Home | Community | Message Board


Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671079 - 07/23/08 12:09 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question. World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say? A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.


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

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671085 - 07/23/08 12:10 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
Any "worldview" can be an object of intelligible thought.  Since that is the case, all "worldviews" (other than those based entirely on hallucinations) can be and are objective.  The very dialogue exchanged adequately proves this.

And for the record, my dismissal was a lettle tongue in cheek.

It's not really a debateable point unless a person doesn't own, and cannot understand, a simple common dictionary.




Well next time you go correcting another's use of language, make sure youve got it right.

American heritage definition of worldview:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
A world view is a view (subjective) of the world (objective)


world (objective) view (perspective - therefore subjective)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671087 - 07/23/08 12:11 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Thoughts occur only within one's own mind, and are therefore subjective.  When thoughts begin to occur outside of the mind, then you might have a point regarding their objective existence.  Until then, you are quite incorrect.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671099 - 07/23/08 12:15 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question.




You can't look at a color?  You can't listen to a song?  Sorry, but these examples do not work.  A worldview exists only within the mind, and cannot be demonstrated to the senses.  This means that it is subjective.

Quote:

World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say?




They would say no, human beings acting upon their subjective worldviews exhibit phenomena.

Quote:

A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Not unless you can demonstrate the actual existence of said subjective truths.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671107 - 07/23/08 12:18 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Just for shits & giggles, let's look at the dictionary entry for "subjective":

Quote:

1.
    a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
   




Yes, just for shits and giggles, if a thought were only contained in or proceeded from a single person's mind, it would be subjective.  Hallucinations are purely subjective.  A particular hallucination can also be an intelligible object of thought if two people discussing it have a common experience thereby making even hallucinations objective.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671118 - 07/23/08 12:22 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Because thoughts and shared hallucinations exist in the external world?  :confused:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8671135 - 07/23/08 12:26 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
Any "worldview" can be an object of intelligible thought.  Since that is the case, all "worldviews" (other than those based entirely on hallucinations) can be and are objective.  The very dialogue exchanged adequately proves this.

And for the record, my dismissal was a lettle tongue in cheek.

It's not really a debateable point unless a person doesn't own, and cannot understand, a simple common dictionary.




Well next time you go correcting another's use of language, make sure youve(sic) got it right.




I've "got it right," but I'm sure youre confused about it.

Quote:

American heritage definition of worldview:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.




That isn't subjective, but I don't have all day to explain standard dictionary definitions.  #1. does not imply or indicate subjectivity.  See my post at Veritas.

Quote:

2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.




And neither does that definition.

Quote:

A world view is a view (subjective) of the world (objective)




That is your interpretation based on a misunderstanding of the word 'subjective'.  Try again.


Quote:

world (objective) view (perspective - therefore subjective)




Incorrect, but I shouldn't have to  :beatadeadhorse:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671140 - 07/23/08 12:27 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Thoughts occur only within one's own mind, and are therefore subjective.  When thoughts begin to occur outside of the mind, then you might have a point regarding their objective existence.  Until then, you are quite incorrect.




I'm sorry, but your view is still incorrect.

See my post before this one.

:shrug:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671146 - 07/23/08 12:29 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
Your confusion is caused by the terms 'actual' and 'real' in the second definition. Do a quick study on ontology, it might clear it up. If we follow your line of reasoning, thoughts do not exist--reductio ad absurdum.

This is but one problem with the materialists' view.




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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671174 - 07/23/08 12:37 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question. World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say? A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Well put other than the analogy is weak as all analogies are.

:thumbup:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671200 - 07/23/08 12:47 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question.




You can't look at a color?  You can't listen to a song?  Sorry, but these examples do not work.  A worldview exists only within the mind, and cannot be demonstrated to the senses.  This means that it is subjective.




Yes the wavelength of light is objective, and the sonic harmonies do exist, but your personal experience of them doesn't exist in the objective world. A world view exists in multiple minds, it's subjective in multiple minds that is an objective fact. World views can be demonstrated to have effects on the physical world.

Quote:

World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say?




Quote:

They would say no, human beings acting upon their subjective worldviews exhibit phenomena.



Acting on their shared world views, they all agree upon a zeitgeist which to each individual is subjective, but to an observer objective.

Quote:

A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Quote:

Not unless you can demonstrate the actual existence of said subjective truths.


What is an ethic? Can you demonstrate the existence of one, or tell me how they aren't objective?


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

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671216 - 07/23/08 12:50 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

By Jove I think he's got it!

:congrats:

Well done.  :thumbup:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671363 - 07/23/08 01:32 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Until you've clarified how the definition of subjective I've posted is NOT the actual definition, your insistence is meaningless.  Do thoughts exist in the external world, or within the mind?  Unless something exists outside of the mind, and can be demonstrated to exist in the external world, it is NOT objective.  You have not provided the slightest support for your assertions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671414 - 07/23/08 01:43 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

I argue that a world view can exist outside the mind and is not the same as a thought.


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

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671425 - 07/23/08 01:45 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

OK, show me a worldview.  What color is it?  How large is it?  Can I put it in my pocket?  Is it heavy?  Is it alive?  Is it wet or dry?  How many worldviews would fit inside a VW Beetle?

