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. — The fact-hood of certain entities like Santa and Pegasus?
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
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
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. — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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? — I like sushi
Wikipedia seems like just an extension of one's self for some nowadays, as does Google. — Shawn
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 like sushi
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? — I like sushi
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. — I like sushi
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). — I like sushi
Anthropomorphism is basically a psychological point. You used the term in a context I’ve never seen before. — I like sushi
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? — I like sushi
Is any of this getting at what your interest is? Anything relevant? — I like sushi
I think, that the issue is one of anthropomorphic perception or understanding. I mention that Hesperus and Phosphorus are the same entity by investigating into the direct referent of the object in question. This seems to me to be an investigational issue about the source origin of the name for Venus at dawn and twilight. — Shawn
I don’t think it is really ‘anthropomorphic’ to say something like ‘the Sun rises’ as that is merely an expression of what we see rather than imbuing the Sun with human qualities. It is also a ‘fact’ that it rises and not a ‘fact’ (because the Earth merely rotates - depends on context).
One of the most interesting things I like to look at is how we’ve repurposed and measured ‘events’ into something called ‘time’. — I like sushi
To refer back to Pegasus and Husserl … spot the difference in meaning between these two sentences:
- I can imagine a limbless Pegasus.
- I cannot imagine a Pegasus without limbs.
These are on the surface contrary. Technically speaking what I am saying by ‘without limbs’ here is that I cannot ‘unknow’ an animal that has limbs and then except them that way. Pegasus is a flying horse, a horse has legs, and if I saw a horse without legs I would notice it didn’t have legs or assume they were hidden from sight because horses have legs.
Does that make sense? — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.