|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 28, 2020 18:17:01 GMT
(Well, perhaps this time I'll be quite rigorous, but it matters.)
Ok, if to continue to object things in this way we can then say that we don't need anything and there's no nothing to be a trusted, or, at least, firm and sustainable things.
No, even during the most scientific-able period of philosophy – logical positivism there were no such categorical views. The more reasonable features of science were considered as the senseful and powerful language to describe the world.
I guess the modern computability methods plus bayesian ones are enough to allow us to provide plenty of different and very complex and difficult modelling structures to investigate them in details.
The last one point is tied up with the robot, androïds, AI's, etc products which are still being alienated by many of us. And it's not surprising, cause the more weapons we have the less trust to our mutual morality requirements lasts.
In one of the previous posts you've said that being clever or a good person is what does make you be moral. I guess it's not because of that. Actually it's true, concerning that there's the Hume's guillotine objection to it. However, it doesn't imply we don't need to have the order or a schedule to cooperate together. And this is a strong argument to start looking for some "musts" and "ought to".
Personally I have the answer about morality, and I guess it can be solved. My opinion is based partially on John Rawls's equilibrium method. What we do need is to find as much as possible facts, and when we would have plenty of them to find enough ones to agree, we had to repeat this until we wouldn't have enough of facts to start guessing about our intentions and decisions. So, we needn't have only purposes, we'd better have mutual requirements of how not to harm to each other, etc.
The plain level of cooperation is accessible, and even crooks, and thieves are done with it. To make something be completed we must find some schedules, and a ordered timetable is what can show what each has to do.
I know that there's no escape from Hume's guillotine, but for a person is more clever not to violate orders when it's really unnecessary. For example, there's no need violate driving rules, because nobody will achieve anything useful there.
So, many people ask then: how 'bout those who strictly does not follow the rules? What to do with them? – Unfortunately something we have to deal with such persons, but what we usually do – civilized talk. If it is above of any help – using force; notifying, that there are plenty of ways to how to use it.
My opinion is that deflections have to be included to general facts. We don't know ourselves, that's why it's natural not to trust to ourselves. As more facts we have the more chances to solve the task. It's like having a task in physics: the more formulations and givens you have, the closely to the answer is your pen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 20:36:51 GMT
@skyheart
There was a time I thought that reflections were really bad to me. Why? Because I wanted to satisfy my nostalgia (the last one helped me in some situations), but reflections made me use what Derrida called "deconstruction". (Being not an expert in continental philosophy, I'm not sure about the idea of Derrida, but I hope it is the point.)
Another case is remakes. Hell, how I hate them! The silicon chamber posts it regularly while mixing it with absolute nonsense. However, many directors wouldn't agree on it. Hell, yeah. They would probably say that they intended to make their pictures more bright, more wise, more intrigue, and so on. So, to trust them or not to trust them?
I think that the reflection has many dangers behind it. Using reflection means to transport something from the out, to the inside. The reflection is not only the meta-thought, it is replacement or chance of thoughts. It's more like masquerade: changing roles, wearing masks, dancing, so on.
At least those things stop me from making fast conclusions about the reflection. I guess for to be wise to use reflection isn't always necessary.
And - because of this - I cannot agree on Prince Myshkin as a complete soulless or unaware person. I've always been toward him, and I sympathize him. Yes, he's not like the other ones, but he does have a heart. He's feeling sorrow and pain; he refused many fruits of this world, and he did it intentionally (and because of this he's lost his mind). So, for me Prince Myshkin is a wise person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 13:54:34 GMT
@skyheart There was a time I thought that reflections were really bad to me. Why? Because I wanted to satisfy my nostalgia (the last one helped me in some situations), but reflections made me use what Derrida called "deconstruction". (Being not an expert in continental philosophy, I'm not sure about the idea of Derrida, but I hope it is the point.) Another case is remakes. Hell, how I hate them! The silicon chamber posts it regularly while mixing it with absolute nonsense. However, many directors wouldn't agree on it. Hell, yeah. They would probably say that they intended to make their pictures more bright, more wise, more intrigue, and so on. So, to trust them or not to trust them? I think that the reflection has many dangers behind it. Using reflection means to transport something from the out, to the inside. The reflection is not only the meta-thought, it is replacement or chance of thoughts. It's more like masquerade: changing roles, wearing masks, dancing, so on. At least those things stop me from making fast conclusions about the reflection. I guess for to be wise to use reflection isn't always necessary. And - because of this - I cannot agree on Prince Myshkin as a complete soulless or unaware person. I've always been toward him, and I sympathize him. Yes, he's not like the other ones, but he does have a heart. He's feeling sorrow and pain; he refused many fruits of this world, and he did it intentionally (and because of this he's lost his mind). So, for me Prince Myshkin is a wise person. Reflection is being receptible for what can hurt our sense of self preservation. But it is not a gamble, because depends on what we concepts in the first place, the first conception of our mind. It's true. Need to say the first impression is often the most lasting. Anyway, what d'ya think about Myshkin? Do you still hate him? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 14:10:32 GMT
