|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs
#22074105 - 08/10/15 10:24 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
if people stumble into or dupe themselves into idiocy, "i'm only human!"; but if someone has incurred a personal struggle or has been given shitty circumstances dealt them, "get over it man!"
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22074150 - 08/10/15 10:32 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Your title is a proposition, your subject isn't.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: falcon]
#22074204 - 08/10/15 10:42 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
ummm, no, it's a proposition. it's a statement i've prepared to be debated for it's validity. well, this is already going swimmingly.
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22074264 - 08/10/15 10:55 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's really not very clear, that much I can vouch for.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22074373 - 08/10/15 11:23 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Do all people do this? Or is this a story of a person or persons who are likely to say such things. In my experience people don't consistantly act this way, forgiving their own mistakes and berating those who are having hard time. A requesr to discuss is a proposition, the statement that follows the title box is not a proposition it's a declaration.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22074378 - 08/10/15 11:26 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Probably what you are thinking does not need to be a fine tuned analysis, but it'd still help to understand who is saying what.
Then again, I see how it could be left in the air...
If it is all one hunk of metaphysical unity you have splayed here, I'd guess you are you talking about the idea of accidents versus consequences of accidents. (Like stumbling, vs incurring) Is it potentially the same event from different points of view?
For example maybe the first case is where one can't accept responsibility, and the latter case is where or when moral evaluation "says" you must or you must accept responsibility, or at least suck it up. Propositionality is maybe at issue, Akira. Things may be more or less internalized or projected, and also, things may be more or less justified. Yet such general and likely inconsistent affairs are perhaps as you remark, common.
Hegel wrote thusly:
The exoteric teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought. In support of this popular teaching came the cry of modern educationists that the needs of the time demanded attention to immediate requirements, that just as experience was the primary factor for knowledge, so for skill in public and private life, practice and practical training generally were essential and alone necessary, theoretical insight being harmful even. Philosophy [Wissenschaft] and ordinary common sense thus co-operating to bring about the downfall of metaphysics, there was seen the strange spectacle of a cultured nation without metaphysics – like a temple richly ornamented in other respects but without a holy of holies. Theology, which in former times was the guardian of the speculative mysteries and of metaphysics (although this was subordinate to it) had given up this science in exchange for feelings, for what was popularly matter-of-fact, and for historical erudition. In keeping with this change, there vanished from the world those solitary souls who were sacrificed by their people and exiled from the world to the end that the eternal should be contemplated and served by lives devoted solely thereto — not for any practical gain but for the sake of blessedness; a disappearance which, in another context, can be regarded as essentially the same phenomenon as that previously mentioned. So that having got rid of the dark utterances of metaphysics, of the colourless communion of the spirit with itself, outer existence seemed to be transformed into the bright world of flowers – and there are no black flowers, as we know.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kurt]
#22075611 - 08/11/15 09:40 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i don't see how accepting the instance of fucking up as "only human" and thus "acceptable", can be justified, and then on the other hand, if someone is dealing with their fuck up instead of putting it aside and saying "shit happens i'm only human", that people can't see that as justified, and thus is not accepted and is something to "get over and suck it up" while the person isn't just accepting they fucked up, but NOT accepting that they've fucked up and are not ignoring the consequences of their actions.
i think it has to do with the aspect of things "going smoothly". if something is distracting someone from their work lets say, it's considered a personal problem and they should take some time off to deal with it, but if someone fucks up something leading to a misappropriation to their work (such as a failed attempt to do a job) then it's considered an avoidable issue that can be ignored and not taken seriously; that is of course until these failed attempts happen so often as to appear liable personally to the individual.
and @Falcon, the subject following the title box is a statement, which follows the proposition "is it only human (personal incredulity), or is it an instance of someone not preforming up to task?" i thought it was pretty clear what the question was. it's either or, either one or the other, either true or false; is it excusable or not? are these instances distinct, or are they interchangeable?
Quote:
In my experience people don't consistently act this way
not the point. when this happens... Quote:
forgiving their own mistakes and berating those who are having hard time
is one aspect or the other acceptable, or is it not, and which and why? that's the proposition. it's IN the statement AND IN the title.
Edited by akira_akuma (08/11/15 10:21 AM)
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kurt]
#22075655 - 08/11/15 09:55 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Stop propositioning me.
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Sun King]
#22075657 - 08/11/15 09:56 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 42 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075667 - 08/11/15 09:57 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's an arbitrary split. Personal/business. The line is somewhere and it varies exactly where. As a manager I don't want associates bringing personal baggage in to work. Not only because I expect them to do their job (an even expectation regardless) but also because work is not the place to lean on others for social support. That is for outside of work.
If one fails/struggles in their work and needs work support, then work is indeed the appropriate place for that. But if one is struggling/failing in their personal life, then the personal sphere is where that belongs. Primarily because the social structure of a workplace is a delicate thing. People are obligated to get along and not necessarily because they actually like the people they work with. Most colleagues would not hang out with one another if work were not a contributing factor.
