Is not everything relevant to a philosophy debate?
Life as a manifestation of the universe
- Thread starter NoEgo
- Start date
Is not everything relevant to a philosophy debate?
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I'm still waiting to find out what the question was.
Well, if we want to know if life is a manifestation of the universe, we need to be clear what 'life' means.
I indicated the difference between being alive - being in a state of awareness and consciousness - and being the living dead, living life largely in a zone of un- or subconsciousness.
Therefore the only thing that is a manifestation of the universe is awareness.
In the human universe that is.
I indicated the difference between being alive - being in a state of awareness and consciousness - and being the living dead, living life largely in a zone of un- or subconsciousness.
Therefore the only thing that is a manifestation of the universe is awareness.
In the human universe that is.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
And you think that's a syllogism? It really isn't, you know.
No, i didn't think that. I'm not really concerned with labels. Just concepts, and labels are like the one minute news, all soundbites. Reduced language leading to reduced understandings.
Language is more effective when it's used to describe a concept, not when it's used to limit thinking, ie through reducing meanings to single words.
So what you're saying is that in order for X to be a manifestation of the (human) universe, X needs to be part of human experience and that physically living humans are always aware but not always mentally alive.
I'm not sure that was worth waiting for...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
You don't know what a syllogism is, do you? It's actually a word that describes a process, a process that you think you've done with your post.
I don't know if you're telling me what i was saying, or asking me. No question mark...
But it's not what i'm saying.
Physical aliveness is for all organisms.
Mental aliveness is something that humans have, and if they're not exhibiting such mental acuity, then they're not in the state of being aware.
Awareness provides humans with their advantage over the rest of the animal world. But we are animals, part of the animal kingdom, and so it's normal that we should find states of being that unite us with the animal side of our make-up.
Perhaps when i referred to the 'living dead', it is pretty much the same as reverting to our animal ways. Where we conform to the animal side of our being. Aliveness is feeling good, and knowing that we feel good.
I know what a syllogism is.
I don't think i've described a process with any of my posts. That's what you think i've done. Be clear over this distinction.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
I'm concerned here with reasoning. Philosophy is about reasoning. At least in part, I hope we can agree. You presented that post as if it was a reasoned argument. As if you were inferring one thing from another and leading to a conclusion. This would increase our understanding. It allows us to take things we did know and learn something new we didn't. However, functionally, structurally, you did not present an argument of that type, despite appearances. And you admit you weren't trying to. So now I'm at a loss to know what to take from your post.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
syllogism: deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises
You've arrived at the conclusion that awareness is a manifestation of the universe, by a process. I would say deductive process, but that would be a lie.
You've arrived at the conclusion that awareness is a manifestation of the universe, by a process. I would say deductive process, but that would be a lie.
Since I'm here, I've got to protest at the above. A syllogism is not the manipulation of formal symbols (although it may be modelled as such) it is the logical result of the conjunction of two judgements of a similar form to:
Socrates is a man, no men are gods therefore Socrates is not a god.
Both "Socrates is a man" and "no men are gods" are not mere labelings of Socrates, men and gods. They are two judgements. You judge Socrates to be a man and you judge that no men are gods.
edit: To make it clear - in order to use the above syllogism you do not have to have a complete system to tell you when to label something "a man", "a god" or indeed "Socrates". There is no need to regard "man", "god" or "Socrates" as mere labels - they can be open ended concepts but that does not excuse you from using logic.
The problem with your post as Danny pointed out was that it lacked logic, not that it was using limited forms of language. It was a stream of non sequitirs.
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What does this mean?
Language is most effective when the interlocutors share a common understanding of the meaning of the words each is using. If you were saying that thought is not bounded by language, that language often cannot express the thought precisely, that we have to find creative ways to adapt and develop language to communicate novel concepts, then I'd agree. But I'm not sure what you're saying here.
This is why I was questioning the ethical implications for your assertions about the "living dead". Should living dead humans have the same rights as a rabbit, in your opinion?
Well, it's now coming up soon for the midnight hour here, and i shall have to reply to your post tomorrow when my brain is working somewhat more fluidly. I'm happy with what i've said, but i'm not happy enough to think i can reasonably interpret your point in this post.
But, what i can say is that i agree with you on what philosophy is. But I haven't been inferring anything, you've been interpreting. I've been intending meanings, but i've not been inferring...
Sorry mate, i can't do justice to your point until i have a clearer brain to interpret what you're saying to me. I've gone downhill rapidly perhaps in the last half hour. But in a nice way as it happens. However, i see kyser has said something again, so how will i deal with that in a polite way...
danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
OK, you have some time out and mediate on what meanings you'd like us to understand from what you've been saying. Only, there are a few things we need to agree between us for that to happen: how to present the meanings we intend, for one.
Do you genuinely think that anybody is unclear over the distinction between what you think and what they think?
Ok I think I've got it.
1) For fela fan, "manifestation of the universe" means something which is not a derivable from the the fact that we are physically alive.
2) For fela fan it is possible for humans to be only physically alive ie. with no manifestations of the universe.
3) For fela fan the only thing we are missing when we are only physically alive is awareness.
4) Fela fan therefore thinks awareness is the only manifestation of the universe.
See it was a syllogism (ie. a logical triviality) afterall.