It's true. Need to say the first impression is often the most lasting. Anyway, what d'ya think about Myshkin? Do you still hate him? I like Myshkin, but no thoughs about him. The Idiot is a great book. In one of posts (unfortunately, I don't remember in which) you talked about simplicity of plainness of Russian literature (comparably to some other ones expressive literature). And you said something like that the character of Prince Myshkin proved that one could have no ethics, while being good (or smth like that). All right. Anyway, knowledge is indeed reflexive. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 14:11:20 GMT
@skyheart ow, congratu1ations! You've made your 50th post!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 15:19:19 GMT
I believe he has an defect in normative conduct. Wich implies in absence of ethical judgement. I see. (Exactly this thought came to mind my reading your previous comment.) But there's a problem appears. If ethics requires normative conduct, then to judge on something one needs to behave correctly (with some certain principles). And the last one is happened to be also problematic. Why? For the first, to judge we don't need anything, than a mind (brains) and some info. For instance, if I have a set of such and such arguments, and I rearrange them somehow, I receive the conclusion. (More precisely, this process has to be viewed as this: I.{a,b,c... - arguments}; II. {c,a,b... - arguments are mixed according to certain order or a principle}; III. {c,a... b - is a conclusion; one separates b from the rest as the result of the operation of mixing}. This representations is highly formal, but I guess the more typical things occur just like in this example.) Normative means - using some agreements, or laws, or, finally, some common sense. But agreements are consequential, the law is so as well, and the common sense - is what hard to be defined correctly. That's why we're still in guessing about it. - That's why I think I can trust Prince Myshkin even being aware of his not most shared views or his quite weird behavior. Nastasya Filippovna finally realized that Myshkin was the only one who really loved her. I guess sometimes we often refute those whose love we think is thin and unstable. We prefer those as Nastasya Filippovna at the beginning of the novel. But this choice is really wrong. Such touchhearted characters as Prince Myshkin are pretty hidden and puzzling... I mean such characters are unexpectable, and we have to be more accurate in valuating their actions or their manners. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 9:53:55 GMT
I see. (Exactly this thought came to mind my reading your previous comment.) But there's a problem appears. If ethics requires normative conduct, then to judge on something one needs to behave correctly (with some certain principles). And the last one is happened to be also problematic. Why? For the first, to judge we don't need anything, than a mind (brains) and some info. For instance, if I have a set of such and such arguments, and I rearrange them somehow, I receive the conclusion. (More precisely, this process has to be viewed as this: I.{a,b,c... - arguments}; II. {c,a,b... - arguments are mixed according to certain order or a principle}; III. {c,a... b - is a conclusion; one separates b from the rest as the result of the operation of mixing}. This representations is highly formal, but I guess the more typical things occur just like in this example.) Normative means - using some agreements, or laws, or, finally, some common sense. But agreements are consequential, the law is so as well, and the common sense - is what hard to be defined correctly. That's why we're still in guessing about it. - That's why I think I can trust Prince Myshkin even being aware of his not most shared views or his quite weird behavior. Nastasya Filippovna finally realized that Myshkin was the only one who really loved her. I guess sometimes we often refute those whose love we think is thin and unstable. We prefer those as Nastasya Filippovna at the beginning of the novel. But this choice is really wrong. Such touchhearted characters as Prince Myshkin are pretty hidden and puzzling... I mean such characters are unexpectable, and we have to be more accurate in valuating their actions or their manners. It is a hard question, but true in his hardness and his benefits. Prince Myshkin is weird, no doubt, but when he forgot it, he do great things and give a example. He surpass their own condition because of lacking of self avaliation. Why he's weird? His behaviour is rather unusual, or different to us. It doesn't imply he's wrong. I guess in this world there's no true and sincere left, so what he left to do nothing, but being a kinda lunatic. The same I guess with Forest Gump who instead (as an opposite type character to Prince Myshkin) kept all that more stoic and calm. He prayed optimism, I presume. However, when he had said, after a long run journey, "I am tired", then he really changed. Probably, the sequel to Forest Gump would show Forest as a pessimist person. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 14:56:34 GMT
Why he's weird? His behaviour is rather unusual, or different to us. It doesn't imply he's wrong. I guess in this world there's no true and sincere left, so what he left to do nothing, but being a kinda lunatic. The same I guess with Forest Gump who instead (as an opposite type character to Prince Myshkin) kept all that more stoic and calm. He prayed optimism, I presume. However, when he had said, after a long run journey, "I am tired", then he really changed. Probably, the sequel to Forest Gump would show Forest as a pessimist person. True. Optimism is a good thing if counterbalanced with the lacking of self avaliation. Optimism about life, about suffering, about the world. An example of skies is really cool. The skies itself is the one – Each of us would like to fly To those clear and fresh blue skies. Watching shiny stars at night To wonder what's there out of sight? Ikar had failed, while Armstrong did. With strong big arms one might complete. No need to seed that sorrow creed We're living – that's about it. |
|
