|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 7, 2021 12:54:07 GMT
Remember that famous scene in the Star Wars (both of versions) when Han Solo shot first, while it didn't shot first in the remake? G. Lucas in one of interviews said that Greedo fired first. Fans got angry (who didn't?).
Quite similar stories happened to Sherlock Holmes, when A. Conan-Doyle decided to bury his outstanding character, while after, because of many fans pleases, he left him alone well. (Alike things occurred even during pre-classical Ancient Greek epoch.)
From one side a writer has rights over any character he's made, on the other hand, some people do like those personages that they will never let the writer screw the characters up, and will be demanding to continue using of those heroes.
Honestly, I'm stuck. Some are supposed to get real. It's fantastic. And this is not the end: some half-animated movie rise another tickling themes about the characters' personal existence: like the characters were real. For instance, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "The Parallel World" (1992) both present situations where the characters start living their own, person, and independent from their creators life.
So, the question is: how to solve it? Is a fiction character an independent deity /a substance, or a concept/ that might live complely his own life? And finally what does it mean – to be a character?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 7, 2021 14:04:53 GMT
Not the characters themselves, but brilliant writers are able to use the characters in their stories to depict universal character traits. Those character traits are understood using timeless concepts we can access introspectively.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 7, 2021 15:07:00 GMT
Not the characters themselves, but brilliant writers are able to use the characters in their stories to depict universal character traits. Those character traits are understood using timeless concepts we can access introspectively. Ok, so let's assume there are some such characters, i.e. whose iconic traits have become shared (Idk, people start using them, speaking about them, etc). But how exactly their existence can be detected and where? Is there somewhere at discourses /literature ones, or maybe between the readers of the books/? Or somewhere else? I'm curious about this point - of how their (special) existence sustain. (Or how that circulation of their traits get such an ability to exist? In which way it stays long, etc?)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 7, 2021 21:30:07 GMT
I don't think writers actually create these concepts. I think they discover them through introspection. And concepts that belong to the inner universal conceptualized world are eternal.
All conscious beings have potential access to them through introspection, but introspection requires experience as a catalyst, and is greatly helped by suggestions from other reflective individuals, through creative and analytical work. -Whether it's a book of philosophy, a novel, or an art piece.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 8, 2021 6:18:07 GMT
I don't think writers actually create these concepts. I think they discover them through introspection. And concepts that belong to the inner universal conceptualized world are eternal. All conscious beings have potential access to them through introspection, but introspection requires experience as a catalyst, and is greatly helped by suggestions from other reflective individuals, through creative and analytical work. -Whether it's a book of philosophy, a novel, or an art piece. Your views are either platonic, or close to them. Considering (any type of?) experience as a catalyst or some kind of a stimulus that opens a path to the areas. (Starting think about it I feel like I have a black hole in my head...) Ok, supposing all of this happens indeed, or it's how the reality exists the next question appears: how all those heroes live in those spheres /as the Homer's heroes, the Olympic gods?/? And is this sphere is shared by everyone /it's alike for anyone/, or else in which way a content this sphere depends on something beyond? /thr last one might be breakable for the sphere/. And many others that can be united to the question of existence of the ideas. My personal opinion is that there's no characters at all. A character us built up with certain traits, and here I do agree with you, but those traits are habits or belong to some kind of the routine of ours. The more passion is intensive, the less the feel of unreality of those characters present. So, anyway, is the source of those characters /conceptual or ideal/ is real or not, a character exist through psychological sight or the structure of a personage /a hero, etc/ is being supported by our psychology. Therefore, kids can imagine monsters and creepy things as alive ones. More older humans see their congeners due to their psychology – the last one operates images and, in general, views of anyone, including the characters. You've said that the experience is needed to support the introspection, so I guess that it is, and it happens, because on some deeper levels of our consciousness /mind/ we do equals /we equal one things to others/. Or maybe we evaluate things, but how can we do it having no previous equivalents? Anyway, to equal a thing to a thing is requiring us to appeal to the experience.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 8, 2021 16:55:28 GMT
