• Working Women Paradox
    Reread my post before my last on this thread. You only seem to understand the part you'd quoted. Sure? No, just more reasonable than your line of thought. — 180 Proof

    Will do!
    Nobody wants to labor. Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent, that is, no matter the work they (need to) do (vide Hannah Arendt re: labor, work & action). Women same as men. The "paradox" results from your medieval – patriarchal – assumptions, Fool. — 180 Proof

    1. "Nobody wants to labor" :ok:

    2. "Everybody, however, needs to be financially independent" :ok:

    The catch is if 2 is true,

    3. Everybody has to labor

    Then 1 & 3 form the contradictory pair. Hence the paradox.

    I still don't get why my assumptions are medieval/patriarchal? They reflect modern views people have of work. Plus, who says some things wouldn't stay the same.

    there is significant emotional value for having a sense of purpose and duty. — Hanover

    These are not to be found in work. That's why we don't want to work - it's just something we do to not starve to death, not end up under a bridge somewhere, not have nothing but rags to wear, you get the idea.

    That said, there are a fortunate few who, as they say, have found their calling - they love their work, even then they have to work for the same reasons cited above, the love they have for their work simply being a bonus point.

    By the way, I really like your writing style. :up:
  • Working Women Paradox
    Anyone who does work will tell you that they would choose NOT to work - IF they could still achieve the results that their work enables them to achieve. — Possibility

    Exactly! So, best-case scenario:

    1. Men have to work (for survival)Men don't want to work and men don't have to work (alignment of want with circumstances :up: )

    2. Women have to work (for survival + equality) Too women don't want to work and women don't have to work (alignment of want with circumstances :up: )

    Quite unlike how it was and is:

    1. Men don't want to work but men have to work for survival (misalignment of want and circumstances :down: )

    2. Women don't want to work but women have to work for survival + for equality (misalignment of want and circumstances :down: :down: because not only do women have to do what men don't want to do, they have to consider it an improvement/progress)

    Have you ever had to prove your worth? — Possibility

    Irrelevant.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    del
  • Working Women Paradox
    Nobody wants work! Ask anybody you know. Also, children literally hate school, their abhorrence of homework being stuff of legend.

    I guess ergophobia starts young!
  • Working Women Paradox
    No paradox, just an outdated premise. — 180 Proof

    How can you be so sure?

    1. Neither men nor women want to work (obvious).

    2. Men have to work (for survival).

    3. Women have to work (for surivival + for equality).

    As you can see, women would be equal to men iff they too can say,

    4. Women have to work (only for survival)

    The point I'm trying to get across is that 4 doesn't seem to be the best of goals a woman's pretty head could think of.

    To achieve status at par with men, women have to work. Once equalized with men, women still have to work. The catch is men don't want to work. That means women's idea of equality with men is to do what men don't want to do. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

    Just imagine yourself and me. You, let's say, are doing philosophy not because you want to but because you have to (basically you don't like philosophy). Suppose now that I look up to you as a role model. I too don't like philosophy but since I want to be your equal I take a university course in philosophy, get a doctorate in the subject. Now I am your equal (we're both philosophers) but the catch is we're both unhappy - we're doing something we don't want to do! We're equal, yes, but happy, no! Equality for women in re work comes at a very heavy price - they pay for it with happiness. Double jeopardy!

    BTW: I know you love Sophia! :grin:
  • Working Women Paradox
    I think they want to be paid equally for the work performed and be provided the same opportunities for advancement and leadership as men.

    Do you mean to argue that women ought be grateful for living in a society where they can be cared for without the need to get their hands dirty and they're foolish to challenge the benefits they have? It's not clear what direction you wish your argument to lead.     — Hanover

    Yes, you're right about all that you said. We're on the same page on that score.

    What bothers me is no one really wants to work. If given the opportunity, we'd all like to laze around in a lounge like this thread which has been moved to the Lounge section of the forum. By "no one" I refer to both men and women. Most people, it seems, are forced to work - if they don't they'll end up on the streets.

    The feminist spirit demands equality with men. I'm all for it but the irony is that achieving it involves, inter alia, women having to do what nobody wants to do (work). This is both absurd and tragic because both men and women have to do something (work) that neither of them want to, men to maintain their superiority and women to put an end to that superiority.

