Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
The philosophy of agreement...
    #12725072 -

Sometimes I go to make a post here and while writing out, I start to understand and answer my own question, then I delete it all and abandon the post :hehehe:  Its this perpetual loop of realisation that I think things out better when typing them.

Anyway, the post I was going to make was about the philosphy of agreement but instead of me jabbering on I'll just give y'all this question...

The philosophy of agreement... anyone worked it out?

In simple I concluded...
We wouldn't evolve if people always agreed but we could potentially evolve a lot faster if we could agree on the right things.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: nice1]
    #12725198 -

And what are "the right things"?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: nice1]
    #12725243 -

nice1 said:
We wouldn't evolve if people always agreed but we could potentially evolve a lot faster if we could agree on the right things.


If we all agreed how could we be corrected?  That doesn't sound like progress to me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #12725654 -

If we all agreed to work in harmony with the planet that would be a progression in my eyes.  Thats just one example. 

You don't need to be corrected if you are doing the right thing.  Its not always that simple but sometimes it is.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: nice1]
    #12725757 -

The thing about agreement is that its unnecessary for a good society.

For example, if everyone on earth confessed that they didn't know anything, no one would have a reason to kill anyone, or hate anyone, or prefer some people over other people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12725847 -

If we didn't ever claim to know anything, how would anything get done? Isn't knowledge a necessary convention to human affairs?

c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis),

Knowledge is ordinarily "of something", which I agree, is not unproblematic.

But it seems to me that our methods of science are rooted in the convention of knowledge "of something". Or by Wittgenstein's criterion of "ostensive teachings" that is the same to say that the scientific method is at least based on the ostensive knowledge of something:

For instance, if we begin at hypothesis - what is a hypothesis, other than the ostensive knowledge of something?

When an experiment follows through on a hypothesis, it does not reveal any fundamental axiom to existence, no matter how universal this law may seem. This is acknowledged by the scientific community, in many disclaimers as to what is ultimately "truth".

But in spite of these disclaimers, an ostensible knowledge must ultimately be made useful. The assumption of a hypothesis is of course, by and far toward the ostensible form of "nature" that makes the convention function, rather than a pure and independent imagination of the convention itself. This is why despite all disclaimers, the methods of science must be treated at least as conventional knowledge.

So if we agree to make no claims to ultimate knowledge, do we not necessarily fall back on conventional knowledge? And then, what is really the difference between the assertion of conventional truth, and ultimate truth?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: daytripper23]
    #12725861 -

"If we didn't ever claim to know anything, how would anything get done? Isn't knowledge a necessary convention to human affairs?"


I don't know anything and I do just fine.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12725880 -

Are you claiming to hold no conventions of knowledge?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12725883 -

You are dependent on what others know then. The farmer, the banker, the house builder, the doctor etc.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: daytripper23]
    #12725953 -

Nope.  I don't even know where to begin.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: Icelander]
    #12725955 -

Nah I can always choose death.

Or just ignore them :shrug:

To say I am dependent is to place a label where there is none.  I do what I do :shrug:

Right now that includes this bonnaroo feed:

http://www.youtube.com/bonnaroo#p/u/10/v2qiCe_2oTI

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12726068 -

cop out.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: Icelander]
    #12726128 -

That's not an argument.  Why is what I said a cop out?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12726435 -

Because since you were born you have been acting as if things were true. You even act as if you believe the internet can send your reply and that it exists. Even if you choose death you believe it true that that will get you out of truth. As usual I think you're way the fuck off base. Anyone can say they don't think anything is true. There I said it.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: Icelander]
    #12726530 -

"Because since you were born you have been acting as if things were true. You even act as if you believe the internet can send your reply and that it exists. Even if you choose death you believe it true that that will get you out of truth. As usual I think you're way the fuck off base. Anyone can say they don't think anything is true. There I said it. "

Do you think about your reasons for every action you do while/before you do it?  I don't see deciding to eat as thinking that I should eat is true.  I could give many reasons or rather, explanations, for why I do what I do, but what about those explanations is real?  What part of what any explanation says about reality is instantiated in reality?  It seems to me that these beleifs are only instantiated through us, and are not inextricably, and literally, woven through the real world we all perceive together as a result of it.

"Anyone can say they don't think anything is true."

I don't know about that.  I don't think I am one of these people.

Edited by xFrockx (06/11/10 02:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12727165 -

To question rather than assert is a philosophical ideal I agree with. You are notorious for this. Yet here, you seem to hold or assert the question as a philosophical position, which turns a questioning attitude into a positive proposition of "function over form". Philosophically, this is an ideal I agree with. I personally believe it would be necessary for enlightened living, on scale of the individual, as well as the whole world.

But holding the ideal is not sufficient for the actual practice (living) of philosophy.

I can appreciate the fact that you aren't telling me what the truth is, especially here in a place where that pretty much the most you can impose on me. But here you are explicitly asserting a proposition, and tentative as it may be, there is a subtle imposition on your part.

Quote:
For example, if everyone on earth confessed that they didn't know anything, no one would have a reason to kill anyone, or hate anyone, or prefer some people over other people.



You have raised a hypothetical (much like the hypothesis of my first post) by which you are indeed asserting certain implications. Strictly speaking, you can no longer isolate your position to the convention of philosophy that merely privileges questions. You question, for the sake of demonstrating a certain proposition, by hypothesis. The implication of this is that you hold certain grounds in an argument.

Function over form may be necessary to live in a non-imposing way, but I hold that it is in itself insufficient. It is insufficient as an ideal, for either a worldhood of philosophers, or the integrity of a single philosopher. The illusion is that somehow, the question is less assertive than the proposition. But this is only demonstrating rhetorical form of integrity, not the actual integrity. This rhetoric, "the face of philosophy" may indeed need to be assumed for this integrity, but that is not sufficient for it.