Even most traits need to be broken down to indivisible concepts. It's challenging, to say the least, to identify what is indivisible and what is not. Let's, for example, regard the Narcissistic character. Traits that are associated with that character include lack of empathy, manipulation, grandiose fantasies, and self-pity. So why are all those traits lumped together? Is there some underlying abstract concept that glues them altogether? Well, I can suggest one. Narcissism, in its pure form, is the choice of using ones intellect to rationalize what one already wish to believe. Everything else can be derived from that. If a narcissist perceives your interests to be in conflict with his, he will rationalize, one way or another, that he can put his interests first, and therefore have the right to use whatever means necessary to defeat you. Lack of empathy just comes a natural consequence of that, so does manipulation, and if he experiences a setback, he will see that as unjust and declare: "woe is me!". But the fundamental trait is a lack of interest in what's actually true and what's actually just. I don't think that trait can be broken down further.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 10, 2021 13:38:34 GMT
Even most traits need to be broken down to indivisible concepts. It's challenging, to say the least, to identify what is indivisible and what is not. Let's, for example, regard the Narcissistic character. Traits that are associated with that character include lack of empathy, manipulation, grandiose fantasies, and self-pity. So why are all those traits lumped together? Is there some underlying abstract concept that glues them altogether? Well, I can suggest one. Narcissism, in its pure form, is the choice of using ones intellect to rationalize what one already wish to believe. Everything else can be derived from that. If a narcissist perceives your interests to be in conflict with his, he will rationalize, one way or another, that he can put his interests first, and therefore have the right to use whatever means necessary to defeat you. Lack of empathy just comes a natural consequence of that, so does manipulation, and if he experiences a setback, he will see that as unjust and declare: "woe is me!". But the fundamental trait is a lack of interest in what's actually true and what's actually just. I don't think that trait can be broken down further. /I apologize that I hadn't answered then. I have been thinking about it. Must say that this problem tears me up from the inside. Indeed, I must agree with you on this indivisibility, and about the behaviour /a style of it/ of a narcissic type of a person. On one hand, we have some stable and doubtfully divisible conceptions, and on the other, each next move of such a described type shows us rather his core intentions, i.e. we can clearly see his behaviour /syle/ most essential features. My first thought was from the chapter of Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" - Aristotle's metaphysics where he /Russell/ wrote about how Aristotle viewed the world in a logical manner, here it is. There is another term which is important in Aristotle and in his scholastic followers, and that is the term 'essense'. This is by no means synonymous with 'universal'. Your "essense" is 'what you are by you very nature'. It is, one may say, those of your properties which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself. [...] Superficially, Aristotle's doctrine is plain enough. Suppose I say "there is such a thing as the game of football", most people would regard the remark as a truism. But if I were to infer that footbal could exists without footbal-players, I should be rightly held to be talking nonsense. Similarly, it would be heold, there is such a thing as parenthood, but only because there are parents; there is such a thing as sweetness, but only because there are sweet things; and there is redness, but only because there are red things. And this dependence is thought to be not reciprocal: the men who play football still exist even if they never played footbal; things with are usually sweet may turn sour... In this way we are led to conclude that what is meant by an adjective is dependent for its being on what is meant by a proper name, but not vice versa.
And also that reminded me one of Plato's texts, in particular, "Meno" where Socrates told about his pre-existence of knowledge theory /anamnesis, or kinda. I don't know the right Enlish term/. It was connected in that way that maybe someone, a narcistic person in your example, is playing (by) the predictable scenario (like performing step by step each string in that script-reminiscense program)? Aristotle's /in Russell's reading/ theory of excluding elements having no access to exclude everything, e.g. having the essence for each element except for accident particles/universals, led me to a thought that all of those characteristics which are being used as elements for one of types: a narcissist, an egoistic type, a good person, etc, - indeed are everthing that all those types have. I mean each person can be divided to the set of elements. That situation that occurs - when we cannot divide some core elements isn't witnessing that there's a concrete or stable structure is behind it. (However, I must say, I doens't mean that I'm about to critique likewise theories only.) Either we're dealing with really undividable, primal or essential elements, or what happens with us is: something like we are unable to watch anything more detailed. So, just cannot provide an anlysis (or we haven't had it yet for some reasons, one of such might be - having no fit tools. Why I am not about to critique the undivideness of such conceptions? Because every time and every thought of it - is about to accept is as non-dividable, than dividable. I cannot accept that there are only atoms and everything is built upon them. Even Aristotle in his Metaphysics critiqued pre-Empedocles thinkers who hadn't let any force or methods behind their atom-like theories. On the opposite, there is another reason to try to divide the concepts, and not only for alike scientific purposes. I guess it may concern with such a question as - will a human change? or in particular - "can I change myself?" or "I am what I am, and there's no chance to change me?". If the previous paragraph is close with the question of the characters (from the topic), then I guess this question - of how to divide the concepts - is worth to continue it. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 13, 2021 11:28:41 GMT
