|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 16:02:06 GMT
I'd like to help, but unfortunately I can't get this concept. I've translated it, but I can't understand it for now. Some dictionaries tells us that "familiarity" is something like "being acquainted with someone". The whole phrase "familiarity breeds contempt" has another meaning which is I'm trying to comprehend.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Oct 31, 2020 20:53:55 GMT
Most people are horrible, so the more familiar you are with someone, the more you can recognize how horrible they are, leading to contempt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 21:06:32 GMT
fschmidt's comment help me to find out the concept. (I'm not sure how good I get it, but I'll try.)
David Lynch's some movies are about it - the closer you to what most call the truth, the more horrible it might be. So, the distance or balance is what is interesting and helpful thing that we must mastering.
No, I guess it depends mostly on a person. I guess if we couldn't close eyes on someone's falls, we would die as species. The world with all his flaws, bad points and awful things which are being provided by human being is not so bad if there's a person with a sincere heart and thoughts. It's like the Biblical scene of Lot and his family - Lot as the last one saint person was saved. I guess we must follow this path, not being turned into those negredo, black hollow amalgama or endless pain and sorrow...
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 31, 2020 21:29:03 GMT
Familiarity for me is to treat people well, with dignity and humanity. Is to treat a person that is inferior than you as superior, or inferior in some area as superior. Thank you for explanations, but I guess it confused me a little bit more :) =) (Ok, I guess in some way I can get it.) Well, why should it barrier someone? Doctors or psychologists have been doing it since the bearded epochs. Parenting or teaching someone is partially this process (again - if I understood you correctly). No, I'm also against biases and superstitions this time. My way is to close with people, but just trying to care them with love. I mean I could describe myself as a waiter who's trying to be sincerely kind with his clients; he doesn't keep anything bad in his soul bad, and he's intentions are about to keep the balance and peace. Also, there's a song about such a behaviour - how to treat someone who has no sympathy to the superior treater - from Limp Bizkit called "Stalemate": |
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214 
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Nov 2, 2020 16:10:20 GMT
The less we know about someone the more we are inclined to like them but the more we get to know them (familiarity) and find we do not share things in common, we could show (breeds) contempt to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 18:10:06 GMT
I think each person have a great virtue but a great defect. And no one can claim to be superior in something absolutely. What I presume that be superior is , is a superiority relative and in no one degree absolute. Familiarity is generosity of spirit, is a great virtue but no one can be claim to be perfect or superior only by that. I think that honesty and sincerity great qualities, that surpass the mere want to be confortable to someone, in some situations. All is open to discussion. Superior means - the first in its class. This has two flaws: a. To be compared with the rest in exactly this class: it's either false by definition, or there's no inner mediators to compare; b. To be compared without the other classes: it's either false by definition, or there's no outer mediators to compare. Surely, that this is about cherry-picking, and, from one point of view, to say that there's something superior is to say over enough. There's also another rout to rely on numbers. If there are numbers in the universe, I mean if numbers indeed has its correspondence, then situation is better for superiority. Pythagorean school tried to calculate those meaning using just numbers. Finding those correlate there's a hope without any contradictions to find out what's like to be superior. Besides, there are empirical fact if we consider the linear history to exist. Relativity barriers it, but I don't think it can be berried super-perfectly: "barring something is already a step". So, in this last case the method of comprehending it is more like in Descartes case: we have to accept that "denying something" is already an act that step forward in our understanding. And also we must somehow try to comprehend our memory and its place in this universe as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 2, 2020 21:58:37 GMT