For example (as for instance, actually stepping into this hypothetical world): If you claim "function over form" while treading through my garden (to just eat) I would consider this offensive. When I come out to confront you and you say, "what makes these vegetables yours?" I can only answer that I somehow got my hands on seeds to plant them. Since I cannot define that they are mine, is this the intuition that will have you "just eat"?

The philosophical position of highest integrity recognizes that this seed is just a product of a plant before it, and that plant before it is a product of a seed... and so on ad infinitum. Clearly, there is nowhere along the line, that I actually assert that this vegetable as somehow mine. In this instance, you could get your hands on the vegetable, in a way that would be philosophically no different than the way I did.

So is "the philosopher" (or the one who privileges the question) being non-imposing here? Your question is assertive. The ground you stand on, (or the unspoken context of a relatively metaphysical situation) is easily assimilated by your "reasonable" nature.

In this case, if you quite reasonably ate my vegetables, it is just convenient to you that you disregard conventions of ownership. And not to mention, inconvenient for me...

Or less personally, consider the fact that you rely on the knowledge that the farmers and the grocery store are not providing you with intoxicated or poisoned food. It only seems intuitive because you are steeped in convention. Yes, you can opt out of this economy, but then you'd have to find something to eat in the wild. So you can't opt out of the knowledge of plants, but must rely on knowledge to know what is good to eat.

Its not a matter of intuition that defines what is good to eat, it is either personal, or conventional history that provides this offering, as knowledge. Either you rely upon the form of knowledge that was accumulated by predecessors function of science (hypothesis, and trial and error) - or you do this for yourself, with a certain goal, no less, to accumulate certain knowledge of what is good to eat and not good to eat.

Yet again, it is acknowledged that philosophy speaks to function and deprives form of any integrity. Again, the evolution of organism is a matter of function rather than static form (again, seed-->plant--->seed-->plant). But if you do not assume any convention of form, you will not tell the difference between what is good to eat and what is bad to eat.

It is just as pretentious to

claim to know nothing, and impose it as a question

as it is to

claim knowledge, (and assert it as truth)


Holding their difference as significant in itself, is just to become mired in the convention of philosophy, rather than to acknowledge its practice.

You can say that you live intuitively, but it is more than likely just leaving your biases unspoken.

Here, in a philosophy forum, it is appreciated that these biases are not imposed. But outside of that, philosophy is a convention itself, insomuch that it  imposes leverage on human interactions. For instance (in practice) you might use it, "itself" to innocently stumble into my garden.

Therefore, in these hypotheses, "function over form" may be considered necessary to maintain certain integrity, but is not sufficient to demonstrate it in practice.

Edited by daytripper23 (06/11/10 05:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: daytripper23]
    #12727193 -

Its not that I know that I don't know.  I don't know that I don't know.  If someone, for example, were successful in reminding me of something that I know, I'd have known something.  I'm just waiting for someone to show me something I know.  If my observations about this waiting as a whole are unsettling to you, or seem arrogant, :shrug:

Edited by xFrockx (06/11/10 04:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: xFrockx]
    #12727233 -

I don't really feel imposed on at all, so maybe you have some kind of point. Or maybe we'll get to that in a little bit?

Right now I am just trying to understand. I wonder how "i don't know that I don't know" finds its way into an argument. Are you not asserting a proposition?

If you follow my metaphor of the seed and the plant, how does this position (double negation) find its way of relavence into the seed and plant cycle (pure function), other than by virility of its own? Or does IdunnoIdunno just mean you are drooling on yourself? See, I think you just avoid acknowledging the implied power of your questions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: daytripper23]
    #12727277 -

"Are you not asserting a proposition?"

The negative here can be read two ways, im not sure which you mean.  If you mean "are you not" as a sarcasting thing, then I can reply that I hope that I am not asserting a proposition.  I would say I don't know that I don't know that I don't know ad infinitium.  That is, until someone shows me otherwise.  I await the day.

"If you follow my metaphor of the seed and the plant, how does this position (double negation) find its way of relavence into the seed and plant cycle (pure function), other than by virility of its own? See, I think you are not acknowledging the implied power of the question. "

Questions hold no more power than statements.  I advocate neither really, I just find myself questioning when I have them, which I guess is fairly often.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The philosophy of agreement... [Re: daytripper23]
    #12727369 -

daytripper23 said:
It is just as pretentious to claim to know nothing, and impose it as a question as it is to claim knowledge, (and assert it as truth)


Socrates' faux pas.

The rest, pick up at 7:35 (Harding's diatribe):




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Philosophy is dead
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 it stars saddam 10,949 128 08/02/08 05:29 PM
by Diploid
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,530 72 02/16/06 07:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy)
( 1 2 3 all )		 shroomydan 4,548 44 04/30/05 11:29 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Who' s on your philosophy "dream team"??(name 3 and why)
( 1 2 all )		 Psilocybeingzz 3,577 28 07/21/04 12:47 AM
by Floydian
* Nietzscheian Propositions on "Reality"
( 1 2 all )		 psycroptic 2,140 20 09/03/08 07:26 AM
by Boots
* Philosophy and Depression
( 1 2 all )		 zorbman 1,703 22 06/20/04 05:51 PM
by Grav
* The best philosophy...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 deCypher 8,725 94 09/22/08 09:18 PM
by ackack9000
* help with thesis statement for philosophy paper...
( 1 2 all )		 PilzeEssen 8,189 22 09/08/08 09:41 PM
by NiamhNyx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,969 topic views. 0 members, 319 guests and 31 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 18 queries.