    Both sexes have to do (work) what both don't want to do but for exactly the opposite reasons (for superiority & against superiority)

    You know TMF, not everything that seems goofy or hard to explain is a paradox. — T Clark

    Thanks for letting me know. As you might've already noticed, I like things "goofy or hard to explain" and I've gotten into the habit of labeling them paradoxes. That isn't entirely accurate but also not entirely inaccurate. I'm relying on the latter to justify my use of the word "paradox" See my reply to Hanover above.

    You’re gonna need to clarify that one. You’re not making any sense at all. — Possibility

    Check out my reply to Hanover above.

    Given the realities of/for women in the workplace, I'd tread lightly with any remarks you might be tempted to make unless you are yourself a woman in the workplace. — tim wood

    Sound advice. Thanks!

    Woman should just refuse to reproduce and go on a sex strike to close the pay gap. — Nils Loc

    Somehow that doesn't seem like a bad idea! :up: :clap:

    The "paradox" results from your medieval – patriarchal – assumptions, Fool. — 180 Proof

    :chin: My description of men & women in re work is up-to-date. It's an accurate account of the world as it was and is. The future though is unpredictable. Maybe someone will talk some sense into us, men and women, before this paradox ruins us all. Also, if you like, see my reply to Hanover above.
  • What is Philosophy
    Because it’s not about size - it’s about what you do with it... — Possibility

    I was thinking if a bird (the New Caledonian Crow) can manage such feats of intelligence, why not a blue whale? The size difference between a crow brain and a whale brain is so great that size should matter. Remember humans fall between the two and there's a noticeable upward trend in intelligence. Are you saying the pattern breaks down abruptly?

    Don't forget we're assuming blue whales aren't as if not more intelligent as/than humans. No evidence of that as far as I know. Who knows? Blue whales might've already found the solution to the hard problem of consciousness.
  • Slaves & Robots
    If they are not sentient, then they are not slaves, or even pets, just tools. Careful not to anthropomorphize. — 180 Proof

    Sentience seems to be key in re your position but if I may say so, I maybe completely wrong of course, the problem with slavery wasn't a deficiency/absence of sentience in slaves but actually in their masters.
  • Slaves & Robots
    ↪T Clark
    :up: Slave revolt -> Robot revolt :chin:
  • Slaves & Robots
    Of course, so long as 'autonomous, smart tools' are not sentient — 180 Proof

    I was just wondering if we might see a little bit of our painful history as slaves in the way we treat (mistreat?) robots and if that might make us at the very least think twice about using robots. We are, after all, going to do to them the exact same thing we did to each other back in the heydays of slavery. :grimace: No?
  • What role does IQ play in society?
    Me (to my boss): I can't do the task you assigned me. It's beyond my ken. I need help, experts would be great, if possible that is.

    My boss (to me): God has given us all, every one of us 100 billion neurons each. I don't see why you need help.

    Me (mumbling): WTF?

    :chin:
  • Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)
    We should give bonus abilities to people with high votes — frank

    Yeeeees!

    like you can ban anybody you want for a week. — frank

    Noooooo!

    You were off to a good start... :smile:
  • Logical Absurdities?
    ↪Corvus
    Please do what you wish. No promises though.
  • Is Racism a Natural Response?
    Yeah, by all reliable accounts, racism is a historical aberration (mostly) of the northern hemisphere – per development of capitalism – post-1492 AD exported to and established around the global and is still ongoing ... like anthropogenic climate change. — 180 Proof

    Could you elaborate a little more please. How exactly did money (capitalism) lead to racism?
  • Logical Absurdities?
    No I haven't. I have no much knowledge on the medieval time religious topics. I must go back to Russell's History of Philosophy and do some more readings on the chapter to be able to follow the thread, I think. — Corvus

    :ok: Forget I even mentioned it. It was irrelevant to the discussion.
  • Bannings
    When in Rome, we Greeks do as the Romans do: "Hail Caesar!" — 180 Proof

    Touché! Touché! :clap:
  • Bannings
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — Juvenal (poet/satirist)
    :chin:
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    I'll get back to you if I have anything interesting to say, Jack. Until then, adieu!
  • Logical Absurdities?
    Thanks for the info. — Corvus

    My pleasure. Did you read this :point: New Caledonian Crow?
  • Is Society Collapsing?
    Is society collapsing? — Lil

    Loneliness statistics

    You can be part of 7 billion people crawling over the face of the earth but you will always be one in 7 billion.

