Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Most Objective Generation Ever? [Re: quinn]
    #22481871 - 11/05/15 04:41 PM (8 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

quinn said:
Quote:

Kurt said:
"The world consists in facts, not things"

Wittgenstein; Tractatus, 1921




a pragmatist might argue, that facts are only valid insofar as they are useful..

and google is super useful in helping you do things..

i learnt my entire job through googling, and my replacement said he had done the exact same.

google is like having morpheus on the other end of the line, telling you when to move and where..

in conclusion, google is great and we will be able to do many more things if we are good at following instructions, these are new skills humans will need to become good at while old skills like 'memorising shit' are redundant and that part of our brain will shrivel up and die

:sadyes:




Modern philosophers are so fun aren't they? The pragmatists seem to usually be on point to me.

I think it is also a complex expression though too, especially if you lay it out a bit. The baseline for pragmatists today seems to mainly be in a response and somewhat of a reaction, and sometimes a disclaimer perhaps, to a turn in philosophy towards a convention of symbolic-linguistic or "analytic" philosophy in the 20th century.

As a pragmatist, you could say a theory is not taken in virtue of its mirroring of the natural world, but according instead to how it is useful to us. But I think the interesting question is it  additional criteria, or qualification for what stands as a true, or factual, or is it a critique? I would first observe that there is some possible conflict, in general which doesn't lend itself either to any automatic skepticism or idealism. But suffice to say I think usefulness as criteria for consideration is somewhat at stake for the ideal value of truth with a capital T at the same time it qualifies this. I think this complex statement of pragmatism reflects the unfolding of contemporary philosophy.

If anything has changed since Wittgenstein first came on the scene, still today and all the more, ae live in a symbolic world of facts. It is the same sentiment and aesthetic, but like butter stretched a little thinner on our bread. How you ground a theory is not the question or issue today though even; how you hang them in the air of conjecture of a human "community" is what is basic. What is interesting, is we look out and out into the universe. While it is very easy to reconcile that community of discourse in individual terms (that scientific community tells you in a very useful way "to look before you leap", and that is pragmatic modeling of the natural world) but for instance, in capacity as a community, or in the way we arrive at such distinctions, a set of ascribed values as a whole, that is where things are stretched thin. It is politics mainly, a social structure.

A fact could be defined in its most substantive sense today, as something to do with the natural world. Yet that is technically determined as a projected linguistic argument that is to be possibly falsified by a community's conjecture, and maintained that way. Do we constantly enunciate arguments to perceive the world? We do indeed largely dwell in a way of reflecting on propositions, as opposed to say phenomenology. This was Wittgenstein's suggestion, facts and their conjectures, not things. It seems epistemology, analysis of beliefs, was in a way made implied in our modern world.

That sentiment for analyzing beliefs stands of course, but in a certain way to be clarified I think. Epistemology was a virtue in a sense to Plato, and yet what I observe today as such virtue, is not so much a discussion of analysis of beliefs and what we can know, but the conventionality wherein this is implicit expressed differently. Epistemology, truth or falsity is like a modern scientific oeoples moral code. It is good and evil. Of course we have a discussion about knowledge and what it is possible to know, but epistemologists and philosophers of science (actual discussion and enquiry into what method itself is) are not sought by science, but rather what is more easy to find being two sided, a discussion between the technition and lay people, or the sound minded and droves of idiots as some moral crisis of education in America's bible belt. One cannot question method in other words, without being ready to meet the pointed finger, that anyone who do not take part in the standard etiquette of this convention and community, must be some kind of anti-intellectual.

What stands as science, as an institution and economy of progress, seeks not a discussion of epistemelogy, but to find patronship in mass pop culture phenomenon, and the leveling to politics. That is the economy of epistemological, or believe and knowledge based discussion. It is conventional, real, and the broad moral sentiment of a modern people, above all. It is the virtue that got so formalized and ritualized that it doesn't even have anything to do with the virtues it came from (namely naturalism, rather than technical power over nature and all things). Scientific achievement, is the automatic progress of a culture following a liberal institution and certain economy of production and consumption.


This is all basically to say, to qualify truth as something useful, I think is difficult, when truth always was clearly found in usefulness, rather than any ideal of naturalism.

The conventionality of a community and discourse which we dwell in can be clarified in that it does not suggest any particular theory, but in general, the way methodological assumptions reflect cosmological assumptions. For example, what is proposed as straight forwardness and intellectual sincerity in method in one way as a moral, is what is being proposed at once as conventional, straight-forward and automatically assured also, in a metaphysical sense, as a mechanism (like the way viewing and ideally predicting physical phenomena on a cartesian coordinate system, according to mathematical calculation, determines physical reality). This goes back to Descartes, and it works, even though this aperture into an external gridded or dimensional world is assertional, on some rather speculative assumptions, which I think it is often naively supposed that we "balance" with doubt. The point of place of the cartesian ego, or consciousness becomes the inspiration for Kant's synthetic analytic cleavage, which binds physics in such dimensions of space time, these matrices of determinate physical phenomena.

