Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 A lesson in philosophy 
Author Message
Glitchy
Glitchy
User avatar

Cash on hand:
307,955.68

Bank:
18,000,000.81
Posts: 3564
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:51 pm
Location: Inside both your parents
Group: פlᴉʇɔɥʎ¿¡Crime Squad
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
Wouldn't that still be the same kind of thought, though? Both of those are, in the end, opinions on the methods used to solve whatever problem this is. The base thought there is "I like this method because of x." Where x is it being a beautiful method, or because it's effective.

Not that I disagree with the original statement. Most everybody's brains work in different ways, even if only slightly different.

_________________
▬Words From Your Betters▬
Spoiler: show
Orange Juice Jones wrote:
Oh fuck off

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
Remon wrote:
Wouldn't that still be the same kind of thought, though? Both of those are, in the end, opinions on the methods used to solve whatever problem this is. The base thought there is "I like this method because of x." Where x is it being a beautiful method, or because it's effective.

Not that I disagree with the original statement. Most everybody's brains work in different ways, even if only slightly different.


Well, not really, because the people are not thinking in terms of opinions on the method, and what I was trying to point out is the process of coming to the conclusions on the methods was different. The reasoning behind the one is irrelevant to the other, even if they arrive at the same conclusion.

The idea I'm trying to illustrate is the very framework for assessing anything can be different between the two groups. One may measure everything based on some idea of "excellence" and another may judge it based on "effectiveness" (this was, in particular, two competing branches of Ancient Greek thought. In many ways they were still very close compared to other philosophies, but they were distinct between themselves). Another system could be used as well, and at times the two could even use the same words to describe something but actually mean different things, which is very difficult to decipher.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:21 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,370.50
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:24 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
n0th1n wrote:
The idea I'm trying to illustrate is the very framework for assessing anything can be different between the two groups. One may measure everything based on some idea of "excellence" and another may judge it based on "effectiveness" (this was, in particular, two competing branches of Ancient Greek thought. In many ways they were still very close compared to other philosophies, but they were distinct between themselves). Another system could be used as well, and at times the two could even use the same words to describe something but actually mean different things, which is very difficult to decipher.


I think what your trying to say is that perception of the world is relativistic, that everyone see's it differently. Personally I feel like that's a given, theres no point arguing against it. What we really care about is who is right, which can be assessed one of two ways
-First, there could be one way of perceiving the word that is in its very nature correct. The person capable of taking on this perception can never be wrong in perceptions. The only problem is we do not know which perception this is, so we have to use experimentation to try to come closer and closer to it, ruling out perceptions that yield falsities.
-Second, perceptions could be measured in a layout of pros versus cons. The human goal is to eliminate cons and maximize pros for their perception of reality.

Now if we consider Consider the first to be true we have stumbled upon the theory of Consequentialism in its basest form, while the second is bound to lead us down the path of Non-cognitivism. If however we step back and recognize that people can bundle their perceptions with similar perceptions we might find something else.
-For the first above people are bound to ask what makes the singular perception correct in all things, and if it is so why can't everyone have that perfect perception of the world. It is at the point people recognize that the only being perfect enough to have such a perfect perception is a divine being, and that they have laid out laws and rules which dictate plainly what is right and what is wrong. This system of accepting the ultimate correct perception of the universe to be that of a divine being is commonly known as Divine Creation Theory.
-Should people accept the second option from above we must accept that people who live around each other will tend to share a clustered perception of the world. These cluster's typically can be called cultures of people, and while there is always a fair amount of variance in them the individuals populations views can usually be modeled and group into a bell curve with the preponderance of its people holding certain perceptions. If we model perceptions on a cultural entity scale rather than an individual one we will have come to the theory of Cultural Relativism.


Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:19 am
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
Abool wrote:
n0th1n wrote:
The idea I'm trying to illustrate is the very framework for assessing anything can be different between the two groups. One may measure everything based on some idea of "excellence" and another may judge it based on "effectiveness" (this was, in particular, two competing branches of Ancient Greek thought. In many ways they were still very close compared to other philosophies, but they were distinct between themselves). Another system could be used as well, and at times the two could even use the same words to describe something but actually mean different things, which is very difficult to decipher.


I think what your trying to say is that perception of the world is relativistic, that everyone see's it differently. Personally I feel like that's a given, theres no point arguing against it. What we really care about is who is right, which can be assessed one of two ways
-First, there could be one way of perceiving the word that is in its very nature correct. The person capable of taking on this perception can never be wrong in perceptions. The only problem is we do not know which perception this is, so we have to use experimentation to try to come closer and closer to it, ruling out perceptions that yield falsities.
-Second, perceptions could be measured in a layout of pros versus cons. The human goal is to eliminate cons and maximize pros for their perception of reality.

Now if we consider Consider the first to be true we have stumbled upon the theory of Consequentialism in its basest form, while the second is bound to lead us down the path of Non-cognitivism. If however we step back and recognize that people can bundle their perceptions with similar perceptions we might find something else.
-For the first above people are bound to ask what makes the singular perception correct in all things, and if it is so why can't everyone have that perfect perception of the world. It is at the point people recognize that the only being perfect enough to have such a perfect perception is a divine being, and that they have laid out laws and rules which dictate plainly what is right and what is wrong. This system of accepting the ultimate correct perception of the universe to be that of a divine being is commonly known as Divine Creation Theory.
-Should people accept the second option from above we must accept that people who live around each other will tend to share a clustered perception of the world. These cluster's typically can be called cultures of people, and while there is always a fair amount of variance in them the individuals populations views can usually be modeled and group into a bell curve with the preponderance of its people holding certain perceptions. If we model perceptions on a cultural entity scale rather than an individual one we will have come to the theory of Cultural Relativism.