    A back of the envelope calculation shows every fourth person you meet will be lonely. Society...collapsing. You decide. I can't seem to find a analogy that could've given us an idea of what "...every fourth person you meet will be lonely." Sorry about that.
  • Logical Absurdities?
    ↪Corvus
    Sorry for butting in like this but have you noticed, Agrippa's trilemma is part of every philosophical debate? One particular problem Agrippa identified 2,000 years ago keeps popping up like the sun everyday in the eastern skies viz. axiomatization - the battle between opposing camps is centered around the key premises which on occasion spills over into matters of consistency/inconsitency. That's my take though - nothing official about it!
  • Climate change denial
    I just read a headline about "Moon Wobble", to occur in 2030. This will be the new punching bag for the deniers: "Ocean levels aren't rising due to hoax global warming; it's the result of perfectly natural "moon wobble. Calm down! I can continue to pump poison into the air. It's all good, you Chicken Littles." — James Riley

    I saw that too. Order is a phase in Chaos. Next up, the sun will now show us what it can really do! WTF?
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    I certainly know which friends I can share different aspects of myself more than others. — Jack Cummins

    Seems like you have it good Jack. I would've put in a word for you in the Oscar Awards Committee but, luckily or not, I don't have that much clout. Keep it up. You're doing what I expect you and everyone else to do. Tell them what they want to hear, not what they need to hear! This formula has been around since time immemorial (hyperbole alert!), withstood the test of time - I'm sure it works like a charm!

    The self, and its exploration may be in itself a dangerous territory — Jack Cummins

    I concur! I have my ups and downs! It's part of the job description of an explorer. A vine that one grips for support turns out to be a venom-spitting viper. All this assuming of course that I am exploring which I highly doubt. Barely scratching the surface I would say but good enough for government work insofar as I'm concerned.

    In summary, stick to the script, stop sacrificing something doable - good acting for something only the rarest of rare can pull off - perfect acting. I think I went off-script here. Do pardon if you forgot your lines because I got a little adventurous/distracted, I can never tell the difference. :lol:

    Jack! Lights, camera, and ACTION!

    Cut, cut, cut. Where the hell is Jack?

    Retakes, anyone?
  • Taking from the infinite.
    I think it'll help if we make a distinction if we're to make any headway on this issue.

    First let's begin with finite sets:

    A = {w, o, r, k}

    A has 4 elements

    Take away the element w: A - {w} = B

    and

    I'm left with {o, r, k}

    Element w was taken away. Effects:

    1. The set B doesn't have the element w

    2. The cardinality of B (3) is less than the cardinality of A (4)

    The missing element in B produces a corresponding decrease in the cardinality of B (from 4 elements in A to 3 elements in B).

    Let's now look at infinite sets:

    N = {1, 2, 3,...}

    Take away 1 as in, N - {1} = M = {2, 3, 4,...}

    Effects:

    3. M is missing the element 1

    4. The cardinality of N = The cardinality of M = Infinity

    The missing element in M (which is 1) fails to produce an effect on the cardinality of M.

    See the difference?
  • Do you dislike it when people purposely step on bugs?
    From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

    If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans.     — Kasperanza

    There's always a "but" isn't there? There's always a no-go area -> harming humans is where we draw the line. It's, I suspect, too close for comfort. Reminds me of this thread :point: Nietzsche's Antichrist.

    Evolution's conflict-harmony paradox: each living organism is competing against other members of its species and the species as a whole is too doing the same with other species; however, if allowed to do so, this constant conflict gives rise to an overall harmony of the whole.

    We only kill each other so that we may live in peace!

    We're friends who must be foes! We're foes that must be friends!

    Shake hands! Now fight! Sportmanship is at a premium (if possible only).

  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    @Jack Cummins

    :point: Opinion
  • What is Philosophy
    People delight in using that example to say See! Animals can reason! What makes you think humans are special!?

