|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 14, 2022 10:16:52 GMT
I wonder how to be with those people who in any set of facts always see one and just one interpretation? No matter which conditions, events, etc - there's only one and only interpretation...
If to attempt it to logic, then such a style is closer to the intentional logic. This is such a logic that does not rely on denotates or extensional context. You don't need to be sure to which things we are referring, because ony your interpretation matters.
Why this happens? And why those people are stuck to interpret everything according to their view? Is it right? Is it okay?
I think it must be obvious that in such a way they risk to make lots of mistakes, but it doesn't seem them are always being afraid of this. Moreover, it's not unimpossible to say that each person holds its own truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jun 15, 2022 18:39:51 GMT
Can you give an example about the issue of MANY facts Vs. ONE (presumed correct) interpretation? As in the death of a man, there can be multiple causes, yet some men insist on only one cause. Thus they prejudice the case to begin with. Why? Watch some real cases. E.g. in the U.S., a man who was doing something illegal resisted arrest; policemen applied force to restrain him, who in the process died. A faction of people attributed his death exclusively to the police action, even though they knew about his heath condition etc. Why? Because their interpretation was a welcome pretext to start fires and destructions in a Furgson White neighborhood, and they are still suing a policeman personally as a murderer. / Organized and paid criminals are not interested in the truth./ ////////
Ukraine asks Israel for a $500,000 loan. Of course, the President asks and will receive. If we know the sequence of Presidents, we can predict the full subservience of Ukraine to the Holy Globalists. The old Israeli said it: he who controls the finances of a country controls it. I hope this interpretation is wrong....
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 19, 2022 18:10:17 GMT
joustosThe answer to the 2nd part: Well, what can I answer to you, Joustos. You ask me about 'being under the Globalist', but my usual days now are such: I expect the hit at least twice a day. I am worrying about not about myself, but about my mom and dad, about my other relatives. Maybe today people are not so frightened or sad as two months ago, but that mortal doom fate is here, is presented. Ukraine is not the steel and the iron, it is alive people. And against such a monster as Russia we're trying to fight. The warriors at the front and the ordinary people by doing their jobs. Some are volunteers, some are doctors, firemen, etc. The conditions are absolutely abnormal. The shelling is everyday. They hit not only people, but our infrastructure. Even for now the damages are critical. I am sorry, but what you tell me about the globalist I hear as something 'the war out'. I would be thinking about that on my better days, I don't think I am able to do it now. Instead of lending a help from some countries I hear only complaining on us, as like we are evil. This is just an insanity. I don't know what kind of cynicists should be to blame the ones who are being slashed in XXI century. I think that some of ones are just careless. They do not care that we will be genocided. So, I don't care about them also. Why should I? I saw some newspapers from France, Germany and Italy - out foes, than friends, I'd say - and what they are doing is systematic retelling that Ukraine is such a horrible state... If France, Germany, or Italy says that then for me they are not better, than Russia. I am very glad that in this world there are still country and people with hearts; the countries with brains, not only with that "fairy tales" about conspiracy globalists. The globalists are the ones who do crimes. The globalists are the ones who are lying. The globalists are the ones who are killing the innocents. The globalists are the ones who support evil. The globalists are the one who spread the lie. The globalists are the ones who at the moement is doing the intensive shelling of Kharkiv. That's how I see the globalists. The answer to the 1st part: Can't say it's easy to me to bring many examples or to pick a good one among of them. I'm going to use abstractions: if one has a set of facts (just a set of fact), these facts can be joined into a narrative, into a story. [In some grades, children are asked to build a story using some different sentences, or describing a picture to tell a story.] But each person can describe it's own one. Even one event [let's say a show, a musical festival] can be described differently by different reporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 19, 2022 18:34:57 GMT
joustosAt the moment Kharkiv is being intensively bombed, so can't say what I've typed at my 2nd part (I mean about the intepretations) is what I have written in the topic. I decided not to change anything, so I want to explain what do I mean by one intepretation despite the different facts. We can take the same situation with kids who are asked to write a story using different phrases, or describing a picture, or an animation, etc. If a kid has already had its own style or own thought is quite okay. If this is an adult it seems more true to consider that that one has his own style, or his own worldview. Of course, even one person can be abmiguity, or not certain about some facts. I mean one person can be hesitating, or be vague, or not strictly toward a view, but in most of the time, each of us has its own style, or few of styles. And one worldview, that may be varying in some way. So, if that one person is trying to write down a story he uses one interpretation under that his own style, or in a way of his own worldview he uses facts and absorb them into one interpretation - according to his own style. Rudolph Carnap, an American philosopher, developed a method called 'the Method of Intensionals and Extensionals', and by this method, the interpretation is the same as the intensional, or a name that variates different facts into one mode. It's like no matter which group of facts one's got his interpretation will be always his interpretations.
|
|