The line blurs significantly when genuine friendships are made within the work environment. Then the personal and the business become rather unified. But again, as an employer, I would much rather see personal problems stay in the personal sphere. A coworker who is also a friend can be your friend outside of work rather than when at work.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kickle]
#22075694 - 08/11/15 10:03 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
thanks for the answer and explanation, Kickle.
i am talking purely about a struggle with the work, not a personal struggle. but lets say, what if the person was handicapped? this would include both spheres, both personal and work related, right?
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 42 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075779 - 08/11/15 10:23 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Well I know at my place of business there is a form that all potential employees fill out stating any disabilities/limitations. An employer can't not hire someone with a disability (unless they cannot fulfill the job duties). And then once that form is filled out an employer cannot fire them for the limitations of their disability.
So say someone is in a wheelchair and a customer complained about slow service or something else. The employer might encourage (or yell, I've met those managers) the employee to try and up their pace. But it would be exceptionally difficult to do anything more. A boss who is ill-equipped to deal with issues in the workplace will typically take it out on employees.
But I have also seen that employees who are ill equipped to deal with criticism take small comments very personally.
with my psychology background I know a common thing with depressed individuals is that a boss telling you that something was wrong is often taken as a catastrophic event. and from the perspective of the boss if they don't tell you that it was wrong then nothing can be done to fix it. so as a boss it is a requirement to point out those things. but for the person it may seem very emotionally personal.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kickle]
#22075790 - 08/11/15 10:26 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
and i presume that yelling is unacceptable to you, in this case.
now lets go here: what if that employee got yelled at, and thusly yelled back? what then? what's the right way to go about handling that scenario?
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 42 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075797 - 08/11/15 10:29 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'd say both were at fault
But that the power dynamic favors the manager and insubordination knows no disability and could be grounds for firing. If witnesses are present then even more so.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075810 - 08/11/15 10:31 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: if people stumble into or dupe themselves into idiocy, "i'm only human!"; but if someone has incurred a personal struggle or has been given shitty circumstances dealt them, "get over it man!"
so basically this statement is correct^?
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 42 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075823 - 08/11/15 10:35 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
In some cases yeah. I think it really comes down to how much fight is given though. Most employers want their employees to do what they are told. Even if that means they screw up doing what they were told. Because most things are teachable/correctable. Someone making the effort is preferable to someone back-talking because most employers don't know how to correct an attitude and it removes their power. An employer is only effective if they are powerful enough to get others to do what they want.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kickle]
#22075842 - 08/11/15 10:40 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
sometimes the procedure the employer insists on is faulty. how can one presume to correct anything if they can't talk-back?
it sounds like quite a conundrum.
|
Kickle
Wanderer


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,856
Last seen: 42 minutes, 45 seconds
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22075848 - 08/11/15 10:41 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Welcome to hierarchy 
Climb to the top if you wanna try and rule. Just don't be surprised if you make all the same mistakes in your own way
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kickle]
#22075855 - 08/11/15 10:43 AM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
you gotta be this guy.
so hell no. i can't reduce myself to that guy.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22076319 - 08/11/15 01:10 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
akira_akuma said: i don't see how accepting the instance of fucking up as "only human" and thus "acceptable", can be justified, and then on the other hand, if someone is dealing with their fuck up instead of putting it aside and saying "shit happens i'm only human", that people can't see that as justified, and thus is not accepted and is something to "get over and suck it up" while the person isn't just accepting they fucked up, but NOT accepting that they've fucked up and are not ignoring the consequences of their actions.
i think it has to do with the aspect of things "going smoothly". if something is distracting someone from their work lets say, it's considered a personal problem and they should take some time off to deal with it, but if someone fucks up something leading to a misappropriation to their work (such as a failed attempt to do a job) then it's considered an avoidable issue that can be ignored and not taken seriously; that is of course until these failed attempts happen so often as to appear liable personally to the individual.
and @Falcon, the subject following the title box is a statement, which follows the proposition "is it only human (personal incredulity), or is it an instance of someone not preforming up to task?" i thought it was pretty clear what the question was. it's either or, either one or the other, either true or false; is it excusable or not? are these instances distinct, or are they interchangeable?
Quote:
In my experience people don't consistently act this way
not the point. when this happens... Quote:
forgiving their own mistakes and berating those who are having hard time
is one aspect or the other acceptable, or is it not, and which and why? that's the proposition. it's IN the statement AND IN the title.
Hey Akira; how do you value clarity of expression, say in grammar, when you are enunciating these complex philosophical/ethical expressions? Since we are talking about carefulness, chop and carry wood at your work, I just thought I'd ask.