Even most traits need to be broken down to indivisible concepts. It's challenging, to say the least, to identify what is indivisible and what is not. Let's, for example, regard the Narcissistic character. Traits that are associated with that character include lack of empathy, manipulation, grandiose fantasies, and self-pity. So why are all those traits lumped together? Is there some underlying abstract concept that glues them altogether? Well, I can suggest one. Narcissism, in its pure form, is the choice of using ones intellect to rationalize what one already wish to believe. Everything else can be derived from that. If a narcissist perceives your interests to be in conflict with his, he will rationalize, one way or another, that he can put his interests first, and therefore have the right to use whatever means necessary to defeat you. Lack of empathy just comes a natural consequence of that, so does manipulation, and if he experiences a setback, he will see that as unjust and declare: "woe is me!". But the fundamental trait is a lack of interest in what's actually true and what's actually just. I don't think that trait can be broken down further. /I apologize that I hadn't answered then. I have been thinking about it. Must say that this problem tears me up from the inside. Indeed, I must agree with you on this indivisibility, and about the behaviour /a style of it/ of a narcissic type of a person. On one hand, we have some stable and doubtfully divisible conceptions, and on the other, each next move of such a described type shows us rather his core intentions, i.e. we can clearly see his behaviour /syle/ most essential features. My first thought was from the chapter of Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" - Aristotle's metaphysics where he /Russell/ wrote about how Aristotle viewed the world in a logical manner, here it is. There is another term which is important in Aristotle and in his scholastic followers, and that is the term 'essense'. This is by no means synonymous with 'universal'. Your "essense" is 'what you are by you very nature'. It is, one may say, those of your properties which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself. [...] Superficially, Aristotle's doctrine is plain enough. Suppose I say "there is such a thing as the game of football", most people would regard the remark as a truism. But if I were to infer that footbal could exists without footbal-players, I should be rightly held to be talking nonsense. Similarly, it would be heold, there is such a thing as parenthood, but only because there are parents; there is such a thing as sweetness, but only because there are sweet things; and there is redness, but only because there are red things. And this dependence is thought to be not reciprocal: the men who play football still exist even if they never played footbal; things with are usually sweet may turn sour... In this way we are led to conclude that what is meant by an adjective is dependent for its being on what is meant by a proper name, but not vice versa.
And also that reminded me one of Plato's texts, in particular, "Meno" where Socrates told about his pre-existence of knowledge theory /anamnesis, or kinda. I don't know the right Enlish term/. It was connected in that way that maybe someone, a narcistic person in your example, is playing (by) the predictable scenario (like performing step by step each string in that script-reminiscense program)? Aristotle's /in Russell's reading/ theory of excluding elements having no access to exclude everything, e.g. having the essence for each element except for accident particles/universals, led me to a thought that all of those characteristics which are being used as elements for one of types: a narcissist, an egoistic type, a good person, etc, - indeed are everthing that all those types have. I mean each person can be divided to the set of elements. That situation that occurs - when we cannot divide some core elements isn't witnessing that there's a concrete or stable structure is behind it. (However, I must say, I doens't mean that I'm about to critique likewise theories only.) Either we're dealing with really undividable, primal or essential elements, or what happens with us is: something like we are unable to watch anything more detailed. So, just cannot provide an anlysis (or we haven't had it yet for some reasons, one of such might be - having no fit tools. Why I am not about to critique the undivideness of such conceptions? Because every time and every thought of it - is about to accept is as non-dividable, than dividable. I cannot accept that there are only atoms and everything is built upon them. Even Aristotle in his Metaphysics critiqued pre-Empedocles thinkers who hadn't let any force or methods behind their atom-like theories. On the opposite, there is another reason to try to divide the concepts, and not only for alike scientific purposes. I guess it may concern with such a question as - will a human change? or in particular - "can I change myself?" or "I am what I am, and there's no chance to change me?". If the previous paragraph is close with the question of the characters (from the topic), then I guess this question - of how to divide the concepts - is worth to continue it. What do you think?