    Try explaining the concept of prime to a crow.     — Wayfarer

    To play the devil's advocate, my response would be that in corvids (crows) the basic cognitive component (logic) seems advanced enough to compare to our ancestors H. habilis (the first tools). Let a coupla million years go by and we could see corvids doing advanced math, philosophy, all the intellectual activities we engage in. Having said that, a coupla million years is a collossal, mind-boggling, amount of time - there's many a slip between the cup and the lip.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    persona rather than the self — Jack Cummins

    If I'm reading you correctly, you can't hide all the time Jack. You may filter out some aspects of yourself you wanna keep under wraps but sooner or later it breaks through the containment zone and escapes with usually unsavory results.

    That said, I doubt whether the side to us that we try to keep a secret is unique in any way at all - for better or worse, the thoughts, feelings we wish to conceal themselves are generic, everyone has them and ergo, if one insists it's got something to do with nature, it can only be human nature and not Jack's or TheMadFool's or any other individual's.

    social actors — Jack Cummins

    I think this concept squares with what I said above. I like to see it as pretend-play but I don't view it as deception with intent to harm/injure/kill. In fact most of the time, social acting is done to keep things civil, cordial, and productive. The real world, as I said in another thread, is messy - errors will occur, people will get hurt, some even come to a sticky end. That's life!

    self is about the facts — Jack Cummins

    That has a familiar ring to it. The self, at the level of mind, can only acquire it's unique identity if it itself is a one-of-a-kind approach to/take on reality - the lens with which to view reality a unique self offers is distinct from all others. So, the self isn't about (objective) facts as such but is actually about a (subjective) point of view.
  • Do you dislike it when people purposely step on bugs?
    They [bugs] get stuck confused by the windows. — Wetsocks68

    Thanks for the info! I'll need that someday, I'm positive. The visible obstacle is a cakewalk compared to the invisible one, you feel you're free but truth is you're in a transparent cage. :fear: :grimace:



    I wonder if I'm in one as I sit here writing this. I guess the only way to find out is with a severe concussion and a bloody nose. The usual way, the hard way.
  • Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)
    Different strokes for different folks. Waiter, I'll have the usual.
  • What is Philosophy
    The traditional distinction in philosophy is between reason and sensation - both central to knowledge, but separate faculties. Many animals have far superior sensory abilities to humans, but none of them can speak, or reason, as far as we can tell (leaving aside Caledonian crows and Paul the Octopus[/u,]). — Wayfarer

    You're well-read and also well-informed. How do you find the time? Frankly, my mind is blown.

    Paul The Octopus made headlines for accurate predictions in the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

    New Caledonian Crow

    This species is known for using plant material to create stick and leaf tools to capture prey hiding in cracks and crevices. — Wikipedia

    The New Caledonian crow is the only non-primate species for which there is evidence of cumulative cultural evolution in tool manufacture. That is, this species appear to have invented new tools by modifying existing ones, then passing these innovations to other individuals in the cultural group. — Wikipedia

    No language? How'd they do that?!

    Meta-tool use is using one tool on another tool to achieve the objective of the task. It is generally considered to be a behaviour requiring more complex cognitive ability than the use of just a single tool. Studies show that New Caledonian crows are capable of meta-tool use, at a level rivalling the best performances seen in primates. — Wikipedia

    Bird-brained? Go to New Caledonia!

    However, it isn't all good news:

    New Caledonian crows have shown they are able to process information from mirrors, a cognitive ability possessed by only a small number of species. By using a mirror, wild-caught New Caledonian crows are able to find objects they cannot see with a direct line of sight. However, the crows were unable to recognise themselves in the mirror - other corvids have tested positive for this capability. — Wikipedia

    There seems to be cognitive gap between ability to use/manufacture tools (engineers) and self-awareness (philosophers). Makes sense in a vague way - roughly speaking, engineering is about what's outside and philosophizing is about what's inside.

    The question is, why aren't blue whales with their humongous brains more intelligent than humans?
  • Is Racism a Natural Response?
    ↪Lil
    What I say may not make sense but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it any way if only as a test drive of my theory.

    When a positron (+) meets its opposite an electron (-), what ensues is annihilation of both - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). When one race encounters another, the instinct is, for safety purposes I suppose, to interpret differences as opposites and alarm bells instantly go off - each race will perceive the other as an existential threat. That explains mutual distrust/animosity between races. Racism takes it one step further - one race begins to believe itself to be superior to other races. So far I've been unable to figure out how hostility takes us to supremacy. My best guess is the former boils down to some kind of battle - of raw strength and/or wits - which means there'll (usually) be a clear winner and a loser. A sense of being better (brains/brawn department), synonymous with superiority/supremacy is born out of this. I ain't sure though. Just a wild theory.