Superior means - the first in its class. This has two flaws: a. To be compared with the rest in exactly this class: it's either false by definition, or there's no inner mediators to compare; b. To be compared without the other classes: it's either false by definition, or there's no outer mediators to compare. Surely, that this is about cherry-picking, and, from one point of view, to say that there's something superior is to say over enough. There's also another rout to rely on numbers. If there are numbers in the universe, I mean if numbers indeed has its correspondence, then situation is better for superiority. Pythagorean school tried to calculate those meaning using just numbers. Finding those correlate there's a hope without any contradictions to find out what's like to be superior. Besides, there are empirical fact if we consider the linear history to exist. Relativity barriers it, but I don't think it can be berried super-perfectly: "barring something is already a step". So, in this last case the method of comprehending it is more like in Descartes case: we have to accept that "denying something" is already an act that step forward in our understanding. And also we must somehow try to comprehend our memory and its place in this universe as well. Aristotle adopts two kinds of perfection: perfection on nous, or intelect, and ethos, or perfection in morals. If someone have no flaws in nous, there be a reason to think that it not implies a ethos perfection. Stalin, for example. A great war and statecraft intelect associated with genocide. For that reason I believe in two kinds of perfection. Stalin as a keen mind?.. Why?.. Even putting all those genocidical things away (because such rage actions were overspreaded; during the beginning of XX century such acts happened in many countries, not only in USSR and The Third Reich, but in Poland, Hungary, Australia, Turkey, and many others. Usually, USSR and Germany are being tried to exemplify, because of the way of our thinking or our style to put forward some bright and memorable examples) Stalin wasn't good in science or whatever. I read some of his works on language and saw some of his comments. No, he hadn't developed anything in Marx-Lenin program. But I guess as a politician he showed his kinds of a master. Yeah, he was a leader, no matter what we put into its meaning. Personally I judge his actions not because of his inhumanity, but rather because of his stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 3, 2020 7:53:34 GMT
Stalin as a keen mind?.. Why?.. Even putting all those genocidical things away (because such rage actions were overspreaded; during the beginning of XX century such acts happened in many countries, not only in USSR and The Third Reich, but in Poland, Hungary, Australia, Turkey, and many others. Usually, USSR and Germany are being tried to exemplify, because of the way of our thinking or our style to put forward some bright and memorable examples) Stalin wasn't good in science or whatever. I read some of his works on language and saw some of his comments. No, he hadn't developed anything in Marx-Lenin program. But I guess as a politician he showed his kinds of a master. Yeah, he was a leader, no matter what we put into its meaning. Personally I judge his actions not because of his inhumanity, but rather because of his stupidity. A strategical mind, for sure. But I like more Napoleon, or Oliver Cromwell. I have read a little of British History. And from America, good examples too. I really don't like marxism. I prefer Adam Smith or Proudhon, but have read very few books about. Mystical Socialism of Victor Hugo. Victor Hugo? Omg, no way! Impressive! You're a walking encyclopedia! =) I think historically it must be seen clearly that communistic or marxistic systems are not perfect at all. Cromwell also was an impressive mind. It's true. However, much cruelly too. But all of them were leaders, not heroes. As for me heroes do not wish to take leader's places. A they want is to help, and that's all. A leader place can be wacant, so no problems with this as no problems with any wacant rooms in a hotel. – Fore this reason of superiority of heroes is very important, because the leader's chair cannot be taken as a position or a post in work. To be a hero one must have heart; to be a leader – just a ladder to the position. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 3, 2020 18:29:30 GMT
Victor Hugo? Omg, no way! Impressive! You're a walking encyclopedia! =) I think historically it must be seen clearly that communistic or marxistic systems are not perfect at all. Cromwell also was an impressive mind. It's true. However, much cruelly too. But all of them were leaders, not heroes. As for me heroes do not wish to take leader's places. A they want is to help, and that's all. A leader place can be wacant, so no problems with this as no problems with any wacant rooms in a hotel. – Fore this reason of superiority of heroes is very important, because the leader's chair cannot be taken as a position or a post in work. To be a hero one must have heart; to be a leader – just a ladder to the position. The Miserables and Toilers of the Sea. So it is possible to conceive a hero without a leader, but not a leader without a hero? I'll try to read a little. I'd like to pay time to classics and such interesting literature as Vicror Hugo's novels, etc. But I almost have not spare time. I have to read tons of books: - Frege's collection of works on logic and logical semantics (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "Foundation of Arithmetics" (homelib) (n/read)