Underneath all this is a claim that awareness is not a product of the human body/brain and that awareness is what makes us human it goes with a nasty corrollolary that people have to earn the right to be treated as a human. Weirdly being aware is associated with having a positive outlook. That's fela fan's criterion for being human - be positive around fela fan you worms!
And I've wasted an afternoon trying to work out what fela fan is saying. I think that qualifies me for living death.
And so be it. If you or anyone wishes to engage with me in a formal philosophical discussion with labels such as syllogism and non-sequitirs, then sorry, you've got the wrong person. I want to communicate my ideas with my choice of language, and not reduce them to pre-selected categories. If i lack logic, then that's absolutely fine, because there's plenty of meaning in that itself: i simply lack logic.
I live in a land of what all westerners view as having a very strange logic, or no logic at all. Perhaps it's rubbed off on me. Being logical requires one to fit to existing modes of thought patterns. I prefer a freedom to just be and to just say what i think. People are equally free to react to my language and ideas.
Incidentally: "The problem with your post...", no mate, there is no problem with my post, you have a problem with my post because to you it lacks logic. To other people who lack logic, perhaps they like my post. So don't confuse the two, my post has no problem, but rather some readers of it have a problem with it. Now if that sounds pedantic, sorry, but most of formal philosophy is, and therefore such pedantry is relevant round these parts of urban.
Ah well, sorry mate, think again.
And this: "See it was a syllogism (ie. a logical triviality) afterall". Well, yes, of course it was if that's what you decide it was. But that's only because you want to label it that way. Fine, you're the reader, and that's your take on it. But as the writer, it was not, and to other readers it is not.
I really think, especially in a philosophy forum, that people might be a bit more rigorous in differentiating between something and the subjective reaction to the something.
This is one of the inherent weaknesses of philosophy. Language is its only medium for exchanging ideas, yet language is not up to the challenge. The endgame purpose for philosophy is for it to burn itself out, to recognise that the answers it seeks lie beyond language.
Of course, for two or more people to communicate their ideas, language is all they've got, and it's a hard job using something that is inherently limiting. It's even harder when the communcating is done in writing, outside of real time. I think those limitations are not taken into account enough. But hey, that's just my thinking.
I don't see people as 'living dead humans'.
For me, animals are just as worthy to their life as humans. But don't talk to me about 'rights', because that's another label with loaded connotations. Furthermore, ethics are what? Oh, wait a minute, more limitations in thinking! An ethic, a man-made 'law', to you may be nothing to another, so 'the ethical implications' are not really of any much use here because the assumption is that everyone adheres to the same ones. For me there's only one ethic worth bothering about, but we're digressing.
Rabbits are lovely animals, and killing them is the same 'crime' as killing a human, just in my wee opinion like.
I haven't arrived at any conclusion. That indicates a fixed mind, a closed mind, that i'm correct and can't be wrong.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
30 minutes
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Same old passive-aggressive shit as ever in place of actual argument fela.
When you use the word 'therefore' you are, byb using that word, suggesting a conclusion to something, based on a previous statement. That statement about the universe was a conclusion.
That you use words, and then when your arguments and chains of illogic, and indeed your use of words, is questioned, you always turn it back on the person criticising you and say 'I didn't actually mean that, it's all your interpretation'.
What you're actually doing is covering up for a limited mind that thinks by accusing others of being 'trapped' and by spewing out impressive sounding but meaningless strings of words that you'll be able to bluff your way through things you don't understand.
When you use the word 'therefore' you are, byb using that word, suggesting a conclusion to something, based on a previous statement. That statement about the universe was a conclusion.
That you use words, and then when your arguments and chains of illogic, and indeed your use of words, is questioned, you always turn it back on the person criticising you and say 'I didn't actually mean that, it's all your interpretation'.
What you're actually doing is covering up for a limited mind that thinks by accusing others of being 'trapped' and by spewing out impressive sounding but meaningless strings of words that you'll be able to bluff your way through things you don't understand.
Yeah, whatever kyser. You're more effective than a hair-drier.
And a not particularly nice individual who seems to relish denigrating others.
Whatever bullshit i come up with, however limited my mind is, however hard i try to impress people, i retain basic manners towards my fellow living beings. So even you're right about me, and of course you are right in your own head whereas from my own particular position you're wrong en totale, your rather lack of empathy for others who like to debate is clear.
And you are wrong, just about all the time, when you analyse me for one basic reason: you're caught up in judgment of others, and that simply reflects your own conditioning.
I personally have found that as i get older the more i thought i knew, the less i know. I think understanding goes in the opposite direction however.
Now then, why don't you just ignore me and my ideas instead of continually attempting to put me down eh? What is it you hope to gain by your antagonism towards other people, people of whom you know so little, yet profess to know so well? Do you wish to make me feel bad about my ideas and opinions and self-worth and so on? It won't work of course, but it never seems to stop you trying. Poor form mate.
Beware the man who claims to know lots and understand lots... they're always good speakers, but as listeners their skills fall way behind; too busy opening their mouths and closing their ears.
Isn't "kyser" a label?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Passive-aggressive. Like I said. I enjoy debate, as most people on this thread will tell you. The difference is when they say something, and I disagree with it, they don't then reply 'Well, that's just what you think I said. I didn't say that at all' and then either
a. say something completely different to their original statement, and when I point this out repeat 'Well, that's just what you think I said. I didn't say that at all'
b. claim that I'm wilfully misinterpreting them, and follow the above steps.
You've been doing it for years
Similar threads