Quote:

World views can be demonstrated to have effects on the physical world.




Really?  All by themselves? Without humans thinking about them and taking action based upon those thoughts? How do they accomplish this, exactly?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 10 hours, 22 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671510 - 07/23/08 02:07 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

How nice would it be if people in this forum would agree to use words properly? If a word MEANS something... it MEANS something.

We can only use your WORDS to figure out what you are trying to SAY! We can't use your body language, or tone of voice.

People who take your words LITERALLY are actually doing the best they can to figure out what you are trying to say. ESPECIALLY when you don't post too often in this forum... 'cause it takes time to get to know a person.

We are not allowed to use personalisms in here, we have your post to go by... and nothing else.

Don't fault someone for taking your posts at face value.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671514 - 07/23/08 02:07 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

A world view can be shown through literature, religion, art and politics.

You're right, the truths behind a world view ARE subjective. A world view itself, irrespective of it's subjective convictions, is a containable tangible phenomenon.

It exists in the annals of communication and culture, it is a property of culture and it is known universally by a population. It's the verbal surrogate of an ideal, which directly effects reality. If you apply a lens that negates the substance of the world view, there would be behaviors unexplainable throughout the group of individuals. Those behaviors are the world view.

How many blues can you hold in your pocket? What color is hot? What does an ethic look like? These are all objective truths dependent of a mind they cannot be quantified by physical means.


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

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671538 - 07/23/08 02:14 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

All ideas are the product of the mind.  The fact that one can write down or paint said ideas does not lend the ideas objective existence.  In that case, the book or painting has objective existence, yet the subject depicted therein does not. 

Claiming that behaviors = worldviews is erroneous.  One's behavior may be inspired or influenced by ideas, but this does not make the ideas exist in the external world.

Let's look at it this way, if every human on the planet was suddenly rendered amnesiac and all expressions of a particular worldview were destroyed, would that worldview still exist?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671547 - 07/23/08 02:17 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
A world view can be shown through literature, religion, art and politics.

You're right, the truths behind a world view ARE subjective. A world view itself, irrespective of it's subjective convictions, is a containable tangible phenomenon.

It exists in the annals of communication and culture, it is a property of culture and it is known universally by a population. It's the verbal surrogate of an ideal, which directly effects reality. If you apply a lens that negates the substance of the world view, there would be behaviors unexplainable throughout the group of individuals. Those behaviors are the world view.

How many blues can you hold in your pocket? What color is hot? What does an ethic look like? These are all objective truths dependent of a mind they cannot be quantified by physical means.




Clear as a bell to me.  The fact that others cannot understand such a simple concept is really beside the point.

Thank you for the explication.  The fact that a single person here can understand what should be obvious, gives me hope.

:laugh:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671620 - 07/23/08 02:33 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Until you've clarified how the definition of subjective I've posted is NOT the actual definition, your insistence is meaningless.  Do thoughts exist in the external world, or within the mind?  Unless something exists outside of the mind, and can be demonstrated to exist in the external world, it is NOT objective.  You have not provided the slightest support for your assertions.




I've clarified it repeatedly and used it properly.  Perhaps their are blinders you are unaware of.

This post went unanswered:
Quote:

Yes, just for shits and giggles, if a thought were only contained in or proceeded from a single person's mind, it would be subjective.  Hallucinations are purely subjective.  A particular hallucination can also be an intelligible object of thought if two people discussing it have a common experience thereby making even hallucinations objective.




This post went unanswered as well:
Quote:

Your confusion is caused by the terms 'actual' and 'real' in the second definition. Do a quick study on ontology, it might clear it up. If we follow your line of reasoning, thoughts do not exist--reductio ad absurdum.

This is but one problem with the materialists' view.




Until you can provide an adequate defense for those posts which expose the shaky philosophy your ideas are built on your insistence is less than meaningless.

The materialists' world is a prison of delusion, trapped in a world of their own making they cannot escape nor understand a common dictionary.

It's fairly easy to see why this forum should be avoided if one were looking for actual philosophical dialogue/argument.*

*Please note that a philosophical argument does not by necessity include tendencious polemic.

Too much heat, not enough light.

Nuff said.

Cheerio(s)


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate DiploidM 32,195 1 04/14/07 03:48 PM
by Diploid
* The futility of philosophical debate. infidelGOD 1,504 14 06/06/03 04:49 PM
by HagbardCeline
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate kimikiri 1,485 7 09/06/07 09:58 AM
by fireworks_god
* these days, most of my philosophical debates happen on Shroomerites Anonymous Sophistic Radiance 892 10 02/26/09 11:59 AM
by Icelander
* The 'Wear you Down' Fallacy OrgoneConclusion 1,137 3 09/20/07 11:06 AM
by fireworks_god
* Debate Technique OrgoneConclusion 2,389 18 03/03/08 11:49 AM
by fireworks_god
* How to find a chakra
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Rahz 4,341 68 11/15/07 02:52 AM
by Kinematics
* Chakras? Do they exist?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 all )
RoseM 13,713 307 02/04/10 12:57 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
9,311 topic views. 2 members, 7 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 17 queries.