|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
INDEX:
This question was asked in an online forum and I think it deserves an answer because many today do not realize the essential nature of the differences of "kind" and "degree." Our good friend and consultant to the Center for Applied Philosophy has issued a brief statement regarding this matter and I think he does it well so that virtually anyone can understand the issue. J. Dolhenty
by Max Weismann Perhaps a brief explanation will help you to understand the difference between degrees and kinds. When we use the word "man" not for the male gender or a male member of the human species, but for all members of the species, then we must a take a position that answers these questions: 1. Is man different in kind or only in degree from animals, especially other mammals? 2. If different in kind, not in degree, is that difference superficial and therefore reducible to a difference in degree, or is it radical and irreducible? Two entities differ in degree if both have the same defining traits, but one has more and one has less of the same trait. A superficial difference in kind between two things becomes a difference in degree by further analysis of the difference between them. Then the superficial difference in kind will be only an apparent, not a real difference in kind. Consider, for example, the three states of matter: the solid as opposed to the liquid and the gaseous states, In its solid state, water can be walked on, but not in its liquid state. This would appear to be a difference in kind between the solid state of matter and the liquid state. But when we discover that these two states of matter are reducible to the velocity at which the molecules of water and of ice are in motion, we learn that the difference in kind between water and ice is only a difference in the degree of the velocity of molecular particles. It is only superficially a difference in kind and it is really reducible to a difference in degree. The same applies to the superficial difference in kind between matter in its liquid state and matter in its gaseous states. It appears to be a difference in kind: we can take a cupful of water, but we cannot take a cupful of air. When the difference in kind cannot thus be reduced to a difference in degree, it remains a difference in kind. The intellectual human mind has properties that cannot be reduced to a difference in degree from the minds of other mammals. The difference in kind is radical, not superficial, real, not apparent. To claim that the difference between the human mind and the minds of other mammals is a radical difference in kind is to claim that the human mind has intellectual powers that the animal minds do not have at all. Other mammals minds can be explained in material terms, whereas the human mind's intellectual power cannot be. This is not to deny that we share other mental powers with animals, who, like ourselves, operate in the world of perceptual thought -- the world of things that are perceptually present, the world of sensation, imagination, and memory. In addition, the human operates in the world of conceptual thought, where it deals with objects that are not perceptually present, nor can they ever be. This ability makes it a radical difference in kind. I hope this clarifies for you, the distinction between differences in kind and differences in degree. This should also make clear to you why Darwin was wrong, when he said that man differed from other animals in degree only. Addendum: Briefly, we hold that the intellect consists of the immaterial powers conceptual thought, propositional speech and volition (will). These powers operate in conjunction with the corporeal powers of the central nervous system and brain and consist of sense perception, memory, and imagination. Nonhuman animals also have brains and minds, and the powers sense perception, memory, and imagination. They do not have any intellectual powers whatsoever, in so far as we can discern. It seems that many nonhuman animals (let's stay with mammals) have superior memories and powers of sense perception than we do--and evidence suggests that they have a degree of perceptual thought. And they seem to have some degree of imagination through observations of them dreaming during sleep. And they most definitely have emotions. Max Weismann, along with the late Dr. Mortimer Adler, was co-founder of The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas, based in Chicago, Illinois. He is also a consultant in philosophy and the Great Ideas for The Radical Academy and one of the strongest proponents of Classical Realism on the Internet.
I received some questions regarding educators and intellectual integrity from a person who is writing an article for a professional journal. I thought I would share my responses with you. Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty In doing my research, I noticed an unwillingness on the part of educators to engage in a discussion of intellectual integrity (which surprises me). Why is it a sensitive subject or sore spot? J.D.: I suspect it is because they would have to face the epistemological problem of Truth. Many (if not most) educators, especially at the college or university level, tend to be Subjectivists and think that Truth is relative. You or society or some other entity "creates" truth and it is yours, society's, or someone else's. There is no "objective" truth for these people. Intellectual integrity involves being "truthful" about reality and this is a sensitive subject, especially in today's "politically correct" culture. Why should educators set an example of intellectual integrity in research, lectures and publications? J.D.: The purpose of research is to discover or uncover truth, based on objective evidence as much as possible. The purpose of lectures and publications is to disseminate that truth. Knowledge is what is sought and knowledge entails propositions which are true. There is no such thing as "false" knowledge. We have knowledge and we have opinion. Opinion may be true or false. If opinion is true, then it is knowledge. If an opinion cannot be proven or the evidence is not compelling, then we have mere opinion or belief, but not knowledge. Educators have a moral and intellectual responsibility to seek and promote knowledge, that is, truth. To do the opposite is to set a very bad example for the immature thinkers whom they are mentoring or teaching. Such educators would be acting immorally (or unethically) and anti-intellectually (or irrationally). This does not mean, by the way, that all or most of the questions or problems in the academic disciplines have been solved or resolved. We do not have a handle on all Truth. There is plenty of room for argument and discussion, hypotheses and theories, and so on. But, if a proposition is opinion, either mere opinion or informed opinion, it should not be sold as the Truth, that is, it should not be said to be knowledge in any absolute sense of that term. Also, any one of us can be mistaken about the truth of some proposition or theory. I am talking here about promulgating the thought that truth is impossible, that knowledge is impossible, that one opinion is as good as another. Such thinking is the death of philosophy and empirical science. How can the leadership in higher education promote higher standards of intellectual integrity? J.D.: One way would be to demand high standards of intellectual integrity. I think we as a society have become much too lenient in this matter. We have had scientists who have faked research data, academic historians who have plagiarized, and students who have cheated on tests. I would think that anyone in higher education who deliberately and with aforethought violates what might be termed "intellectual" ethics should be severely punished, at least by having his or her reputation besmirched and drummed out of the academic profession. I see no real difference, for example, between malpractice on the part of a professor who violates the principles of intellectual integrity and a physician who violates the principles of the Hippocratic Oath, except in the latter case the stakes may be somewhat higher (like death to a patient!). So I think leaders in higher education circles need to make the demands of intellectual integrity clear to all and then act swiftly to see they are enforced by censure and repudiation. But, let's be clear here that I am speaking of a "deliberate" act of intellectual fraud, not an honest mistake which can be made by even the most scrupulous researcher, writer, or educator. The first maxim for the physician is "Do do harm." The first maxim for the educator or intellectual is "Seek and promote truth." Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.