I like getting along with people

The phenomena of your own perceptions, eh?

(Solipsism may be over-rated. But it's strangely hard to disprove.)
 
Not sure what that even means. Perceptions are not phenomena.
 
Perceptions are perceptions? You perceive phenomena.

Solipsism is probably as hard to disprove as a negative.
 
Can you not perceive perceptions?

To disprove a negative you prove a positive.
 
I'm not sure if there's a point in this or I'm just going to be wasting my time. You can't perceive perceptions like, to put it very simply, you can't see vision.

Regarding disproving a negative, maybe I should have phrased it differently. I can't remember clearly the colloquialism that is thrown around. What I mean is that it is difficult to disprove solipsism (the notion that nothing exists outside yourself) entirely because it relies on the lack of absolute proof that it is false. You could always question any evidence against it as merely existing in your mind, to put it succinctly. It's ultimately a silly exercise.
 
And yet I can "see" that I have vision can't I?

It is part of the array of perceptions that I have. And I can "see" that it has this and that characteristic.

Doesn't that make my vision, one of my perceptual abilities, a phenomenon?

Edit: But yeah, I agree. Complete waste of time, here. What's new?
 
Borachio said:
And yet I can "see" that I have vision can't I?

It is part of the array of perceptions that I have. And I can "see" that it has this and that characteristic.

Doesn't that make my vision, one of my perceptual abilities, a phenomenon?
Click to expand...

The fact that you have to use "" says that you're abusing the word 'see' here.

Vision is the image that is in your head. You've already done the seeing. What you see are things outside of your mind, which your eyes see and translate into the image in your head. It's the same with perception/perceiving.
 
aelf said:
If you only focus on your own life, then you're just another self-centred person.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Artists & geniuses mostly focus on their own work & benefit many. And many who focus on others create misery.

Better to spread righteousness within a small circle than be involved with many to their detriment.

Terxpahseyton said:
There can always be topics where someone involved just can be too emotional about it to not have friction and trouble arise. But in principle it is my experience and believe that any disagreement and argument can be had without hostility. It just may require an immense effort from you to be sufficiently respectful.
When I try really hard to be like that - I either never had the other party become hostile or I was quickly able to overcome their hostility by insisting on an atmosphere of impenetrable mutual respect. It really works from my experience. People tend to find it irresistible. They may test it. But if one does not waver, they will "capitulate" to it.
Click to expand...
I need to develop this skill. For the most part I have it but with certain people I get fed up & lose my composure.

Bootstoots said:
I like getting along with people and being able to disagree at the same time, which requires that we both disagree well. By disagreeing well, I mean pointing out flaws in my arguments, getting at the main points and showing other ways to think about them, and responding politely without getting offended by the disagreement.

Being wrong and then realizing it is the best way to learn. I've been shown to be wrong many times, and recognizing that allows me to evolve in my thinking. It's a bit of an ego blow, but it's absolutely worth it. I wish more people could absorb that hit and then change their thinking. It's not something most people seem to be able to do, though.
Click to expand...
If everyone had that attitude the world would be a better place. :)
 
Narz said:
Not necessarily. Artists & geniuses mostly focus on their own work & benefit many. And many who focus on others create misery.
Click to expand...

Ayn Rand?
 
aelf said:
The fact that you have to use "" says that you're abusing the word 'see' here.

Vision is the image that is in your head. You've already done the seeing. What you see are things outside of your mind, which your eyes see and translate into the image in your head. It's the same with perception/perceiving.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for replying. I wasn't expecting that!

Yes, I think you're largely correct here.

I would say, though, that "things outside of your mind" is skating on distinctly thin ice. My position is, kind of, the world isn't really as outside of us as we think. Which isn't at all to say that there is no world outside of us (unlike the solipsistic position), but that how we apprehend the world outside is all we in fact know, and our own minds must necessarily distort the world to a great extent.

I guess it comes down to saying that objectivity doesn't really exist.

I'm putting this badly, I know. I just don't think that the everyday view that we can observe the world as somehow something separate from ourselves is at all tenable.

We and the world inter-penetrate one another.

(I still agree this isn't going to be a profitable interchange between us, aelf. So feel free to ignore this post. Better yet, don't read it. Put it down as so much amateur rambling, if you wish. I'm more than fine with that assessment.)

Oh, and btw, an important question about vision is: where is this image in your head? My understanding, such as it is of the subject, is that there's no such animal. The only image in the whole process is on the retina.
 
aelf said:
Ayn Rand?
Click to expand...
Certainly not. I don't just read stuff & adopt you you know, I read a lot & think about things for myself.

Thanks for playing though. At least you used a question mark instead of assigning a viewpoint to me so kudos for that. :)
 
Narz said:
Certainly not. I don't just read stuff & adopt you you know, I read a lot & think about things for myself.

Thanks for playing though. At least you used a question mark instead of assigning a viewpoint to me so kudos for that. :)
Click to expand...
I doubt anybody who's followed your posts would think you're a Randroid. ;)
 
Thanks. Read stuff & adopt? What the heck was I trying to say, I don't even remember. Read stuff & repost it, maybe?

I did read a couple Ayn Rand books when I was in my early twenties, they appealed to the anti-religious part of me but that's about it. It's noteworthy there are no children in the books I read (maybe in none of her work), all that selfish stuff goes out the window when you have to raise a kid.
 
I read Atlas Shrugged several years ago. It had a strange sort of appeal to it, and I was going through a quasi-libertarian phase, so I was open to its message. But that ideology breaks down from its own contradictions fairly quickly: she never says what to do about negative externalities, for instance, and the working-class people who build the empire of the industrialists in the book are barely (although not negatively) mentioned, and we're to assume that the individual industrialists are critical for keeping society running, while in reality they'd be pretty easy to replace if they went on strike. And that's before you consider the moral implications of everyone acting as self-interest-maximizing agents...

I find two things fascinating about Rand and modern political discourse. The first is that Rand is explicitly anti-Christian partly because of all the obligations to the poor that Christianity implies. But there are people, mostly Paul Ryan types, who cite her worldview as helping to shape their own while also professing to be devout Christians. The other thing is that many of the bad guys in Atlas Shrugged are crony capitalists using government favors to get ahead, yet I almost never see political figures enthralled by Rand denouncing the US government's handouts to corporations.
 
I agree everyone should try to get along. My only problem is when people use their right to an opinion as an excuse to be entitled to their own facts.
 
I just don’t get along with most people. If I like it or not is secondary to that cold concrete fact.

Garbage ain't collected. Women ain't protected. Politicians using people they're abusing. The mafia's getting bigger, like pollution in the river. And you tell me that this is where it's at?
Gun sales are soaring. Housewives find life boring. Divorce the only answer. Smoking causes cancer. This system's gonna fall soon. To an angry young red tune.
The little man gets shafted. Sons and monies drafted. New war in the Middle East. Can you pass the Rorschach test?

Can you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Defiant47
A Socialist Fallen In Love with a Capitalist's Daughter
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
Rashiminos
Rashiminos
Back
Top Bottom