Not necessarily. I am not saying that everyone has a different perception, other than in particulars due to limitations in spacial overlap. They may, or there may be many people that really do have the same basic "point of view" or "worldview", that is deeper than simply the relation that people around each other have. Likewise, people around each other could be split into several different branches of a philosophical tradition or even into different traditions and thus have differing views, on the whole, while having many with the same views as well. None of these situations necessitate Cultural, or any other kind, of Relativism, in the sense that it is usually termed (which is to say, that truth is relative to a group, culture, etc.), only recognition that the perception of truth is different and related to the differing worldviews.

As for the ways to assess them, those methods that you have chosen are representative of your own way of thinking, your own philosophy. Even though you explained two, that you feel they are possible ways to assess this kind of topic shows they flow in some way from your own philosophical tradition, your own logic (or that of your philosophy), your own way of thinking. Others could think both those methods are nonsensical, and propose very different methods, including ones that may seem ridiculous to you, based on their own philosophies and traditions.

A particularly influential and relatively recent philosopher proposed that the way the correct thinking is discovered is by a process of internal conflict within a philosophical tradition, where from within the context matters are handled for a long time and the tradition develops, until it runs into a problem that cannot be resolved from within, a crises point. When that crisis point is encountered, the followers of the tradition may seek out an answer elsewhere, and find it in another tradition, and take up that other tradition to the destruction of their own, or largely grow into it in some fashion. This can happen continually, though at each stage one would presume we continually get closer to determining the truth, if only by ruling out a large group from it.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:29 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Glitchy
Glitchy
User avatar

Cash on hand:
307,955.68

Bank:
18,000,000.81
Posts: 3564
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:51 pm
Location: Inside both your parents
Group: פlᴉʇɔɥʎ¿¡Crime Squad
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
So the traditional patterns of brainwave activity used for solving problems (or doing anything else for that matter) alters over time to adjust to new problems that cannot be solved with those old patterns? Wouldn't someone be able to have multiple ways of thinking about it to come to a conclusion by varying those different thought patterns?

_________________
▬Words From Your Betters▬
Spoiler: show
Orange Juice Jones wrote:
Oh fuck off

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:18 am
Profile E-mail
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,370.50
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:24 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: A lesson in philosophy
n0th1n wrote:
Not necessarily. I am not saying that everyone has a different perception, other than in particulars due to limitations in spacial overlap. They may, or there may be many people that really do have the same basic "point of view" or "worldview", that is deeper than simply the relation that people around each other have. Likewise, people around each other could be split into several different branches of a philosophical tradition or even into different traditions and thus have differing views, on the whole, while having many with the same views as well. None of these situations necessitate Cultural, or any other kind, of Relativism, in the sense that it is usually termed (which is to say, that truth is relative to a group, culture, etc.), only recognition that the perception of truth is different and related to the differing worldviews.

As for the ways to assess them, those methods that you have chosen are representative of your own way of thinking, your own philosophy. Even though you explained two, that you feel they are possible ways to assess this kind of topic shows they flow in some way from your own philosophical tradition, your own logic (or that of your philosophy), your own way of thinking. Others could think both those methods are nonsensical, and propose very different methods, including ones that may seem ridiculous to you, based on their own philosophies and traditions.

A particularly influential and relatively recent philosopher proposed that the way the correct thinking is discovered is by a process of internal conflict within a philosophical tradition, where from within the context matters are handled for a long time and the tradition develops, until it runs into a problem that cannot be resolved from within, a crises point. When that crisis point is encountered, the followers of the tradition may seek out an answer elsewhere, and find it in another tradition, and take up that other tradition to the destruction of their own, or largely grow into it in some fashion. This can happen continually, though at each stage one would presume we continually get closer to determining the truth, if only by ruling out a large group from it.


The essence of what drive our perception of the world can be traced back to a singular and much more fundamental question, that is: What is the nature of right and wrong. While it can be argued that perception of the world is more than this there is no singular case or subjective human perception that will not relay back to that master question. Whenever we perceive the world as you say, we can perceive it in two different ways. The first is objectively, which is cases where things simply are and do not fall subject to human interpretation. Things like math and what temperature it is fall into this category. The other way we perceive thing is subjectively, or things in which the human mind interprets what is perceived. When we interpret data subjectively we are essentially running it against whatever means we use of determining what is right and what is wrong, and interpret it in accordance with what we hold to be right. This is in essence the principle of cognitive thought.

Now with that in mind we can bring forward the five philosophically recognized means of addressing the master question. Those are divine creation theory, cultural relativism, non-cognativism, consequentialism, and contractualism. To be fair I didn't include contractualism in my last post, but it is in essence believing that wrong action is action that violates a contract, and all other actions are right. Consequentialists believe that the right course of action is the one that produces the best net results for everyone, and all other actions are wrong. Non-cognitivists hold that they are not cognitive thoughts at all but that any concept of right and wrong is an expression of one's positive or negative thoughts about a subject. The last two I've already described well enough I think.

Now it is obvious that most people are not highly studied in philosophy, so as they perceive the world around them and pass thing through their filter of right and wrong they are not dedicatedly using one of the five theories, but rather are using a combination of them. This combination is usually developed in proportions in accordance to the way an individual was born, and is a crucial part of their personality. The theory you talk about regarding crises points is a part of the cultural relativistic portion of the human process, and is its means of adaption which makes it one of the most versatile of the theories.


Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 

Similar topics

 
House and Philosophy Everybody lies
Forum: ./Literature & Poetry
Author: Lord Hazama
Replies: 1
Today's lesson
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: BlackAmethyst
Replies: 18
Today's Lesson!
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: n0th1n
Replies: 8
Top


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO