Is interpretation possible without ontological assumptions?

[melontonin]

I've heard Leo mention on a few different videos about how there's an implicit metaphysics to, for example, calling a cat a cat. I feel like I understand this in the sense that it then necessitates the question "well what's a cat?" which then goes to "animal" which then necessitates "what's an animal?" and then might go to "a living being"  which'd then go to "what's a living being" which'd then might go to some description about a how life is created by atoms interacting in a certain way if it's a materialist metaphysics - or something along those lines anyway. 

My first question is just what should I read to look more into this cos other than Leo and Thomas Kuhn I'm not really aware of many people who've spoken specifically about this. That includes any of the videos @Leo Gura has talked about that because I can't remember what the videos were. I specifically remember him talking about underdetermination which seems relevant but I can't remember which. 

My second question is can there be any interpretation whatsoever without some implicit metaphysics? If there isn't then the implications of that are insane. If you changed your ontological assumptions then literally all your interpretations would change. Is that what a paradigm shift is? Or at least an example of one.

This is something I've wondered about for a while but not considered fully but on my Philosophy BA i've been set the question on whether Frege's sense and reference theory of identity statements is accurate which has been the perfect prompt for me to look into this. If any of have any points specifically relevant to that I'd appreciate them but that's secondary.

Thanks in advance for any responses, peace and love

Edited March 24, 2022 by melontonin

[DocWatts]

Since there doesn't exist a 'neutral' ontological paradigm to evaluate metaphysics from, the answer is no, essentially.

Ontological assumptions aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's just important to be aware of the assumptions you're using and factor that in to one's epistemology.

If anything, one's a-priori assumptions should be made as explicit as possible. It's when oncological assumptions are implicit that they're covered up and forgotten, and it's in those scenarios where they're more likely to lead us to epistemological errors.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote quite extensively on this, with his explorations in to the meaning of Being. Even a seemingly obvious and self demonstrating statement such as "I think therefore I am" contains ontological assumptions, since it assumes the meaning of 'I am' is well understood and obvious. In actuality, a deeper exploration reveals that there are a ton of ontological assumptions baked in to traditional Western conceptions of Being.

He takes a deep dive in to all of this in his magnum opus Being and Time. I wouldn't necessarily recommend picking it up if you're not used to reading academic philosophy, but fortunately there exist books and videos to make Heidegger's philosophy much more accessible. I found the following to be quite helpful:

https://www.amazon.com/Heidegger-Introduction-Richard-Polt/dp/0801485649

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by DocWatts

[Gili Trawangan]

When the interpreter falls away, everything is (seen) exactly as it is. With no need for interpretation.

[melontonin]

@DocWatts Thanks a lot for your response. I've read some stuff about his critique of Husserl and pure phenomenology but not enough to be really familiar with it. How familiar are you with Thomas Kuhn's work? I basically only know what I've seen on Leo's paradigm video but feel like I don't really understand them. It seems like quite a slippery concept where I think I'll understand them but then hear someone else say something contradictory. For example, I've heard Ken Wilber talk about how paradigms aren't just a "big theory" but an actual injunction that you carry out. How could something like the materialist paradigm be an injunction? I suppose it's gonna completely determine what actions you carry out and what you see as worth investigating but still, I feel like I'm missing something in my understanding of them.

Any analysis/insights would be greatly appreciated.

[melontonin]

@Gili Trawangan To use the language of Ken Wilber, I'm more focusing on the domain of "growing up" as in the quality of your interpretations/cognition as opposed to "waking up" which transcends all interpretation like you're saying. Thanks for your response anyway.

[DocWatts]

@melontonin

You're welcome!

I'm actually quite familiar with Thomas Kuhn's most well known work, which is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

What Kuhn was trying to do was correct common misconceptions of how science is normally understood among the public.

Foremost among these misconceptions is the idea that the endeavour of science consists of an accumulation of facts and theories towards  'Truth', similiar to how a construction worker might lay down bricks to build a house.

Rather, the way that Kuhn describes science is more akin to a dialectic of shifting and incommensurable paradigms. These paradigms govern the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind how a field of science is carried out. What is and isn't considered 'scientific' and relevant to a particular field is derived from these assumptions.

For example, the origin of the physical universe wasn't always considered a 'scientific' question, until emperical evidence for the Big Bang forced a shift in to a new paradigm.