Anyway, from what I could gather from your response, maybe incurring responsibility is not just "sucking it up", but who is anyone to say things are any more coherent, that there is any other place for things to go, or any further " process", once you are internalizing and taking responsibility for things? Try to take the notion. It's a process; sure, so is it into the digestive tract? Nietzsche turned the "process" completely inside out, and then what did he do? He criticized the grumblings of these "dyspeptic" philosophers.
I agree with Falcon's first response. What you are saying is not a proposition; it's no more of a proposition than common sense is, ultimately, even if you could be completely lucid.
I'd say maybe all you can do is have a beer, and think about the nobler sentiments in life. Look to the greeks, that's what I'll always say after a beer or two. They knew physis as nature, as well as causa sui in continuation (not as a predicate value). Physis was the process of "growth", or "becoming" in other words. According to the presocratics, it was fire, water, earth, and air.
Through our delimited conceptuality, it is difficult to even begin to understand a notion of physis as flowing natural process. We dwell in our engineered world. It is self created. Physis as the greeks thought it, is all we can think of as poetry or pure feeling, and we may perhaps become aware that as modern people, we interpret that notion of nature, and an equivocal physis and causa sui, according to our truths of our own.
The stoics, above all found physis to be a way of being, and I would advocate this view. Seneca suggested it was a virtue "to be like nature" or physis. What is stoicism? I will contend it is alive in any epoch. It is a meditation, and at the same time what people look on as a learned propensity for sucking things up. (Introspect this).
Something I kind of believe, is that more people should become more stoic and understand physis in themselves. Life sucks. We can all attest to this. I was once a serious ashtangi yogi, and it was my calling until circumstances beyond me fell on me, and now my health is terrible, and I am a yogi turned inside out. (Spinal condition) I still practice, but practice is medicine or therapy. I don't expect people to understand this (let alone the strangeness yoga seems to westerners in the first place). They see what they see. But to me it turned my world inside out and I've had to go with it, and all I have is this story, this involution of circumstance, that goes to nothing. That is life.
Anyway, when I think people should be stoic, I know aside from meaning people should be more reserved, disciplined, recognize the gift of reason, and meditate on physis or the nature of existence, above all, it would mean I wish people sucked things up, basically. That is a learned preference; not a proposition. It is something to do, or be, relating to circumstances, which are common enough as absurdity.
We can turn things inside out as Nietzsche so well exemplified; whereto, and what for?
Quote:
Even Socrates said, as he died: "To live — that means to be sick a long time: I owe Asclepius the Savior a rooster." Even Socrates was tired of life. What does that prove? What does it demonstrate? At one time, one would have said (and it has been said loud enough by our pessimists): "At least something must be true here! The consensus of the sages must show us the truth." Shall we still talk like that today? May we? "At least something must be sick here," we retort. These wisest men of all ages — they should first be scrutinized closely. Were they all perhaps shaky on their legs? tottery? decadent? late? Could it be that wisdom appears on earth as a raven, attracted by a little whiff of carrion?
Nietzsche seemed above all to speak for himself...
Anyway, I don't know about how to deal with coworkers, and can't give anyone advice about girls, or death, or anything really significant, but I think the greatest philosophy is quietism, tending toward meditation. And I would not "just" be speaking of idiosyncratic experience. Philosophical meditation is on existence, and that, it may be clearly enough inferred, is the problem of its suffering, and that per se should not be taken as a value of existence. Hence I can say it but it is not a proposition.
Nietzsche had it right in one way of his criticism of dyspeptic, and ravaged his own conscience. The stoics (or Buddhists) achieved a similar thing. These notions are not esoteric, but still chosen values in implication or consequence, as things tend to be. They are all the same, what we may propose that we interpret physis or nature, or being of nature. There is something indeed abrasive about that.
My position would be that social justice is expressed from these affairs, in nobler sentiments. That's all I can think to say in specific response.
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kurt]
#22076418 - 08/11/15 01:29 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i lean towards quietism in all my proposals and arguments. senseless philosophy is that which builds on what is unnecessary and fruitless...that which needs not be broken down.
and my statement was - tada! - a proposition. how is it not? i prepared the statement to be discussed and debated, and so how is it not a proposition?
Quote:
Hey Akira; how do you value clarity of expression, say in grammar, when you are enunciating these complex philosophical/ethical expressions?
a value it greatly; it must be said however that one's individual preference my be noted, although not necessarily welcome. i think i was pretty clear.
Edited by akira_akuma (08/11/15 01:39 PM)
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: akira_akuma]
#22076630 - 08/11/15 02:16 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think you can make that gesture to a proposition, without necessarily showing anything; like presently, for instance.
I think what you said was clear enough to find something in it; otherwise I wouldn't have responded, but I may be mistaken about what you meant, or may just associating an idea (...which I think, is ultimately not a proposition in my consideration. Introspectivity or meditation is not a prop.)
Could you state the argument or perhaps reword it?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: discuss this proposition and explain why this occurs [Re: Kurt]
#22076894 - 08/11/15 03:13 PM (8 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the argument is people expect perfection from everyone but themselves.
|
|