There are some distinctions that have to be made.
1. That something exists as a concept doesn't mean it has to be realised in the real world. If football was only played once, and a written account of it was kept, then the concept of football would not vanish due to people never playing it again.
2. Football is not an indivisible concept. This is why, someone needs to invent it in order for it to become a concept. However, when one breaks down a concept into individual concepts, one will sooner or later reach what can't be broken down any further. Such as "consciousness", "blue", "free will". Those concepts aren't invented, they are discovered, as they reside in the inner, universal conceptualized world.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 13, 2021 12:37:07 GMT
/I apologize that I hadn't answered then. I have been thinking about it. Must say that this problem tears me up from the inside. Indeed, I must agree with you on this indivisibility, and about the behaviour /a style of it/ of a narcissic type of a person. On one hand, we have some stable and doubtfully divisible conceptions, and on the other, each next move of such a described type shows us rather his core intentions, i.e. we can clearly see his behaviour /syle/ most essential features. My first thought was from the chapter of Russell's "History of Western Philosophy" - Aristotle's metaphysics where he /Russell/ wrote about how Aristotle viewed the world in a logical manner, here it is. There is another term which is important in Aristotle and in his scholastic followers, and that is the term 'essense'. This is by no means synonymous with 'universal'. Your "essense" is 'what you are by you very nature'. It is, one may say, those of your properties which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself. [...] Superficially, Aristotle's doctrine is plain enough. Suppose I say "there is such a thing as the game of football", most people would regard the remark as a truism. But if I were to infer that footbal could exists without footbal-players, I should be rightly held to be talking nonsense. Similarly, it would be heold, there is such a thing as parenthood, but only because there are parents; there is such a thing as sweetness, but only because there are sweet things; and there is redness, but only because there are red things. And this dependence is thought to be not reciprocal: the men who play football still exist even if they never played footbal; things with are usually sweet may turn sour... In this way we are led to conclude that what is meant by an adjective is dependent for its being on what is meant by a proper name, but not vice versa.
And also that reminded me one of Plato's texts, in particular, "Meno" where Socrates told about his pre-existence of knowledge theory /anamnesis, or kinda. I don't know the right Enlish term/. It was connected in that way that maybe someone, a narcistic person in your example, is playing (by) the predictable scenario (like performing step by step each string in that script-reminiscense program)? Aristotle's /in Russell's reading/ theory of excluding elements having no access to exclude everything, e.g. having the essence for each element except for accident particles/universals, led me to a thought that all of those characteristics which are being used as elements for one of types: a narcissist, an egoistic type, a good person, etc, - indeed are everthing that all those types have. I mean each person can be divided to the set of elements. That situation that occurs - when we cannot divide some core elements isn't witnessing that there's a concrete or stable structure is behind it. (However, I must say, I doens't mean that I'm about to critique likewise theories only.) Either we're dealing with really undividable, primal or essential elements, or what happens with us is: something like we are unable to watch anything more detailed. So, just cannot provide an anlysis (or we haven't had it yet for some reasons, one of such might be - having no fit tools. Why I am not about to critique the undivideness of such conceptions? Because every time and every thought of it - is about to accept is as non-dividable, than dividable. I cannot accept that there are only atoms and everything is built upon them. Even Aristotle in his Metaphysics critiqued pre-Empedocles thinkers who hadn't let any force or methods behind their atom-like theories. On the opposite, there is another reason to try to divide the concepts, and not only for alike scientific purposes. I guess it may concern with such a question as - will a human change? or in particular - "can I change myself?" or "I am what I am, and there's no chance to change me?". If the previous paragraph is close with the question of the characters (from the topic), then I guess this question - of how to divide the concepts - is worth to continue it. What do you think?
There are some distinctions that have to be made.
1. That something exists as a concept doesn't mean it has to be realised in the real world. If football was only played once, and a written account of it was kept, then the concept of football would not vanish due to people never playing it again.
2. Football is not an indivisible concept. This is why, someone needs to invent it in order for it to become a concept. However, when one breaks down a concept into individual concepts, one will sooner or later reach what can't be broken down any further. Such as "consciousness", "blue", "free will". Those concepts aren't invented, they are discovered, as they reside in the inner, universal conceptualized world.
