I try to be clear and concise, in general, but often come across as inarticulate and condescending. — Olivier5
It is not that reality is linguistic, but that we are; and so it follows that the reality we talk about is linguistic. — Fooloso4
I take us to be basically or mostly in the same world, at least among those with whom we share an everyday culture. — Pie
The notion of rationalization links motivation and cognition directly. Folk psychoanalysis is part of our shared background. — Pie
You’re treating ‘drives’ as such external shapers of thought. But thought is intrinsically self-motivating. It doesn’t need arbitrary mechanisms slapped onto it from outside it , to tell what what to like and what it to like. Pleasure and pain are just other ways of talking about the relative success or failure of our attempts to anticipate events via our constructions of them. Affectively negativeI hesitate to agree. I suggest we look at relative intensities of essentially neutral drives. Sexual desire is a good thing until it's not (as when I flirt inappropriately or am unfaithful). Seeking material comfort and security is a good thing until it's not (as when I don't pay taxes and vote against the greater good or simply steal from others in a crude way). It's not so much what we want but whether we know how to share and respect boundaries. I will grant a few motives which themselves are vilified, such as sexual desires without any legal expression and a desire to wound or kill others...though the last could be useful in a soldier. I guess suicidal motivation is mostly forbidden too. — Pie
... but you talking about reality here, so that this reality you talk about is indeed linguistic ... — Pie
Further, our way of being in the world is not limited to the linguistic, to what we say or think or talk about or conceptualize. — Fooloso4
The dogma of the linguistic keeps some in their slumber. — Fooloso4
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_of_William_Blake_(1880),_Volume_2/Prose_writings/A_Vision_of_the_Last_Judgment
Men are admitted into heaven, not because they have curbed and governed their passions, or have no passions, but because they have cultivated their understandings. The treasures of heaven are not negations of passion, but realities of intellect, from which all the passions emanate, uncurbed in their eternal glory. The fool shall not enter into heaven, let him be ever so holy: holiness is not the price of entrance into heaven. Those who are cast out are all those who, having no passions of their own, because no intellect, have spent their lives in curbing and governing other people's by the various arts of poverty, and cruelty of all kinds.
What I say about reality is tautologically linguistic, but what I talk about and what is are not the same. — Fooloso4
‘Greed’ is a convenient label we slap on others ( and sometimes ourselves) as a way of blaming them for our own failure to understand their behavior more insightfully.
— Joshs
Well I give you points for radicality here. — Pie
Psycho analysis ‘links’ motivation and cognition by treating the former as a mechanism imposing itself on cognition from without. — Joshs
Affectively negative
experience ( anxiety, fear, hostility, joy, guilt) IS the relative incoherence of a situation for us. — Joshs
He attributes most ethical arguments to rely on what he calls the assumption of the bounded self, which holds individuals morally responsible for their actions. — Joshs
How could the morally advanced individual generate a set of personal moral principles, except from the repository of cultural intelligibilities at his/her disposal? — Joshs
Concision is a fascinating issues. Terseness is typically good (so say the style books), but it can also suggests that the listener is not worth more than a quick remark. Do we find it easier to trust the verbose ? Because their primary motive, being understood, is so clear ? They value us, as ears at least, while the aphorist may take us for a mere target, performing for others at our expense perhaps and not for our illuminate.
To what degree is philosophy caught up in the desire to humiliate ? As Nietzsche might put, the dialogue can be a knife fight. — Pie
"Is truth a property of sentences (which are linguistic entities in some language or other), or is truth a property of propositions (nonlinguistic, abstract and timeless entities)? — Pie
. There's a passage in Nietzsche that's similar. So-called 'free will' is perhaps best understood in terms of norms of responsibility. We aren't 'truly' or 'perfectly' free. The strong poet is only ever relatively self-created or novel, relatively path-breaking. Does this not remind you of Heidegger? — Pie
:up:Nietzsche wasn't the last one to draw his blade, and there was something healthy, combative, almost vital in his lack of patience, I think. Life is short. — Olivier5
One can always ask for elaboration after all. — Pie
An important distinction, in my view, is that between reading the dead and chatting with the living. — Pie
I am beyond myself, exposes to an outside , before and beyond extant cultural
formations. This isnt a retreat back to a form of subject-centered solipsism , but a more radical notion of the social than between person dynamics. — Joshs
pplauding the social constructionists, post-structuralists and post-analytic types for exploding the myth of the autonomous subject in favor of the socially embedded and linguistically-saturated actor. — Joshs
Do you mean that while chatting with the living, we ought to care for their feelings, understanding and impressions a great deal more than when chatting with the dead? — Olivier5
Is that the only two options? — creativesoul
Heidegger, for instance, makes the
average everyday ness of idle talk derivative of a more primary self-understanding of Dasein. — Joshs
So, I take it that you agree that "is true" adds nothing meaningful to a sincere belief statement? That truth is presupposed within belief statements? — creativesoul
So, I take it that you agree that "is true" adds nothing meaningful to a sincere belief statement? That truth is presupposed within belief statements?
— creativesoul
That's it, yes. "P is true" is "P"... — Pie
Further, our way of being in the world is not limited to the linguistic, to what we say or think or talk about or conceptualize.
— Fooloso4
Tell me more. — Pie
Are we to constantly celebrate the Priority Of Feeling And Sensation or the Ineffable Priority of Real Life within otherwise dry conversations about epistemological and semantic concepts ? — Pie
Like I said, good common sense, which leads nevertheless to endless confusion. We can assign an X marks the ineffable spot if you like, but that's why I call this view Kantian. — Pie
... what I talk about and what is are not the same. — Fooloso4
Rather, so long as we continue the normal process of creating consensus around what is real and good, classes of the undesirable are under construction. — Joshs
P is true is just fancy talk for P. — Pie
While a certain combativeness or competitiveness may serve the pursuit of better beliefs, I speculate that too much just locks everyone up in their safe space, only able to repeat what they find obvious or not. — Pie
We know that Nietzsche is not trying to insult or trick us. There is no trust or failure of trust involve. — Pie
Dude. Seriously ? Windmills.This should be quite obvious to anyone not seduced by philosophy. — Fooloso4
Again with the ineffable? My view is not Kantian. Let me try again: — Fooloso4
... what I talk about and what is are not the same. — Fooloso4
I said nothing about the priority of feeling and sensation. — Fooloso4
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.