Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59644Re: Anti-Disestablishment-Conclusionism

Expand Messages
  • fictiveparrot
    Apr 1, 2013
      > (GT) If two people disagree with one another
      > about some point or other, then that only shows
      > they do not fully understand each other. In
      > other words, if two people do succeed in
      > understanding each other then they will agree
      > with each other.

      I entertain that but somehow it seems incorrect to me to make supposition that people can understand each other, so the end-point of agreeing seems impossible. I guess you could look at it like a function where you assume a behavior as you approach infinity in ƒ(x). There is always going to be some difference. At least as I perceive it.

      > Or perhaps your view is even more radical:
      > perhaps you think nobody ever understands
      > anybody else?

      Totally, I think it is impossible. Circumstantially, perhaps. However, any time you think someone is totally wrong, I often believe it is more a misunderstanding in not being privy to their process of achieving the conclusion. And no, you don't have to point out that I am inconsistent in deciding that certain people are wrong...I feel I understand them, I know I can't, I apply my own models, and it doesn't fit. I rib them to see if there's any gas in the idea, and most of them explode...I'm not much for gentle. I could, perhaps, learn more... I am a little impatient with people who claim to be brilliant but can't fathom anything I say...all terribly inconsistent at points. Mostly it is a response to inconsistency.

      > ...your radical claim is that no two people can
      > ever entertain the same thought content (thought-type),
      > which seems to me to be another way of saying two
      > people can never understand each other.

      I think that's my suggestion -- at least it appears by your words that you sorta get where I'm going. Or went.

      > I think your scepticism is so extreme that you
      > effectively cut yourself off from everybody else.

      Hahahaha. Not sure how you mean that.

      > I haven't noticed anybody on this forum blaming
      > someone else for their thoughts. Perhaps you can
      > point to a passage where somebody blames somebody
      > else for their thoughts?

      Any post where someone justifies a position by saying "XYZ Philostopher said..." Pfft. I call it 'blaming'. Someone understands something in a certain way, it fits other models conveniently, works with personal definitions...It may look like a yak compared to a donkey if the author were to appear. I don't trust academia. It is full of people more hell-bent on dragging an idea to the ground and choking it to death than playing Baron Frankenstein and trying to help make the thing walk. New life and new ideas come from synthesis -- so it seems -- not by historic excavation. Quoting and blaming is just lining up urns. Dead people, dead thoughts, stagnancy.

      > I would say I have benefitted from reading
      > books by philosophers, scientists and other
      > writers.

      My example with Beckett meant to point that out...you can read and synthesize ideas (in my impression your own ideas about what you believe the author might be saying, not the author's ideas -- and perhaps leap to another level where the words conjure something outside of the text -- which for me happens quite often).

      > However I acknowledge that we are going
      > to continue to disagree about this.

      Well, then you both understand me, and don't... which is pretty close to the point -- which is far more clear to me. Until it changes.

      Kutzoff Geans
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic