• Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    ↪Wheatley
    Doesn’t interest me. Sorry
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    @Shawn

    My question would now be how do we say something is a fact and does fact mean? There are numerous issues with colloquial language. For example we can say ‘the door is half open’ which would frame ‘open’ and ‘closed’ as Gradable antonyms even though they are generally considered as Complimentary.

    In terms of ‘existing’ if an item can be imagined then it’s semblance can come into being. I can design/imagine a building, or a creature, and it can then potentially be constructed.

    The best example of how we shift our perspectives is the age old Theseus’s Ship. These are tricks of language - or rather habits of language - that tend to confuse experiential input.
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    ↪Wheatley
    That would be anthropomorphism of words. The term ‘cold’ has no personal requirements.

    The three types of antonyms: https://medium.com/@hdi.prateek/what-are-the-different-types-of-antonyms-in-english-language-3a19db18504a
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    Anthropomorphism is basically a psychological point. You used the term in a context I’ve never seen before.

    Have you looked into the linguistic uses of the various antonyms at all? I wasn’t describing anything as a ‘relational pair,’ but some could argue that in part all ‘items’ must be relational pairs to some degree maybe?

    Just in case you’ve not looked at this before examples of different antonyms would be ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ which are ‘gradable’ whereas another ‘set’ of antonyms would be those that require the opposite, ie. a ‘husband’ must have a ‘wife,’ and another being ‘open’ and ‘closed’ where the absence of one is required for the other (that is more or less where the ‘hole’ comes into play).

    Is any of this getting at what your interest is? Anything relevant?

    I’m still unsure what you’re saying, looking at. I’ll sleep on it.

    Thanks
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    Wikipedia seems like just an extension of one's self for some nowadays, as does Google. — Shawn

    In an empty way it probably appears that way to some. Kind of reminds me about how I show students they don’t really know how to read. They just ‘read words’ and think ‘now I know that,’ but usually they can barely explain/repeat anything they’ve just read.

    The leap from oral tradition, to writing, to audio/video has surely left an imprint on pedagogical approaches that are almost impossible to reverse. ‘Remembering stuff’ as opposed to ‘understanding stuff’ seems to be how modern education has gone (‘modern’ meaning over the past few centuries).
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    As an example, if someone wishes to call a ‘hole’ parasitic I can get onboard with that. The issue remains the dividing line between ‘parasitic’ and ‘non-parasitic’.

    I’ve had a long obsession with the various types of antonyms and how people disagree about what is or isn’t a ‘relational pair’ or what is or isn’t a ‘gradable antonym’. What seems to be underlying the discussion is exactly this problem right?
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    What I mean by anthropomorphic understanding is to an extent the realm of intersubjective or subjective thought. — Shawn

    As in ‘interactions’ where humans imbue ‘objects’/‘items’ with characteristics - or rather as extensions of themselves in some way?

    Also, the ‘at best confined to discussions’ comes after the lived experience without any ‘discussion’. For that reason ‘discussions’ about things doesn’t seem to take president over experiencing them. Maybe you’re mean something different and/or only want to jump to how we talk about such things more than dig too far back into the visceral experience?
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    ↪Hello Human
    I believe we’re trying to understand what each other is saying. Once that is resolved, to a good enough degree, I believe we’ll then maybe help each other.
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    Now, with the thought that as humans we are at best confined to epistemological discussions about holes, or Pegasus, or, Santa, I think that at best we ought to start with an investigation into knowledge about entities and their relations with other things, to reach a shared conclusions about their nature or even existence, and if one continues this process as an investigation, one might be able to even entertain some facts about these entities like "holes" or "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus"? — Shawn

    Also, where’s the justification for this approach? I’m suggesting one is required but I’d like to know if you have a reason and whether or not you can parse it.

    Thanks
  • Hesperus, Phosphorus, Santa, Pegasus, and holes
    My point with bringing this up is namely, that anthropomorphic understanding, made through epistemic truths about them are most accurate in understanding (not necessarily scientifically on face value). — Shawn

    You’ll have to explain this too (bold), and how it relates to the topic.