    Racism seems natural. Certitude, questionable. A pinch of sodium chloride recommended.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    ↪skyblack
    :ok: G'day
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Your thoughts about Socrates may not be accurate. Upon closer look you may find Socrate's call is to examine, unlike the antenna that thinks it knows. The former centers on a healthy inquiry,
    and the the latter in a delusion of knowing.

    Regarding your own examination of yourself: Then one has to examine what right examination means. Not give up on account of faulty reasoning or an aversion to accountability. .     — skyblack

    Copy that!

    The Socratic call for self-examination serves a two-fold purpose then:


    1. Make us aware of the problem - people are dumping stuff on us

    2. Rationality is recommended to separate the wheat from the chaff

    Becoming aware of a problem is the very first step towards a solution. Now that you've unplugged me too from The Matrix as it were, I at the very least have a choice on what kinda "garbage" I want to accept or reject. Come to think of it, actual garbage cans and dumpsites are very selective when it comes what we can put into them: Dry, Wet, Biohazard, Chemical, Plastic, Metal, Paper, Nuclear, so on. Interesting!
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    ↪skyblack
    This is news to me. Not good news, bad news. Oh well, nobody said life was easy.

    The antenna that thinks it can capture and separate the signal from the noise is deluding itself — skyblack

    I have similar thoughts about what Socrates said,

    The unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

    I would love to examine myself but that would be futile because any bias I have will find its way into my self-report, effectively making the endeavor pointless. It would be like checking the accuracy of my watch with my watch - circulus in probando. To judge my judgment I have to believe in my judgment but that's precisely what I'm judging. By the way, what about rationality? Doesn't rationality improve the situation because even if it doesn't get to the truth, it seems capable of identifying bad ideas. That's an improvement, no?

    As you will have already noticed, I didn't get to the point when one realizes that all my thoughts are actually not "original" (more on this below), just copies of preexisting memes that were/are circulating in the global community. Thus, it can be said, my unique self is but a collection of snippets of other people, unique yes but something to be proud about, no!

    Just out of curiosity, how does your theory deal with originality - something that can be called one's own? If I have an oirignal idea, something no one's ever thought before, is it also garbage? Can't be because it wasn't "dumped" on me. Being one of a kind in this manner does seem to weaken your position because you could be a pioneer/pathfinder/trailblazer/founder and establish your unique self without rummaging through the trash other people have dumped on you. My hunch is that's why there's literally a mad scramble to be first in all manner of human activities. It gives the generic self good reason(s) to claim a unique self that's not simply a relation to an other. I'm not certain about this though, at least not as much as I'd like to be.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    It's isn't that difficult. please take a minute to read this and coiuple of realted posts on the same thread. — skyblack

    Ah! So you think people are dumping ideas, like we dump garbage, on each other? I'm only half-convinced because the analogy seems to break down once you consider the fact that ideas & relations come in two flavors - good and bad. I can understand bad ideas & relations as items you can stick a post-it notes which read "trash can", to be disposed of at the earliest but, what about good ideas & relations? Shouldn't good ideas & relations be appreciated from the heart and kept as far away from the grabage can as possible?

    That said, I do see where you're coming from. The signal to noise ratio is so damned low that coming across a good idea or relation is going to be a once in a blue moon event. Good point!
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    The mother's sobs are real, but they aren't the sobs of the "generic self". They are the sobs of the "unique self". — skyblack

    Nothing seems amiss.

    Your agreement or disagreement doesn't mean much to me ,so feel free. But my emphasis was on the "garbage bin", not on the "social construct". — skyblack

    Can you elaborate a bit? I didn't quite get you.
  • Is their any evidence to suggest science ideas for technology is endless?
    I'm gonna speculate since the issue is about the future and all we can do is that.

    Historians have the habit of dividing up the timeline of human civilization into so-called ages: the classical age, the industrial age, the space age ,the computer age, so on and so forth. Rightly so, most people who study humanity's progress - past, present, and future - seem to be in two minds about the current, ongoing era. Is it the computer age or is it the information age? Perhaps they are synonymous and it's I that failed to notice this simple fact.

