Is there a Epistemological Theory that indicates --Choosing-- determines our Objective-Accuracy likelihoods:?
Is there a Epistemological Theory that indicates --Choosing-- determines our Objective-Accuracy likelihoods: i.e. If you Fully Choose to Ever-Improvingly Maximize Objective-Understanding Accuracy as a Top Priority in your life, under any and all circumstances from blank point forward, you'll grow into Very, Very, Etc. Effective Accuracy Exemplification--but otherwise, won't very much, comparatively, otherwise..?
- Chris AncorLv 71 month ago
If there is, it is wrong.
- j153eLv 71 month ago
Using Hegel's point that Anaxagoras' Nous = physis qua laws, latterly explicated as humanly-determined laws of physics (etc.), and Kant's perspective that objektiv and subjektiv are the mostly-modern usage (i.e., contra Descartes, Berkeley, Spinoza, and more recently Brentano re objectvity ("Gegenstaendlichkeit," which informed Husserl and Meinong)), these two (Hegelian and Kantian) will guide this very brief answer to your question re "choice" as shaping "objective accuracy."
Epistemology generally distinguishes subjectivity as intrapersonal and objectivity as interpersonal. In passing, Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" is more of the former, and "Tractatus" is more of the latter, albeit imho also very much a function of intrapersonalism.
Hegel's realization that all philosophy begins with simple ontological awareness relating to things in themselves and appearances, and developing the intrapersonal as ontological mind-awareness...therefore for Hegel, mind-awareness of Geist as world evolution. A third stage, beyond the logic of appearances and the intrapersonality realizing ontological awareness, is the intersubjectivity teaching of Husserl's "Fifth Cartesian Meditation," and later his "The Crisis of European Sciences," and Edith Stein's "On the Problem of Empathy." These, along with Whitehead's "Process and Reality" point that modern (cartesian on) epistemology's primary concern has been the need to develop Socrates' mindfulness or man's application of his aspect of Nous (e.g., as in later Kant's "Opus Postumum") beyond the so-called cartesian dualism (which Descartes' work, taken as a whole, did not present; lesser interpretations fostered a reductive dualism relating in part imho to partially-realized (as per Hegel's critique) intrasubjectivities and intersubjectivities); resolving this dualism in turn became a focus of Husserl's "Fifth Cartesian Meditation," and of Whitehead's "hegelian turn" in "Process," i.e., all epistemological difficulties of cartesian dualism are resolved in ontological "philosophy of organism," aka process philosophy. Hegel anticipated this in "The History of Philosophy": the Idea unfolds itself as an organic system.
So, in brevity, there is currently no apex epistemological justification for some "Objective Accuracy" shtick that lays the golden egg of perfect material surety. The seemingly obvious axiomatic that effects follow from causal choices is understood within the von Neumannian successive framings of axiomized degrees of Godelian Incompleteness, as guided by John Bell's "for all practical purposes" (e.g., your apparently existential preference opting for "Objective Accuracy" would be better served if you followed Hegel's "Philosophy of History" precis of Socrates' critique of Anaxagoras, e.g. focusing on a specific application of Nous in Nature/maths, and developing an inductive awareness in a specific domain--again, there is no deductive "ring to rule/control all the epistemological factors")...and these Godelian/von Neumannian/Bellian protocols ought be informed by a) magisteria considerations, e.g., "energy" is not comprehended, albeit very accurately and objectively measurable in various domains, e.g. kinetic energy processes, so better to inductively develop accuracy in a particular domain, e.g. kinetic energy processes, for some clear application, than seeking an apparently will-o-the-wisp grand deductive Objective Formula for controlling and/or attaining "Energy Accuracy," by b) noting fundamental limits such as observer limitation (quantum mechanics) and observer ability (here referencing David Wolpert's work https://phys.org/news/2018-05-proof-reveals-fundam... ), and c) questions pertaining to chaotic systems, strange attractors, modeling when falsifiability/experimental proof is not feasible, etc.
So, you're correct, inasmuch as choosing successive von Neumannian framings of axiomized schemata ---> greater accuracy and objectivity. There is apparently logically no final Objective Accuracy. Therefore one chooses a field of analysis, and inductively develops deductive theories--the scientific method of Kant, Hegel, Whitehead, Husserl, et al. However, while process is a key, reifying Objective Accuracy as shibboleth is idolatrous, perhaps indicative of egoism seeking its transhuman Perfection in materialism. Early Heidegger projected this in his "Sein und Zeit," gradually realizing that mystic or poetic light is an ontological eternality-door--an example of "philosophic fountain" rising no higher than its present Seinness. Hegel begins at the region where Heidegger and Sloterdijk arrive: "..it is the...impulse of the life of the spirit within itself...to arrive at the light of consciousness, that is of itself." ("The Philosophy of History") This light is of love, either of God as One, or of Eve-Adam adultery-idolatry, which, further erring, is as the capitalization Tyranny of Reifying Objective Accuracy. This point was given by Plotinus referring to his ability to "teach the gods."