    This might continue, but it’s necessary for me. I’ll add what I can too in order to clarify what is under scrutiny.
  • The fact-hood of certain entities like "Santa" and "Pegasus"?
    So, with that in mind, what's wrong with asking if some ontological entity obtains as a fact, in resolving how it obtains as one of factual or some intersubjective sort? — Shawn

    Care to rephrase? This subject matter interests me but haven’t really seen the point of this thread yet.
    Note: I would class ALL objective knowledge as ‘strong intersubjectivity’ because I’m only going to accept certainty as an item existing in set boundaries with established rules.
  • Do we really fear death?
    The end of ends. Fear of finality is probably a worthy fear … if you believe in finality.
  • POLL: Is morality - objective, subjective or relative?
    ↪Down The Rabbit Hole
    I think it would probably help to assess biology and related terms like ‘law’ and ‘ethics’.

    The underlying principle is our biological make up. For that reason it seems an error to assume subjective begets subjective and objective begets objective. Your question is more epistemic than ethic as it deals with abstract ideals in the form of ‘objectivity’ & ‘subjectivity’.
  • Survey of philosophers
    My skull is my Vat. The ‘computer’ is a rather primitive organic sensory system with limited capacity.
  • What is Philosophy?
    ↪Tiberiusmoon
    And when it came to letters, Theuth said, “this invention, oh king, will make the Egyptians wiser and improve their memory. For I have discovered a stimulant (pharmakon) of both memory and wisdom.” But Thamus replied, “oh most crafty Theuth, one man has the lot of being able to give birth to technologies (ta tekhnēs), but another to assess both the harm and benefit to those who would make use of them. Even you, at present, being the father of letters, through good intentions spoke the opposite of its potential. For this, by the neglect of memory, will produce forgetfulness (lēthēn) in the souls of those who learn it, since through their faith in writing they recollect things externally by means of another’s etchings, and not internally from within themselves. You invented a stimulant not of memory, but of reminder, and you are procuring for its students the reputation (doxan) of wisdom (sophias), not the truth (alētheian) of it. For having heard much, but without learning anything, they will seem to you to be knowledgeable of many things, but for the most part really ignorant, and difficult to associate with, having become wise-seeming (doxosophoi) instead of wise (sophōn).”
  • POLL: Is morality - objective, subjective or relative?
    ↪Down The Rabbit Hole
    It depends on the context and what exactly you mean by ‘morality’.

    Generally speaking I’m inclined to answer ‘Yes’ to all three. A more specific question might help more, or maybe this is exactly the kind of response you wanted?
  • How do you think we should approach living with mentally lazy/weak people?
    ↪Tiberiusmoon
    How would you know if you’re too lazy to read/weak to put in the effort and read books? How would those who only read and interpret written works know if they’re too lazy/weak to think first before studying?

    At least scholars of philosophy offer up better mediums through which true thinkers can access and assess what groundwork others have laid down over millennia.

    Note: Personally I think getting deep into philosophical study is likely to form early bias for youthful students (ie. practically anyone under 30) because most people that young are hardly likely to know anything much due to lack of experience. The boon of youth is naivety. Raw curiosity and intrigue are better earlier on than filling your head with the thoughts of others and calling them your own.
  • Changing Sex
    CRISPR - Wait a few decades and it will be perfectly possible to switch back and forth easily enough AND produce eggs/sperm.

    Either way if woman becomes a man they are still a woman who has become a man. Actions cannot erase the history/experience.

    @TheMadFool I’m not inclined to agree that there are different ‘kinds of sex’ as you said above. Neither am I inclined to use other derivatives of terms that are generally created to by someone to make a name for themselves in a certain field of interest. They should either create a completely new term or think carefully about how using the same term in a different manner could muddy the waters and accomplish little more than academic confusion and/or create misunderstanding in the public sphere at large.

    That said, there are grey areas and that’s fine. As mentioned above it is more than possible in the not too distant future that people will be able to fully change from one sex to another, and I’m sure some will abscond and turn to surgery instead for various personal reasons.

