What types of rhetorical devices are they? Is that better?
:Is a degree or a knowledge of Latin and rhetorical devices somehow a proof of intelligence?:
A knowledge of Latin or any foreign language is only evidence of a particular kind of intelligence. But Howard Gardner and Robert J. Sternberg show that there are many different types of intelligence. I am only asking this question for fun. Are you having fun yet? :-)
Pope Scotus
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