- B. Russell's "Introduction to Math Philosophy" (certain chapters) (selfprint) (n/read)
- >> "Human Knowledge Its Scope and Limits" (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth" (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "Logical and Philosophical Works" (collection of works) (no) (n/read)
- L. Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (study in details) (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "Zettel" (no) (n/read)
- >> "Philosophical Investigations" (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "Blue and Brown Books" (selfprint) (n/read)
- >> "Some Remarks on Logical Form" (plus different short esseys) (homelib) (n/read)
- A. Tarski "Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences" (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "The Semantical Concept of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics" (pdf) (n/read)
- F. P. Ramsey "The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays" (collection of works) (homelib) (p/read)
- R. Carnap "Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic" (selfprint) (n/read)
- >> "The Logical Syntax of Language" and some of his articles (partially) (no) (n/read)
- V. Kraft "The Vienna Circle" (homelib) (n/read)
- A. Ayer "Language, Truth, and Logic" (homelib) (h/read)
- G. E. Moore "Principia Ethica" (homelib) (h/read)
- >> "The Nature of Moral Philosophy" (homelib) (p/read)
- J. L. Austin "Are There A Priori Concepts?" (no) (n/read)
- >> "Truth" (homelib) (n/read)
- >> "Sense and Sensibilia" (no) (n/read)
- >> "How to Do Things with Words?" (pdf) (n/read)
- G. Ryle "The Concept of Mind" (pdf) (p/read)
- W. V. O. Quine "Word and Objekt" (selfprint) (n/read)
- >> "From a Logical Point of View" (homelib) (p/read)
- >> "Pursuit of Truth" (homelib) (n/read)
- >> "Philosophy of Logic" (homelib) (n/read)
- >> "From Stimulus to Science" (homelib) (n/read)
- G. Baker, P. Hacker "Skepticism, Rules, and Language" (homelib) (n/read)
- S. Kripke "Wittgenstein On Rules and Private Language" (homelib) (n/read)
- >> "Naming and Necessity" (selfprint) (h/read)
- >> "Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic" (homelib) (n/read)
- K. G. Hempel's collected works (pdf) (p/read)
- D. M. Armstrong "Universals: An Opinionated Introduction" (homelib) (n/read)
- D. Davidson "Truth and Predication" (pdf) (p/read)
- H. Putman "Reason, Truth, and History" (homelib) (n/read)
- >> "Realism with A Human Face" (homelib) (h/read)
- >> "Furnishing the Mind : Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis" (no) (n/read)
- >> "Reference of Reference" and some other articles (selfprint) (p/read)
- M. Dummett "Origins of Analytical Philosophy" (no) (n/read)
- >> "The Logical Basis of Metaphysics" (no) (n/read)
- A. Stroll "Twentieth Century: Analytic Philosophy" (homelib) (n/read)
This is a part of the main resources. There are second, and third resources which are: about philosophy of the authors, and directly logical books like M. R. Cohen, E. Nagel "Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method", and Alonzo Church "Introduction to Math Logic", or R. Feys "Modal Logics".
So, as you can see there are plenty of energy I have to put into the process of the turning pages over. Speaking of leader/hero relationship. This question, you've provided, is very intriguing, and pretty awesome to think it further. I can't say I'm ready to it now, but I like it. Actually, I see a couple of more relevant ways here, which are: a) to get as more as possible example to check them about; b) to see at some core metaphoric concepts of them. The second one route seems to be more diffictult, so I guess to find an example where there's a leader who's not a hero is ok. I can see such an example as a forced leader. At the beginning of "Republic" of Plato there are talkings about that. Socrates complained about it to Thrasymachus that many of citizens were about to refuse an offer for them to become a president. (Turning it to some modern time we could say that it would happen when not everyone would like to occupy a president's chair.) If such an example is to confirm the hypothesis, then we're on the fine road. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 3, 2020 19:55:13 GMT
