But then Romanticism is just as much a socialising technology. We become self-actualising supermen to the degree that we employ a diet of Marvel comics and other romantic imagery to fabricate "a self" for ourselves. — apokrisis
Our broad choices are to behave like machines or behave like spirits. Cartesian dualism wins both ways. — apokrisis
The Barbie doll and the Glock pistol are both coming from the damaging extremes of social self-construction. The philosophical critique only becomes interesting once it gets both the mechanistic scientific view and its "other" of romantic irrationalism firmly in its analytical sights. — apokrisis
But then what does a dream tree represent? — Marchesk
Or we can be pragmatic while we do philosophy, as the American Pragmatists, amongst others, did. — andrewk
I still contend both of our basic "metaphysical" positions are intimately related to our own notions of the virtuous individual. The "true" scientist or philosopher is every bit as heroic as Wolverine. Your demystification of individuality is (in other words) an expression of individuality. We are "selling" ourselves, one might say, asserting implicitly the potential value of our words for others. — t0m
I would maybe contrast quantitative mechanism to "artistic"/metaphorical/interpretative thinking. Both seem essential and always already in operation. — t0m
I expect it can help with the concerns, but first we need to understand the nature of those concerns, and that has not been made clear.I understand that. But how does philosophical pragmatism help with concerns raised by noting that dream or hallucination experiences can be like perceptual ones?
This seems straightforward to me, so I can't see where the concern lies. If the above doesn't alleviate your concern, could you please elaborate on what you are concerned about? — andrewk
Dream experiences of a tree differ from perceptual experiences of a tree in that we subsequently realise that the experience was in a dream, whereas for perceptual ones we do not. — andrewk
Similarly, hallucination experiences can be distinguished from perceptual ones after the event, when the LSD or psychotic state has worn off. — andrewk
That returns us to where we started, which is that the only difference I can see between those two is the non-philosophical difference of the words used to describe them. It is a problem of grammar or vocabulary, rather than philosophy.the possibility that perception involves an idea in the mind that we experience instead of the public tree.
It is a problem of grammar or vocabulary, rather than philosophy. — andrewk
"Seeing mental images" is indeed a "spectre"; we never see any such thing. We see real or imagined trees. — Janus
Is this affection or process direct or indirect? I would say the question could be answered either way depending on how I think about it; there is no inherent contradiction between these two ways of answering . the contradiction only arises if I demand that one of then must be right. must be absolute; whereas both are only interpretive ways of thinking about experience. — Janus
Maybe it represents nothing, just as some words can be generated in the mind that don't refer to anything. Or maybe we could say that it represents the neural firings of the sleeping brain. We could also say that you being aware of the real tree is also being aware of your own neural processes, as the appearance of the tree in the mind provides information about all processes along the causal link, from the tree, to the light, to the eyes and the brain's visual system. Your experience of the tree informs you of the state of all those things, as it is the effect of that entire causal chain. Seeing a tree informs you of the state of the tree, the wavelength of the light, the state of your eyes and visual system, not just the tree. That's why eye doctor's ask you to describe your visual experience to them, because it can inform them of the state of your eyes (you have cataracts, etc.)So, when looking at a tree, are you aware of the tree or your mental representation of it. — Harry Hindu
I'm aware of the tree.
It's like asking, "Are you aware of the word, or what the word refers to?" They are both separate things that are linked together by representation. Because it is a representation, you could say that by being aware of one as a representation, then you are aware of what it represents. — Harry Hindu
But then what does a dream tree represent? — Marchesk
I expressed it as "experiencing seeing mental images", which does happen in dreams, imagination, memory and hallucination. — Marchesk
That might be so, but the long standing concern is ancient skepticism, where we're cut off from knowing about the actual objects that caused the perception. Can interpreting experience in different ways alleviate this concern? — Marchesk
So then the post does exist prior to someone understanding it. To say that it doesn't exist is a bit incoherent. It exists, it just isn't understood.Thanks, that's right, the post does not exist as a 'post' to them, and they tend ignore it, they don't see the meaning in it because they have not learn't the concepts that would enable them to understand it. — Cavacava
To put this another way. Suppose you did not have the concept of a rabbit.
Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg
What would you see? — Cavacava
Interesting. I wasn't aware that this was a significant topic of discussion back then. The closest I can think of is Zhuangzi's musings over his dream of a butterfly, but even that is focused on transformation rather than perception. Then there's Plato's cave, but again that seems to be focused on transformation.Someone back in Ancient Greece, China or India would have pointed it out, and that would be the end of that.
What writings from ancient times are you thinking of, that treat this as a serious issue for consideration? — andrewk
Other than that, I can't think of anything earlier than Descartes and his evil demon. And it was Berkeley that really seemed to set this issue rolling in any widespread way. — andrewk
I wasn't aware that this was a significant topic of discussion back then. — andrewk
Anyway, we definitely interact with trees as if they are really 'out there', as if our eyes are windows upon a public world that we happen to be located in a particular part of. — antinatalautist
I mean it's extremely hard to get in conversation with someone, touch someone, kick a ball back and forwards, etc, and seriously consider that their body, and your entire experience of the interaction, the world around you, and your body are entirely relativized to just your own conscious experience. Other people sort of impose their otherness on you. Consider being in a room alone, and somebody bursts in. Suddenly there's a distinct sense that you (your body) is being seen and you can't rationalize this self-consciousness away in the moment, it just imposes itself upon you. Or when you are on a train, and you accidentally meet someone's gaze, then both of you quickly look away and pretend you didn't just basically stare into each others soul lol. — antinatalautist
The dichotomy of quantity and quality. And then you have that divided by the dichotomy of the subjective and the objective.
Good art is a rationally creative process just like good science. Both aim to tell a "truth" about reality - reality as it can best be experienced.
So I get that you want to make both extremes fully part of your life to make it a life with real felt breadth. You don't need to sell me on that. — apokrisis
That may be right. But is it a paradox for my position or rather its useful feature? — apokrisis
I could sum up my approach as pragmatic. It is the attempt to stand on the middle-ground, having discovered the limiting extremes. — apokrisis
So yes, the scientist can play the virtuous hero. But am I blindly compelled to do that? Or is that a mode that I can switch on, switch off, by virtue of being able to stand back and see the shaping polarity in play? — apokrisis
I understand that I do in fact stand for an extreme of individualism and self-actualisation. Looking back, I can see when this was just a blind drivenness. And now that it is a self-aware thing - informed by the science, the social understanding - the irony is that to speak of this as the actual human condition is as about way off the socially accepted map as it gets.
...
It's funny. The more I accept the truth of my socially-constructed nature, the more "individualistic" a way of living that will be within the general culture in which I live. — apokrisis
It is not that most people don't learn this at the level of everyday commonsense. People generally have a functional relationship with their social locality. Families, friends, careers, small set-backs, small triumphs, are plenty enough to knit a good life from. It is only on philosophy sites that you get such a congregation of the socially displaced, the eternally questioning. The nihilists, the absurdists, the fanatics. — apokrisis
Is this affection or process direct or indirect? I would say the question could be answered either way depending on how I think about it; there is no inherent contradiction between these two ways of answering . the contradiction only arises if I demand that one of then must be right. must be absolute; whereas both are only interpretive ways of thinking about experience. — Janus
It is a problem of grammar or vocabulary, rather than philosophy. — andrewk
At least, I don't think it would have taken all the way to Wittgenstein to notice the problem. If it's that hard to figure out, then something else is going on. — Marchesk
They're just different ways to talk about the same thing. — Michael
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.