Post hoc fiction — schopenhauer1
I think this makes sense only in a neuroscience kind of way.. The neurons fired before the decision was made.. or maybe a "free will" versus "determined" kind of way.. But that's a slightly different point. Rather, I am simply claiming that we have "reasons" not whether neurons fire prior to linguistic formation of the reason, or whether the reasons were determined.You are the only on referring to them as a fiction. Post hoc, yes. Fiction, no so much. — Banno
And you continue to ignore the point that reasons are attributed to animals, plants and rocks as much as to humans. Your OP has no standing. — Banno
I regret giving any attention at all to the nonsense of this thread. — Banno
Ooof.. is that a slight against any tribal society that doesn't have "civilization"? You save it by adding "socialized" though. — schopenhauer1
That seems like a false dichotomy of "social formulas" and "acting on reason". Both seem off to me. — schopenhauer1
Rather, reasons are formed by way of a being that can self-identify as an individual that can produce outcomes in the world and knows there are choices that lead to those outcomes. — schopenhauer1
According to yourself, you have no reason for this. — schopenhauer1
You seem to think that I've claimed we do not have reasons. I haven't, but it's this sort of irrational jump that renders your posts unworthy of response. — Banno
brains and bodies which isn't all that different than a controller built into an electronics system. We like to believe we have free will but it is a given that we are still chained to the system that evolution choose to give to us.
Whether it is possible to be able to use high capacity thinking without the problems that come with sentient is something I don't think anyone knows. — dclements
Or instead, cultural anthropology shows us that tribal order doesn’t expect the giving of individual reasons, just knowledge of collective custom.
Civilisation shifts the social conversation to a different space where you are suppose to construct your own systems of constraint. You get to have your personal freedoms if you swear allegiance to the abstractions of Enlightenment values. — apokrisis
How does one come to self-identify as an individual except via social construction?
A failure to understand this fact is at the base of much modern angst. So no surprise you must fail to understand it and thus preserve your right to complain about “imposed burdens” rather than accepting that your persona is a co-creation of the company you choose to keep.
Reading gloomy old philosophy texts could have been where it all went wrong. — apokrisis
Do you see a distinction between a cause and a reason? — schopenhauer1
P:smile: In the long run ... it doesn't even matter.Don’t get what you’re asking. — schopenhauer1
Are you thinking of a specific study? Does anyone in a tribal society act simply because they wanted to, or is it always tribal custom? — schopenhauer1
You can be a tribal society or you can be a part of civilization, but none of that is something you can choose. — schopenhauer1
So individuals with reasons is a human event that is magnified by cultural practices of Enlightenment values. We call this modernity. It has been diagnosed by the Existentialists and existentialists. — schopenhauer1
Don't forget the Romantic reaction which is a deeper source of the problems now. Existentialism sits on that side of the divide.
Enlightenment civilisation can turn us into good and pragmatic citizens. But romanticism makes us dream of becoming our own gods. Or at least supermen. Or failing all else, at least social media influencers. :up: — apokrisis
If the burden of reasons falls on the individual as an "allegiance to Enlightenment" then it cannot be external customs any more that provides reasons, but our own. — schopenhauer1
That is in the existentialist wheelhouse. That is to say, meaning, motivation, authenticity of one's own goals and roles, and the like. — schopenhauer1
But humans are a form of life and are not Life (whatever abstraction you are using here). That is to say, there is no necessity in what we value.. There are strong tendencies perhaps, but not necessities. Even the idea of a "maladopted life" makes no sense in the human realm... If what you mean is that it leads to extinction, then that is STILL a value statement.. One that we are ascenting to, not one we are necessarily bound to. So at the end of the day you are making a hypothetical statement into a categorical one. You are turning contingent social customs and personal decisions of life and lives into LIFE (apokrisis' notion of right/wrong). Nature might balance itself out or what not, but we have no reason to be bound to balancing forces or not bound to balancing forces as individuals or societies.Life is about striking the pragmatic balance. — apokrisis
Now you have gone off into one-sided Romanticism. The self as the sole arbiter. — apokrisis
Then on top of that, there is this new level of semiosis that has opened up with the Enlightenment's theory of the civilised human condition. — apokrisis
Civilisation requires a more sophisticated theory of itself for its progress not to turn into a self-delusion. — apokrisis
That is to say, there is no necessity in what we value.. There are strong tendencies perhaps, but not necessities. — schopenhauer1
I am only pointing out the holes of your manufactuered naturalistic fallacy (LIFE and its necessary BALANCE as applied to humans who have reasons.. — schopenhauer1
I simply state how we have our individual reasons, whatever the factors are that allows that (and recognizing it is indeed an iteration of individual with society). — schopenhauer1
. Balance here might be used as a weasily word to imply both descriptive and normative, but it cannot be both. You are either giving your opinion or describing some cycle. One does not become the other though. — schopenhauer1
But WHY we should want this.. WHAT we are trying to aim for are totally out of the realm of the descriptive. — schopenhauer1
I simply state how we have our individual reasons, whatever the factors are that allows that (and recognizing it is indeed an iteration of individual with society).
— schopenhauer1
Existence is irreducibly complex in its hierarchical organisation. You can’t just wish the fact away if you want to make metaphysical level claims about the human condition in the real world. — apokrisis
Then we become the only animals with unreasons. And not particularly equipped to persist as part of reality. — apokrisis
:100: :fire:My metaphysics is constraints-based. And a constraint is inherently permissive. What is not prevented is free to happen.
Reality is a system of relations. Reality becomes stabilised at the point where it’s contraries - as in its global constraints and local freedoms - come into a steady dynamical balance ...
Existence is irreducibly complex in its hierarchical organisation.
A dynamical balance is only normative in the sense that it underlines the fact that a system must dissipate to persist. — apokrisis
:sweat: Poor schop1, "blue in the face" in denial ...You can invoke balance and thermodynamics until you are blue in the face, but that will get you no more closer to a reason for doing any thing. And hence here we are with reasons. — schopenhauer1
For example, are you as free to be an airatarian as a vegetarian or carnivore? You can have all the “reasons” you like. The question is do you have actual choices? — apokrisis
Life is about striking the pragmatic balance. — apokrisis
And then, civilisation as the ultimately rational social structure is meant to maximise your personal choice. You can head to the supermarket gluten-free or Asian aisle. — apokrisis
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.