Kuhn also spends a good deal of time articulating a distinction between 'normal' and 'extraordinary' science. 'Normal' science describes the majority of scientific research, and is akin to puzzle solving. It's under this modality that paradigms get articulated, methodologies get refined, and measurements become more precise and useful.

What drives a move in to a new paradigm, and what makes progress in science possible in the first place, are the emergence of scientific crisises.

Some emperical observations will tend to emerge that the prevailing paradigm is unable to account for (for example Ptolemaic astronomy being unable to account for the movement of the planets, causing headaches for those trying to develop an accurate calenders). Or more broadly, the current paradigm is faced with intractable problems that it's unable account for.

When this happens, it becomes possible for 'Extraordinary' science to emerge which makes room to forge a new paradigm.

This part is almost always carried out either by young scientists or scientists new to a particular field, and this is because they've yet to be fully indoctrinated into the prevailing ontological and epistemological assumptions of the old paradigm. 

The rest of the field either dies off from old age,or eventually converts to the new paradigm once it's demonstrated that it can solve intractable problems that the old paradigm couldn't account for.

Anyways, that's more of less the gist of it. Hope this helps!

Edited March 25, 2022 by DocWatts

[DocWatts]

Also, as far as books that engage with ontological and epistemological questions in a relevant and accessible way (ie basically the opposite of most academic philosophy), The Structures of Scientific Revolutions would be the first book I would recommend to someone.

In a similar vein, Science Ideated by Bernardo Kastrup is also another good recommendation.

Edited March 26, 2022 by DocWatts

[melontonin]

@DocWatts  Thanks again for your response, I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. I've been reading a summary of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions online and I can literally feel how powerful what it's saying but haven't fully realised it if you understand me. It's points like these especially:

• Something like a paradigm is a prerequisite to perception itself (recall G. H. Mead's concept of a predisposition, or the dictum it takes a meaning to catch a meaning).
• What people see depends both on what they look at and on what their previous visual-conceptual experience has taught them to see.
• This difference in view resembles a gestalt shift, a perceptual transformation—"what were ducks in the scientist's world before the revolution are rabbits afterward."

It's making me want to instigate one of these "gestalt shifts". It's interesting because I had a few mystical experiences a couple of years ago when I was tripping that felt like paradigm shifts but it's clear from my behaviour that I'm still operating from the materialist paradigm. I still treat people as fundamentally separate and external to me even though when I had direct experiences that I was everything and it was all my own mind. I've since read a lot of Ken Wilber's stuff and specifically the "Wilber-Combs lattice" which made the distinction between the awakening and the interpretation of it but, still, it's mad that I experienced effectively supernatural shit and then still ended up living how I was before after a few months. I guess that's the pull of homeostasis. 

[DocWatts]

9 hours ago, melontonin said:

@DocWatts  Thanks again for your response, I appreciate you taking the time to help me out. I've been reading a summary of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions online and I can literally feel how powerful what it's saying but haven't fully realised it if you understand me. It's points like these especially:

• Something like a paradigm is a prerequisite to perception itself (recall G. H. Mead's concept of a predisposition, or the dictum it takes a meaning to catch a meaning).
• What people see depends both on what they look at and on what their previous visual-conceptual experience has taught them to see.
• This difference in view resembles a gestalt shift, a perceptual transformation—"what were ducks in the scientist's world before the revolution are rabbits afterward."

It's making me want to instigate one of these "gestalt shifts". It's interesting because I had a few mystical experiences a couple of years ago when I was tripping that felt like paradigm shifts but it's clear from my behaviour that I'm still operating from the materialist paradigm. I still treat people as fundamentally separate and external to me even though when I had direct experiences that I was everything and it was all my own mind. I've since read a lot of Ken Wilber's stuff and specifically the "Wilber-Combs lattice" which made the distinction between the awakening and the interpretation of it but, still, it's mad that I experienced effectively supernatural shit and then still ended up living how I was before after a few months. I guess that's the pull of homeostasis. 

You might also appreciate John Vervaeke's Awakening From the Meaning Crisis series on YouTube, he talks quite extensively about mystical experiences from a philosophical and scientific perspective (without taking a reductionist approach to these experiences).

Best explanatory content I've seen for this sort of thing, as he strikes a nice balance between taking an analytic explanatory approach while not trying to reduce these experiences in a way that robs them of their meaning.