    The information age boils down to reducing everything to information and as of now that simply means translating stuff (objects/phenomena) into bits (binary digits), bits being the stock-in-trade of modern computers.

    Information can be transmitted at lightspeed thereby allowing us, humans, if information is all there is and all that matters, to overcome physical limitations like gravity, lightspeed barrier, and a whole host of other constraints.

    Prof. Michio Kaku (scientist & science educator) writes in his book about how consciousness could be encoded on a laser (light) and "launched" into outer space. This gives us just a taste of what could be possible if the information age is true to its claims - everything is information.

    As an aside, I started a thread long ago about photochemistry. A highly advanced civilization could have mastered photochemistry to such a level that they could, in principle, design EM radiations that could initiate life-generating chemical reactions on planets in the so-called Goldilocks zone. I'm not a scientist so I have no idea which part of the EM spectrum would be best suited to such a task, nor do I have the slightest clue what the life-giving code would look like. :point: Alien Origins Of Life - Photochemistry

    Makes me wonder if the photochemical code (IF life on earth began in such a fashion, big IF) included consciousness, thoughts about God (our alien creators?), etc. Michio Kaku's ideas don't seem so outlandish/weird/far out anymore.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    The unique self (whatever that is) won't know "sadness". It never has and it never will. It's not possible for it to feel sad. And it's not possible for it to feel lonely. It has never recognized any "other". It's full, complete. and in prefect order unto itself. All these "feelings are of the unique self (as you call it). And this unique self isn't really that unique. Think of it as a social construct, a garbage bin of society. — skyblack

    Are you saying a mother's sobs when she gets that dreaded phone call letting her know the only son she has was KIA isn't real? You're kidding right?

    As for the self being a "...social construct..." I agree insofar as relations are included in it, the best-case scenario being "...social constructs..." boil down to relations.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    Good question Jack Cummins, truth-seeker.

    I have a very simple theory (@Banno won't be happy) about the self. It appears that the self is, inter alia, a relation.

    I mulled over who TheMadFool is. Well, I've been given a name, TheMadFool. I'm aslo a child of..., then I'm a parent of..., I'm also a spouse of..., I'm an employee of..., so and so forth. Then I imagined myself getting fired, no longer an employee of... i.e. a part of my self is erased. If god forbid my parents, my spouse, my children, my friends, cross over, I lose parts of my self along with them. Every relation that I build defines my self and ergo, every relation that ends for one reason on another subtracts from my self.

    However, one might claim that for a relation to exist, there must at a minimum be two objects. Barring reflexivity, yes that's correct. If so, implicit in relations is the preexistence of a self independent of the relation itself. For instance, for the relation 2 > 1, the numbers 1 and 2 must already exist i.e. the self comes before any relations whatsoever.

    Yes, correct! Nevertheless, unlike 2 and 1 in the example above, there's no difference between selves conceived thus i.e. there seems to be a generic self. As oxymoronic as that sounds it is the truth. The relations define the self - it gives the generic self its unique identity. TheMadFool is TheMadFool only based on the unique set of relations fae possesses. That's why when relations are broken - a friend, family, colleague dies, you lose your job, etc. - we get the blues, we might even experience severe melancholia, we lose a part of our self.

    The generic self needs some more explaining. Imagine your friend and you go laptop shopping together. You go to this store and both of you like the same laptop make. You buy one and fae to purchases one. Before you leave the store, you joke about exchanging laptops - both of you won't mind because the laptops are identical, there really is no reason why you shouldn't switch the laptops, fae takes yours and you take faer.

    You go home and your friend goes to his. You install Windows, photoshop, and facebook on your laptop (relations). Your friend installs Linux, instagram, and geogebra (relations). Now, both laptops are no longer the same, their generic self has been replaced by a unique self.

    I finally realized that I had been conflating the generic self with the unique self. The former isn't you because your generic self is identical to mine and everyone else's. The latter is you (your true self) and you and I aren't same, everyone is unique in their own way.

    It's a paradox really. The self, the unique self, is meaningful only as relations with the not-self. I think the sadness that accompanies loneliness, the absence of relations, indicates the unfulfilled desire of the generic self to transform into a unique self. Loneliness, on this view, is akin to death (the dissolution of all relations).

    My two bitcoins.
Home » TheMadFool