Well, haha. Logic is not my field. But great readings. Wittgeinstein is great. Read a little of blue and brown books. Frege have readed much superficially, but tons of gold. My readings are more focused in literature, psychology and philosophy. Read a lot of Aristotle, categories a dozen of times. But only for my personal use. I don't have qualifications to teach or almost say something to prove that I know. I read more as symbols than as a objective thing. Like a pharmaceutical who collects essences of nature and make potions, drugs, remedies, all kinds of stuff. I am not a schollar. But admire who can think not to improvise like a guitarist. Like a pandora box, sometimes. Sadness follows my reasonings. I am in a want of bright, I want to shine my heart. But is really difficult to maintain a light in absolute loneliness. It'a quest for me, for my best, I truly know. All this will pass. Life is good, God is good. All I need to know in the moment. I guess, it's unnecessary to not have a heart being a scholar. Mostly it depends on neighbours - our relatives, friends, colleagues, etc. And sometimes I ask myself isn't loneliness the best one? And - in a unison with your thought - "But is really difficult to maintain a light in absolute loneliness". So, true. Btw, I also like Aristotle. This year I tried his Analytics. Must say it is so painfully difficult. I think an average person needs barely a day to get syllogistic logic, but if one starts reading Aristotle 99% he stops somewhere at the beginning. I wanted to create an extra tablets trying to draw Aristotle's style of thinking there. I mean his interpretation of logic is what very interesting, but his manners to bring it - are terrible for a reader. He's like Quine or Joyce: he probably likes to torture his readers. One of the first books I read in philosophy was "Metaphysics". I love to read it time to time even now. (First was Nietzsche's "Zarathustra", and along with Aristotle it was S. Avanesov "Philosophical Suicidology".) By the way, which school in psychology do you like or sympathize the most? I know many of Americans are about to follow B. Skinner, while Europeans hold as Jungean, and Freudian views. (And also there are plenty enough of Americans who like Jung too.) |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 3, 2020 21:59:47 GMT
I guess, it's unnecessary to not have a heart being a scholar. Mostly it depends on neighbours - our relatives, friends, colleagues, etc. And sometimes I ask myself isn't loneliness the best one? And - in a unison with your thought - "But is really difficult to maintain a light in absolute loneliness". So, true. Btw, I also like Aristotle. This year I tried his Analytics. Must say it is so painfully difficult. I think an average person needs barely a day to get syllogistic logic, but if one starts reading Aristotle 99% he stops somewhere at the beginning. I wanted to create an extra tablets trying to draw Aristotle's style of thinking there. I mean his interpretation of logic is what very interesting, but his manners to bring it - are terrible for a reader. He's like Quine or Joyce: he probably likes to torture his readers. One of the first books I read in philosophy was "Metaphysics". I love to read it time to time even now. (First was Nietzsche's "Zarathustra", and along with Aristotle it was S. Avanesov "Philosophical Suicidology".) By the way, which school in psychology do you like or sympathize the most? I know many of Americans are about to follow B. Skinner, while Europeans hold as Jungean, and Freudian views. (And also there are plenty enough of Americans who like Jung too.) I have a deep thought feeling for Gestalt. Jung intelectualizes so much, and I feel aprisioned in that freudian principles (that he assumes in his psychology). Gestalt is really marvelous idea. Firstly I'd met it in Oswald Spengler's "The Decline of The West", and then heard a couple of times here or there. I can't say I get a meaning of it. What comes to my mind every time I spell it is - a transformer, a robot which is created with some other robot. For instance,   Must say I do like these complex robots. They are definitely cool! In my childhood I wish to have one. So, gestalt for me is a living organism that united with another living organisms. Am I right? Is this meaning we need to follow, or it must be more deeper? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2020 15:19:44 GMT
Gest, mind. alt, form. Phenomenologie der Geist, from Hegel. Phenomenology of Mind, of Spirit. Implies in perception and cognition. Astroboy! haha Very cool! I don't know what happened, but I had posted two images of transformers-gestalts, and no one appeared yet (o_o) It's weird. I'll put here one again:  |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 4, 2020 15:27:34 GMT
@skyheart
Gestalt, as I presume, came from the spirit in Hegel's philosophy. An individual spirit hasn't got any gestalt, yet collective or national spirit can have it. And because of its abilities to appear simultaneously in many different forms we can get from it, following Hegel, that the spirit nature is objective. According to Hegel the essense or content has been revealing itself through a form or forms, and this allows to get an importance of the Hegel's concept. I wonder what about the other systems? Have those systems got any acceptive background to claim the gestalt to be important?
|
|