Aha, I see. So, for the first: it depends on our abilities of memorising something. As daily words such things may transform step by step. And with such words as "inter-legere" might happen a series of changes, to be transformed into "intelligence". The meaning of the word may be erased or rewritten, while its sound, i.e. its timbre, may be either the same /so, homonyms/, or its sound may become different /depending on how our physiology has been changing, or vowels have been reformulating, etc/. To the second, agree. The example of football – is something to be pretty complicated. If I got your thought, we would have taken more plainer examples. Thus, we can take the predicates alone or some basic concepts as, for instance, the unity /the number "one" or "oneness"/. In turn we're talking about such terms or concepts which are being comprehended, yet not being reduced to some more simple terms. However, I see no characters are out of those classes: a character is enough complex structure /while its features or habits may be as simple as 'narcissistic' one – from your example/. The third: surely, if a certain character has a various number of such unreduced predicates, he can be maintained as so – the unreduced one, – but (!) if such a character is mentioned to be similar to a human /just like we consider all the characters to be merely copies of humans, i.e. the result of a human reflection/, the properties or features lose their stability. An "alive character" may change as an alive person.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 14, 2021 14:33:03 GMT
There are some distinctions that have to be made.
1. That something exists as a concept doesn't mean it has to be realised in the real world. If football was only played once, and a written account of it was kept, then the concept of football would not vanish due to people never playing it again.
2. Football is not an indivisible concept. This is why, someone needs to invent it in order for it to become a concept. However, when one breaks down a concept into individual concepts, one will sooner or later reach what can't be broken down any further. Such as "consciousness", "blue", "free will". Those concepts aren't invented, they are discovered, as they reside in the inner, universal conceptualized world.
Aha, I see. So, for the first: it depends on our abilities of memorising something. As daily words such things may transform step by step. And with such words as "inter-legere" might happen a series of changes, to be transformed into "intelligence". The meaning of the word may be erased or rewritten, while its sound, i.e. its timbre, may be either the same /so, homonyms/, or its sound may become different /depending on how our physiology has been changing, or vowels have been reformulating, etc/. To the second, agree. The example of football – is something to be pretty complicated. If I got your thought, we would have taken more plainer examples. Thus, we can take the predicates alone or some basic concepts as, for instance, the unity /the number "one" or "oneness"/. In turn we're talking about such terms or concepts which are being comprehended, yet not being reduced to some more simple terms. However, I see no characters are out of those classes: a character is enough complex structure /while its features or habits may be as simple as 'narcissistic' one – from your example/. The third: surely, if a certain character has a various number of such unreduced predicates, he can be maintained as so – the unreduced one, – but (!) if such a character is mentioned to be similar to a human /just like we consider all the characters to be merely copies of humans, i.e. the result of a human reflection/, the properties or features lose their stability. An "alive character" may change as an alive person.
I didn't fully understand what you wrote. Yes, a person may change, as a change from one construction of concepts to another. Just like you can change the rules of a game. If one asks: "What is the essence of football? Why is it so popular?" The one can start by pointing out that it symbolically represents a war, but without casualties. Here's a clip of a Norwegian commentator's reaction when Norway beats the UK 2-1 in 1981.
He cries out: "We are the best in the world!"
It's a way to civilize conflict, and allow for the sensation of victory without any harm being done. The rules of the game serves a function, but it's not so important what the rules actually are. The important is that they're simple enough to be understood by almost everyone, that they seem fair, and are practiced fairly by the referee.
The game itself is being constructed, but the function it serves is not. Nor is its core symbolism. In football you launch an offense, where the goal is to penetrate the opponents lines of defense. Scoring a goal represents to tactically win a battle, winning the match is to win the war.
It when one breaks down a game to its symbolic meaning that the underlying core concepts start to reveal themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 20, 2021 2:06:38 GMT
Aha, I see. So, for the first: it depends on our abilities of memorising something. As daily words such things may transform step by step. And with such words as "inter-legere" might happen a series of changes, to be transformed into "intelligence". The meaning of the word may be erased or rewritten, while its sound, i.e. its timbre, may be either the same /so, homonyms/, or its sound may become different /depending on how our physiology has been changing, or vowels have been reformulating, etc/. To the second, agree. The example of football – is something to be pretty complicated. If I got your thought, we would have taken more plainer examples. Thus, we can take the predicates alone or some basic concepts as, for instance, the unity /the number "one" or "oneness"/. In turn we're talking about such terms or concepts which are being comprehended, yet not being reduced to some more simple terms. However, I see no characters are out of those classes: a character is enough complex structure /while its features or habits may be as simple as 'narcissistic' one – from your example/. The third: surely, if a certain character has a various number of such unreduced predicates, he can be maintained as so – the unreduced one, – but (!) if such a character is mentioned to be similar to a human /just like we consider all the characters to be merely copies of humans, i.e. the result of a human reflection/, the properties or features lose their stability. An "alive character" may change as an alive person.
