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

Re: Anti-Disestablishment-Conclusionism

Expand Messages
  • fictiveparrot
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > (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
    • Jim
      Knott, Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully argued post. I m tempted to say I understand what you are saying, but to avoid unnecessary confrontation,
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Knott,

        Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully argued post.

        I'm tempted to say I understand what you are saying, but to avoid unnecessary confrontation, I'll just say I kind of get where you are coming from.

        Jim



        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
        >
        > > (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
        >
      • Mary
        Jim, Confrontation is unavoidable because of differences, and people can figure out where they stand sooner if they accept them and deal with them head on. We
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 5, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim,

          Confrontation is unavoidable because of differences, and people can figure out where they stand sooner if they accept them and deal with them head on. We can understand and agree with some people some of the time about some things yet differences remain, and even when we think we understand, we may still disagree. I think one of the essential existential dilemmas for people and society is how to 'handle' difference.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Knott,
          >
          > Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully argued post.
          >
          > I'm tempted to say I understand what you are saying, but to avoid unnecessary confrontation, I'll just say I kind of get where you are coming from.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@> wrote:
          > >
          > > > (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
          > >
          >
        • Jim
          Mary, There is a lot in your short post, so I ll respond to each sentence in turn. Mary: Confrontation is unavoidable because of differences, and people can
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Mary,

            There is a lot in your short post, so I'll respond to each sentence in turn.

            Mary: Confrontation is unavoidable because of differences, and people can figure out where they stand sooner if they accept them and deal with them head on.

            Response: Yes difference is all around us – difference in attitudes, values, likes and dislikes between individuals and between groups. I even find differences within myself from day to day. As you suggest difference often (but not always) leads to confrontation which again in on a scale from a disapproving word or look up to physical violence.

            Like you, I think usually it is best to acknowledge difference and get it out into the open, rather than sweep it under the carpet as some people prefer to do. In fact I think it shows respect to the other person to acknowledge the differences between you and them.

            Mary: We can understand and agree with some people some of the time about some things yet differences remain, and even when we think we understand, we may still disagree.

            Response: Some differences are easier to acknowledge than others. So I can agree that my philosophical views on understanding and matching thoughts are different from Knott's without residual feelings of anger, resentment and injustice. Philosophical differences can usually be acknowledged amicably – although when I was studying Philosophy at Nottingham I heard there was a fist fight between two of the Professors in the Philosophy corridor – however I don't think it was a dispute over ontology.

            Yes, sometimes we just don't understand each other, and again I think it is good to acknowledge this, even if this can create awkwardness, especially if the other has tried to explain his point carefully ten times or more!

            Mary: I think one of the essential existential dilemmas for people and society is how to 'handle' difference.

            Response: Yes, very much so! I recently broke off a forty-year friendship because my former friend was against gay marriage. I argued that because he was not religious, so he wasn't just following religious dogma, he was actually homophobic. He denied this, but I still broke off the friendship.

            Differences like this, and political differences generally, I find difficult to handle. I can't just "agree to disagree" with a right-winger – I cannot help but feel anger, resentment and injustice when I hear their views.

            Another area of difference is difference in attitude and values between me and my children. I think this is a bit of a "no win" area, as part of growing up during one's teenage years involves forming one's own distinct identity and personality, and one necessary way to do this is to define difference and distance from one's parents. So inevitably children will develop into independent-thinking individuals partly by forming attitudes and values different from their parents. But as a parent I want my children to see things as I do!

            This leads me to appreciate how important it is to allow others to be different from ourselves and not try to force everyone we fit into our own mould. In fact one of the most damaging of character traits is that of the `control freak', the man (usually it's a man, but not always) who wants to completely control his family, his work colleagues (at least those underneath him) and his friends (who have to be his disciples to remain his friends).

            Yes, as a species we struggle with difference.

            Jim




            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jim,
            >
            > Confrontation is unavoidable because of differences, and people can figure out where they stand sooner if they accept them and deal with them head on. We can understand and agree with some people some of the time about some things yet differences remain, and even when we think we understand, we may still disagree. I think one of the essential existential dilemmas for people and society is how to 'handle' difference.
            >
            > Mary
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.