People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff
Justice is an abstraction of the mind. Sure, we can disagree about it; but, the atomic meaning is apparent when we want to communicate it to another. — Posty McPostface
That's a want addimittantly, but, I fail to see how it contrasts from the need to drink water. — Posty McPostface
In the same sense that you have a non-want need to drink water, you have a non-want need to not drink water. Do you agree with that? If not, why do you disagree? — Terrapin Station
Right, but they experience that making of unnecessary trouble as necessary at the time. — macrosoft
People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, "justice" is an abstraction. What more can I say? — Posty McPostface
Well, you said the atomic meaning was apparent, and I was just trying to get you to introspect and see that words out of context don't have much force. Meaning is distributed. As you read this, your mind flows along the sentence and through time putting the words together in a mysterious complex thought. — macrosoft
So are all of those things equally needs in the needs/wants sense? — Terrapin Station
Does that make you a subjectivist too? — Posty McPostface
But what is a subjectivist out of context? See all of these little positions, these 'mini-identities,' are just like atomic words. The big context is the entire personality, which I can only reveal through conversation (such as in this response.) — macrosoft
I need water is distinct from "I want water". — Posty McPostface
In other words, there is no need to (do) x if one does not want/desire y, for which x is necessary. — Terrapin Station
Our basic sense of who we are has a top-down effect on the details, the 'trees.' If my hero is the scientist who gazes at the cold hard truth without bias, then I will reach for methods that make that possible. My whole grasp of what philosophy is will be in terms of gazing at cold hard truth heroically, while all the sissies gaze at their navels. — macrosoft
Haha, I understand. So, the point of your posts is to highlight that we can't have an attitude independent of meaning obtained in an abstract sense? — Posty McPostface
Oh, indeed. One can always suppress needs over wants. That's true. But, I don't see how this contributes to the discussion in any manner or form. — Posty McPostface
That sounds kinda-like what I mean. I am saying that attitude is entangled with method. And I am saying that the functioning ground is global and largely automatic or unconscious. — macrosoft
The topic is usually treated/understood as if they're two very different things, rather than needs being solely a result of wants. — Terrapin Station
"so what" doesn't seem to gel well with "important insight" haha
"That's a very important insight............but so what?" :grin: — Terrapin Station
But, that doesn't mean that method's fail us every time. — Posty McPostface
A private language in principle could not exist. — Posty McPostface
Cool. I thought so myself. I just have a gripe with our lack of agreement on what abstract concepts such as "justice", is. — Posty McPostface
The Schopenhauer in me says that we never really get what we want. It's a constant illusory goal. To want something is to place it in the highest priority of our motivations. Is there any use in chasing after happiness or ecstasy? I don't think so. — Posty McPostface
What's funny is that we 'live' what I call 'meaning holism' even as we debate it. And arguing against its existence requires its living application. We tend to stare at an object language and take the metalanguage that makes that staring possible for granted. The eye is not in its own field of vision. But there are mirrors. — macrosoft
So understanding that needs always hinge on wants, you'd have to conclude that you can never get what you need, because fulfilling a need necessarily fulfills a want.
Since presumably you've been able to fulfill some needs (otherwise you woudln't still be alive to type here), you actually HAVE really gotten plenty of stuff you want. Thus, (the) Schopenhauer (in you) is wrong. — Terrapin Station
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.