Now again we can definitely say that this was always something useful. Or better put, clearly what goes back to the Baconian idea of mechanism which we seek in everything physical, is useful in respect to us, and paradigmatically truthful as knowledge, but mainly no doubt a projection of will to power over things. Knowledge is power, or it is useful.

It is interesting that the main throwback to values of knowledge which go to Cartesianism as his method of doubt (or rather following this in consistency to arrive at what is uncountable as the ego) stands in itself a highly unreconciled theory. No doubt there was a reason the problem was banished in the split against phenomenologists, and linguistic philosophers. The ego or mind or consciousness is what according to its own advocation, is not what is not possible to doubt, today, but in an equivocal way, what is most doubtful, both in broad values as well as in the way paradigms move in revolution of their own structures. To think of Cartesian skepticism seriously, as something perhaps broadly mistaken, is a discussion that nobody can quite seem to deal with.

The overall epistemological presumption which Descartes himself established was as of an external world of mechanism, (with at least a few respective assumptions; mainly ego and how it is situated). It stands to reason that this is how methodology reflects cosmology. We look for mechanism in nature. We project this because we are not human beings just with a formal capacity, as well like to think (either as spirit or brain power) but tactile opposable thumbs, tool bearing animals. No doubt this idea of nature as determinant mechanism is a projection, but as we say, it is what "works". It is useful and usefulness is basic, so we could just as well (as we have for the majority of modern existence) call this universalism.

The sum of it, is that the materialism which was once realistic or naturalized in Aristotle, suggested as a form of skepticism in Descartes, is now unconsciously and in a certain way very uncritically idealized to the extent that it is like a platonic realm of forms, a realm of theory hanging in the air, both conventional and real, in a world which we engage in formal language and theory. This dialogue on symbolic analysis is supposed to evoke and cleave to physical phenomena, but we look to words and ideas, no different than Platonic forms according to the sentiments which were most against metaphysics.

So to the point, I am pretty sure that we remain in the turn towards symbol (which is to say the challenge to argument or propositions) and to advise in how we find this useful in a novel sense, as the pragmatists suppose, is in respect to something both conventional and real as modernity.

When I hear an appeal to pragmatism, I wonder if this means this person is appealing to an immediate sense of usefulness, assembly line productivity and state of consciousness or "philosophy" that goes along with that. In other words something useful could be called the universalism, and the demand to be constructive and progress in the pursuit of truth quite easily. In other words we will continue to think of nature itself in this way easily enough under these auspice, because humankind is very self centered even and especially when it is objectifying things. Of course truth will be what we will above all be inclined to call useful in modernity, and vice versa; as usefulness will be called truth, and for most people this will be basically circular without any clarity.

On the other hand I think pragmatists are actually providing an interruption in the status quo. If you think that truth was always both conventional and real, what is the response to this? I believe some modern American pragmatists may be cognizant, or aware of utility, such that they may not be immediately or necessarily delivered over to it as so many people compulsively are. To be aware of pragmatic utility, could be to halt the compulsion of it.

As to this generation in general, the generation of the internet and social media and smart phones, there has been such leaps in technological advancement, and I believe understanding what is going on, is to find how it is built or (rather spontaneously and compulsive produced) on these modern values. Whatever "foundation" it offers (as Descartes spoke of) if any at all, modernity has offered, is what is at issue. Descartes foundations were the ego or consciousness, that which could not be doubted (and what in the people who accept this theory most, most highly doubt.) It is a general orientation of materialism in a broad sense.

Objectivity is conventional and real at the same time. It is a positioning of presence, not as the solid basis or foundation, but perpetually and compulsively stimulated and evoked reality, in a stream that is supposed as constant this presenting. To quote the I Ching though, "constantly stimulated is not constancy"

Do you jump in, or do you wonder if it is just preferred stimulations that evokes something real? Maybe it is not so much what this generation is, the mass of it, the deep of "information" (which more and more young idealists speculate upon) but what is all the more distinguished from that mass cavern, of human phenomenona. That is what will "stand out". I think it is time to say no to alot of this, and that is what I am doing. Maybe I am getting a little stodgy.

Oh back in my day Plato described the same thing as the Matrix without all that techno...


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

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Delusional Narcissistic Cosmic Significance
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Poid 3,917 81 12/30/09 12:14 AM
by PoopIntrusion
* Racism, Tribalism, and Ancestral Narcissism: The Precursors to Cultural and Societal Fratricide wyldeman007 2,764 9 05/04/10 03:35 PM
by wyldeman007
* Karma = objective morality
( 1 2 all )
deafpanda 4,415 30 01/12/05 12:46 AM
by fresh313
* The Origins of Narcissism Poid 3,061 12 03/18/10 03:46 AM
by Poid
* Black holes, individuality, unjust narcissism and social psychology floatingcharmer 1,896 9 03/14/10 11:42 PM
by Arden
* narcissism beatlesrock 579 2 09/20/02 07:24 PM
by In(di)go
* Reality: Our objective, benelovent friend SkorpivoMusterion 1,314 11 11/19/05 03:04 PM
by Ped
* An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity SkorpivoMusterion 1,451 8 04/22/06 05:40 AM
by fresh313

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,914 topic views. 1 members, 14 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.