    Defining oneself by any one particular aspect of out being seems a little obsessive to me. Sadly society forces some to have to react against the ‘norm’.
  • The Twilight Of Reason
    @TheMadFool fairly recently watched Stephen Fry talk to Jordan Peterson about something like this. Fry’s point being that ‘Reason’ can often make one refuse to take the path towards the solution to a problem. What seems like the most irrational approach to a problem will often be ignored even if the results bear fruit.
  • Perception vs. Reason
    @Enrique I was referring to your OP. You don’t seemed to be saying anything concrete.

    What seems apparent to me, if this is a reflection of posters on this forum, is that many posters on this forum are stringing together words that don’t really say anything of philosophical substance.

    Can you reiterate the OP in plain English and/or expand on the terminology used and its context to the heading of ‘Perception vs Reason’ because I’m not convinced you’re using these terms - and others - in any context I’m familiar with.

    Thank you
  • Perception vs. Reason
    Gobbledegook

    Can you rephrase?
  • Debate Discussion: The Logic of Atheism
    A actual link might help?
  • Are we “free” in a society?
    Freedom requires Responsibility.

    Many people want Freedom without the Responsibility it bring. They are immature/naive/inexperienced. Coming to terms with this is a vital step in developing as a human being.
  • The Box - a short ‘essay’/ramble (bombastic style)
    To add, the ‘word’ is like this. ‘Reality’ is the ultimate box I guess. What it means/is to individuals collectively is to search or to resist searching.
  • The Box - a short ‘essay’/ramble (bombastic style)
    @Jack Cummins My overarching approach here was to view the ‘box’ as an horizon into the unknown and that we get distracted by what is ‘beyond’ when the most intriguing thing is actually the conduit of our intention - we should be fascinated by the box rather than the contents because it reveals mysteries, mysteries that quickly become mundate.
  • Essay Number One: ‘Perceptions of Experience and Experiences of Perception’
    @fishfry The smartypants types know quite a bit about how the brain functions and their knowledge can do anyway false assumptions that our rational mind makes.

    I find language to be an intriguing concept. I wasn’t really trying to focus on stream of consciousness, but I guess it does tie into inhibition of return (IOR) which is a common feature of neuro-cognitive function.
  • Essay Number One: ‘Perceptions of Experience and Experiences of Perception’
    ↪counterpunch
    Not sure what you’re getting at with Heidegger comment or the need for an exclamation mark?

    I think you missed the point there. I was saying the word ‘hammer’ isn’t physical but we treat it as being physical (as you just did above).
  • How do we perceive time?
    ↪Mww
    clearly you don’t ... do some reading.
  • How do we perceive time?
    ↪Mww
    We don’t ‘write’ with pens and we don’t ‘see’ with our eyes. Sensory receptors don’t ‘think’. We ‘see’ with our occipital lobes.
  • How do we perceive time?
    ↪Mark Nyquist
    Well ... not really philosophy then is it? If you’re talking about the cognitive neurosciences you actually have to lap over into psychology.
  • How do we perceive time?
    ↪Mark Nyquist
    Without change time cannot be perceived. Entropy is the base to start from if you’re looking at this in terms of physics.

    In terms of consciousness our perception of time today (for most of us) is quiet different than several thousand years ago. Today we walk around with beeps, rings and buzzes to enforce the idea of ‘home time,’ ‘lunch break’ or ‘Sunday service’. These cultural traditions imposed on us alter our perception of change.

    We ‘perceive time’ today through our traditionally imposed lens (including clocks, timetables and more long running traditions). We have always ‘marked out’ changes in our personal journey as well as out communal journey ... in todays world we’ve carried over certain tokens of this nature and mechanised it.

    Our cosmological perspective (our grasping at infinity) is probably a large reason why we’re obsessed with measuring and partitioning time just as it has more recently become a tradition we impose upon the physical Earth with concepts of ‘borders’ and ‘boundaries’ taking a physical significance where in the past they were more fluid or even metaphorical.

    If you were talking about something else you’ll have to make it clearer. Anyway, food for thought :)
  • How do we perceive time?
    ↪Mww
    That’s a psychological matter that can be applied to language and general cultural traditions.
  • How do we perceive time?
    Time is how we perceive entropy.
  • What is your understanding of 'reality'?
    @Jack Cummins Message me about your general thoughts/approach on this subject. I think it might be worth have a direct discussion on this (as in just between the two of us).
  • The Role of Narration
    Very Jungian.