I didn't fully understand what you wrote. Yes, a person may change, as a change from one construction of concepts to another. Just like you can change the rules of a game. If one asks: "What is the essence of football? Why is it so popular?" The one can start by pointing out that it symbolically represents a war, but without casualties. Here's a clip of a Norwegian commentator's reaction when Norway beats the UK 2-1 in 1981.
He cries out: "We are the best in the world!"
It's a way to civilize conflict, and allow for the sensation of victory without any harm being done. The rules of the game serves a function, but it's not so important what the rules actually are. The important is that they're simple enough to be understood by almost everyone, that they seem fair, and are practiced fairly by the referee.
The game itself is being constructed, but the function it serves is not. Nor is its core symbolism. In football you launch an offense, where the goal is to penetrate the opponents lines of defense. Scoring a goal represents to tactically win a battle, winning the match is to win the war.
It when one breaks down a game to its symbolic meaning that the underlying core concepts start to reveal themselves.
I'll answer a little later. The commentator event is cool /he did good/. (Briefly, are there non-partiable things? Or the things which cannot be analyzed further? I can't imagine it, since we have a number of various metaphysical, math, logical, linguistic, etc categories each of such is possible to be used over and over again endlessly.)
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 20, 2021 10:54:21 GMT
When you are reading a story about King Arthur, there is a realm where King Arthur is being told that people are reading stories about him.
It cannot be proven that we are not just a vivid dream King Arthur had one night.
The characters in your novel could be more real than you are, especially if they traverse many minds and eons, but you just think you exist only here and now.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 20, 2021 13:10:20 GMT
Aha, I see. So, for the first: it depends on our abilities of memorising something. As daily words such things may transform step by step. And with such words as "inter-legere" might happen a series of changes, to be transformed into "intelligence". The meaning of the word may be erased or rewritten, while its sound, i.e. its timbre, may be either the same /so, homonyms/, or its sound may become different /depending on how our physiology has been changing, or vowels have been reformulating, etc/. To the second, agree. The example of football – is something to be pretty complicated. If I got your thought, we would have taken more plainer examples. Thus, we can take the predicates alone or some basic concepts as, for instance, the unity /the number "one" or "oneness"/. In turn we're talking about such terms or concepts which are being comprehended, yet not being reduced to some more simple terms. However, I see no characters are out of those classes: a character is enough complex structure /while its features or habits may be as simple as 'narcissistic' one – from your example/. The third: surely, if a certain character has a various number of such unreduced predicates, he can be maintained as so – the unreduced one, – but (!) if such a character is mentioned to be similar to a human /just like we consider all the characters to be merely copies of humans, i.e. the result of a human reflection/, the properties or features lose their stability. An "alive character" may change as an alive person.
I didn't fully understand what you wrote. Yes, a person may change, as a change from one construction of concepts to another. Just like you can change the rules of a game. If one asks: "What is the essence of football? Why is it so popular?" The one can start by pointing out that it symbolically represents a war, but without casualties. Here's a clip of a Norwegian commentator's reaction when Norway beats the UK 2-1 in 1981.
He cries out: "We are the best in the world!"
It's a way to civilize conflict, and allow for the sensation of victory without any harm being done. The rules of the game serves a function, but it's not so important what the rules actually are. The important is that they're simple enough to be understood by almost everyone, that they seem fair, and are practiced fairly by the referee.
The game itself is being constructed, but the function it serves is not. Nor is its core symbolism. In football you launch an offense, where the goal is to penetrate the opponents lines of defense. Scoring a goal represents to tactically win a battle, winning the match is to win the war.
It when one breaks down a game to its symbolic meaning that the underlying core concepts start to reveal themselves.
