|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 29, 2020 9:45:24 GMT
1. What we use as things is indeed a way to comprehend the reality or a way to move through the reality
2. Reality is whatever you want it to be, 'cause there's no definitely one and the only correct interpretation of it
3. Concepts are corrections of things – what is supposed to be percepted – of in which direction to move
4. The more powerful our language to describe the reality is, the more powerful conceptual scheme we have
5. Powerful conceptual scheme let us be closer to solve what are these ontological liabilities that base our things appearance
Since we don't know for sure or in some degree how alpearence of things is being constructed there's no chances to get through the indeed and correct representation of the reality. Therefore, the ontology we have now can be maintained only as relative.
Your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 15:59:02 GMT
1. What we use as things is indeed a way to comprehend the reality or a way to move through the reality 2. Reality is whatever you want it to be, 'cause there's no definitely one and the only correct interpretation of it 3. Concepts are corrections of things – what is supposed to be percepted – of in which direction to move 4. The more powerful our language to describe the reality is, the more powerful conceptual scheme we have 5. Powerful conceptual scheme let us be closer to solve what are these ontological liabilities that base our things appearance Since we don't know for sure or in some degree how alpearence of things is being constructed there's no chances to get through the indeed and correct representation of the reality. Therefore, the ontology we have now can be maintained only as relative. Your thoughts on this? 4 and 5 I think that we can change powerful for aesthetical exatitude, including in aesthetics a element of ethics. But is only a idea. The conclusion is correct in the terms of Quine, but I believe that what we call appearance is a appareance of appareance, a double reflection of a ontological statute. I truly believe that a ontological statute based on ethical principles is the essence of the logic, and reasoning itself. But it is a hypothesis that I don't have the means to prove. I like your idea Ethics behind ontology or as its fundament or bases, origins, or kinda. (There was my post somewhere in this thread earlier where I utter this thought too.) Ideas of multiple reflections or continuous reflections, recursions, mirroring, etc are mostly shared by one of our member named "xxxxxxxxx". Honestly, I didn't get this how could it be possible "appearance is a appareance of appareance". No, I don't want to say there's nothing behind it, I'm just confused with it. Honestly, I think if you would like to you can try to develop that idea - about ethics behind logic, ontology... Personally, I called it as "tender ontology", and I tried to view this "tenderness" as some warm words, mainly those words we usually took away: adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, etc. And also the tender words in their original meaning. Plus intonation, curving voice... So, all that that can be viewed as a glue to all the logical stuff that is behind our thoughts. (Honestly, this idea is not mine actually. But I came to it too. I took partially it from George Lakoff and Jakko Hintikka. Because I don't know their works (I haven't read 'em yet) I can't say much about it. But also it's good, because it keeps me from plagiatarizing of ideas.) So, what is that "glue"? Why glue is what may be origins to everything else of logic, etc. The prime idea I am close to is the chaos. But there are some problems with as describing, ascribing, and any other determinations of the chaos. As soon as we try to do it - we determinate what cannot be determine by definition. If to go to another ways of explanations and proof we can say that when we see something that is far away from as then our sight is not enough powerful to see it, and we need to accomodate our sight muscules. Such a way is that might happen in this example. Another idea of how can that "glue" starts everything else is focal projections. This geometry part has its own flaws, and I am not an expert in math to attempt doing here anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 16:50:11 GMT
Well, a mirror that reflects a mirror. But I will try to do not force anything. Really sorry. Have you read Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature"? I didn't get his concept of mirror that he used to show that Western rationalism had been wasted or even dead, or, probably, stuck. I don't like "stucking". In the game "Alone In The Dark" (1993) there was a tale that was taken from some ancient scripts. Unfortunatly I don't remember which. But there were two gargoyles and each of those was really strong, so it was absolutely hard to defeat it. But in a battle when both of them are occured in one place they had a weak spot - they shouldn't watch to each other. And another one story comes is Perseus killing Medusa. He, as I remember, used a mirror to show herself. A reflection killed her. I guess such narratives may be used here. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 17:40:37 GMT
Have you read Richard Rorty's "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature"? I didn't get his concept of mirror that he used to show that Western rationalism had been wasted or even dead, or, probably, stuck. I don't like "stucking". In the game "Alone In The Dark" (1993) there was a tale that was taken from some ancient scripts. Unfortunatly I don't remember which. But there were two gargoyles and each of those was really strong, so it was absolutely hard to defeat it. But in a battle when both of them are occured in one place they had a weak spot - they shouldn't watch to each other. And another one story comes is Perseus killing Medusa. He, as I remember, used a mirror to show herself. A reflection killed her. I guess such narratives may be used here. I read Rorty but sadly do not see anything. The mirror of truth, as says Paul Diel. In the case of the myth of Perseus. The Symbolism of Greek Mythology is a truly great book. What do you think about that radical feminist exposure in New York where Medusa is holding Perseus's head? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 17:49:47 GMT
What do you think about that radical feminist exposure in New York where Medusa is holding Perseus's head? No thoughts, haha. I like the idea of matriarchy, but I don't believe a feminist can understand what means to be in a matriarchy or feminine virtues. What about men as warriors? Has this concept been already wasted or exhausted? Men are needed to. For balance. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 17:57:25 GMT
What about men as warriors? Has this concept been already wasted or exhausted? Men are needed to. For balance. I believe in spiritual heroes. Warriors against vices and social problems. Not SJW, haha, but people that do charity, for example. So, you believe in heroes too? I mean I usually reject leaders, but get along with heroes. I like the concept of heroes. It's more brotherhood, more family-like, more union; while leaders supposes hierarchy. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 30, 2020 18:11:11 GMT
So, you believe in heroes too? I mean I usually reject leaders, but get along with heroes. I like the concept of heroes. It's more brotherhood, more family-like, more union; while leaders supposes hierarchy. Same thinking. Agree. It a natural thing, people who fight for justice, for goodness, sacrificing their our lives for the benefit of others, who he loves. For a ideal. In general, is more charismatic. I like a lot a short history of Gorky, the old Izergil, a old woman that tells tales. A one specifical is what I name Ivan of the heart star. It is plenty of meaning for me. I strongly recomend. Look, your knowledge in Russia literature is really impressive awesome! Yeah, I heard about that character one. That old damned hag. (I presume I have already forgotten about that character. Maybe she was good?) Thank you a lot for this very interesting and informative dialogue! |
|