    I would say it is difficult to listen to ourselves. The biases are often consciously held to based on ‘instances’ rather than a more ‘combined’ use of experiences and knowledge.

    My own goto attitude is to lean hard into inner-liberalism whilst exerting outward conservatism. This way my inner chaos of myriad opinions and stances is always there to say ‘but ...’ without wholeheartedly adhering to a singular outward projection.

    Admittedly, I have been lucky enough to experience a 3-4 way internal discussion with myself (as separate ‘parts’ of my whole). It also helps if you’re inclined to be very open and somewhat dangerously curious.

    I’m pretty sure the core of this discussion could lead fo some interesting thoughts on Derrida and language.
  • What is your understanding of 'reality'?
    @Jack Cummins Event though it isn’t regarded as ‘Phenomenology’ I have been finding great value in reading Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’.
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    ↪Judaka
    The landscape shifts from country to country.

    Whatever it is - the prejudice - if it results in the abuse of others it is abhorrent. I don’t put ‘racism’ on a pedestal of evil above other ‘items’ of prejudice. Others here seem to do so ... I understand why they do though. That’s fine.

    It makes sense to find ‘items’ of prejudice that have nothing to do with an individuals ‘choice’ more horrible than say, your choice in clothing. A poor example as people don’t often kill someone for their fashion choices!

    It is also a VERY confusing matter because the term ‘race’ carries lots of misconceptions and in the current environment is an admixture of tradition and culture clashing - as the actual scientific term is of little to no consequence when it comes to outward appearance and how people group themselves as to ‘belonging’ to this or that ‘race’.

    The most fiery aspect of all is it is, and has been, a primary issue of the most powerful nation on Earth for considerable time. This forces others to get involved even when they are so far removed from the epicentre of hatred the US is caught up in.

    Anyway ... The responses have been a little more measured and calmer that usual so I’ll step away now I think whilst the going is good. The discussion will surface again in some form or another and I was just trying to point out something that I find to be one issue overlooked, not to ‘look away’ just step back and reevaluate what people are saying and how it is being mis/construed.
  • What is your understanding of 'reality'?
    ↪Jack Cummins
    One term ... ‘Phenomenology’. That’s the best and most succinct thing I can offer at the moment.

    If you know this in it’s original philosophical form that is enough to get the gist across. It is more of a question than any pretence to ‘answer’ anything.
  • Emotional Intelligence
    A simple wiki search would’ve highlighted the criticisms:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
  • Emotional Intelligence
    ↪Shawn
    It’s an advertisement.

    You can look into studies if you wish to. Basically there are a few empirical measurements of human traits. There are the Big Five and the g-factor.

    These can are known through a set of standard tests that have been given to many people over many decades from many walks of life. They are not completely accurate though.

    There are other ‘ideas’ thrown around by other psychologists too such as ‘Grit’ ... generally these really boil down to a combination or one or more of the Big Five and sometimes combined with ‘g’.

    My point being, what I mentioned above are the most non-reducible items of psychological research. Maybe some ‘emotional’ attribute exists too that is more distinct from these ... I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence for it though - I’ve looked a little and here and there. Some things look interesting, but most often it is someone trying to make a name for themselves and/or getting tunnel vision.

    With what I was outlining before we’d expect people with good communication skills and experience to have a good degree of Openness and to be Agreeable probably. To use this efficiently I’d factor in the g-factor (as it is the best indicator of health and general longterm ‘success’ - as in good job and promotions.

    To be clear, when I say ‘best indicator’ it is not a particularly good indicator alone. Once other things are factored in it can help get a better idea of someone, but individuals are pretty much individuals. We can discern a fair amount about groups of humans, but individual humans are a completely different and much more complex system to predict.

    I don’t believe buddhists or stoics are somehow in a better position than psychologists to dismiss or back such an idea because I think they’re more concerned with ‘how to live life’ than empirical scientific research.
Home » I like sushi