1. If you link the constructioning of any concepts with some rules of a game, then, I suppose, you also accept that a concept is being defined through (a series of) contexts. The footbal example can be linked to a war, but this link is probably just one of possible analogies. This could be, I wouldn't disagree on it, however such a way to define a concept is also just one of a way. The problem with it can stop being hidden as soon as we compare a concept to an idea. As one of Plato's commentators said /I guess Socrates tells it somewhere, but I don't remember the exact place/ "We can burn the stick, but it's impossible to burn the idea of a stick". And, for instance, how to lable an idea? We can lable any quotes as a sequence of such and such symbols, etc, but how to the same method may be applied to the concepts/ideas? And it necess to separate an idea from a concept. Honesty, it isn't possible for me considering how far the context of the last one is lasting. It's known that we've got at least two ways to provide some semantical work on a notion, a term, or simplty a name. We may either ask about it some dictionaries, or we can ask few people, i.e. to analyze capacities and a content of the vocabularities. Either way will bring us some data, and such a data is needed to get some further semantical researches. Therefore, this problem stays unsolved for me as in a complete, but I can say that ideas in a Plato sense are representing something ontologically stable, despite of the conceptions which have less ontology. If to drop this problem down not paying atteniton to any differences between the terms, we still may continue the dialogue in a field - what kind of cause-relation or placeholder-place relations two or more ideas/concepts have? How can we determine where one idea or a concept must be placed? If there are rules, as you said, and the rules are the main determiners, the direct agents which are responsible for the places and relations, then we won't have a dialogue, except for saying - each one has its own truth, or all our ways are plausible. Because I stay far away from relativism-in-truth, then I cannot agree on it for myself. Either terms are representing tools, and we operate 'em as some muppets, or they sign something ontologocally important and stable. 2. Speaking about the simpliticy as something to be aimed for anyone /or everyone has some kind of the "privilige access" to the rules or anything kinda/ is yeah what I can accept. If the rules subordinate to category, then I guess we can compare the rules to it. So, in this way 'the rules' is something simple and plain, but we call it 'the rules', because of its priority to anything else. To this type of argument I sympathize. However, the simplicity may be exlored separately further. 3. I've notied you like to compare something with a war not just like you're up to compare anythig exactly with a war, but "the war" is something resembles the strategy. And as soon as you're a fan of strategies, I guess you can bring even much more examples of such. This last one notification led me to a though, that the concept/idea (or something?) of the strategy is something that cannot be divided into many categories, except for to say that a strategy is a sum of tactics. In the last thought we lose something important, like the goal. Or, switching to definigion of the tactics we can in turn say that the tactic is a sum of actions, and the next step is to say that an action is a variety of moves, etc, leading it to an idea of a number of simple changes. (We can continue the analysis claiming that any change is a set of differentiations, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Feb 20, 2021 14:17:42 GMT
When you are reading a story about King Arthur, there is a realm where King Arthur is being told that people are reading stories about him. It cannot be proven that we are not just a vivid dream King Arthur had one night. The characters in your novel could be more real than you are, especially if they traverse many minds and eons, but you just think you exist only here and now. Yeah, the example of King Arthur is splendid. One some other forums people persuaded me that there were many interesting personages which knew or guessed about the existence of the other people /e.g. of their readers/, or even dared to change their own anime existence transcending to our present reality. I guess one of such example /not the best one/ is in the Mermaid tale. Animals in many children fairy tales are seemed to challenge their existence as human ones. What I do not wish is that the characters of my novels will become more real than me, than myself. Oh, no. Letting a character a major free will may be dangerous... (Oh.. it sounds like I has a schizophrenia, and I'm being surrounded by some alive anime heroes.)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 22, 2021 13:38:36 GMT
Eugene 2.0 My point is that it's not the game itself that's essential, nor the rules of the game. One could construct an arbitrary number of games, each with their own rules, and almost all of them would be forgotten, because they lack a symbolic meaning to the player. One must analyse the underlying symbolic meaning of a game in order to understand its appeal. In logical games like chess, it might seem as if it's primarily symbolizing war, but a key factor in winning a game is the ability to think numerous steps ahead. This is an ability needed to succeed for many challenges in a complex reality. Medieval farmers planning how to survive for the winter, an inventor trying to come up with a technical solution for a problem, or something as mundane as to manage one's household economy. Chess, in this respect, becomes a catalyst for practicing this form of intelligence, which enables adaptation to an advanced society.
|
|