![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 184 to 208 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 21:53:56
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 21:42:59
> I don't think it's your ideas that are not appreciated, it's that you don't always come across as truly valuing the opinions or feelings of others.
> I get very frustrated when I feel I am unable to convey my meaning and because of that, what I've said is considered invalid.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 22:27:47
In reply to I need to reword this, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 21:53:56
> > I get very frustrated when I feel I am unable to convey my meaning and because of that, what I've said is considered invalid.
i appreciate the rewording :-)
i think i do understand what you mean
when i said that stuff about what validity and invalidity meant
i should have really said that that is what validity and invalidity means in philosophy
when i use the terms valid and invalid that is what i mean by those terms
validity and invalidity have a different, more general meaning outside philosophy
outside philosophy valid is sort of synonomous with truth and invalid is sort of synonomous with false
so outside philosophy to say that something is invalid is sort of to imply that that something is rather useless indeed which is a value judgement
but that is not what i mean by valid and invalid
and that is not what i mean to imply when i say that something is valid or invalidwhen i said that stuff about the problems with translation between a natural language (ie english) and logic i was agreeing with your point that sometimes you can say that the form is invalid but it can also be the case that that form is not a very good translation of the argument.
that is to say that sometimes the translation fails to capture what the arguer intended
that is why one should employ the principle of charity when translating
'dont attribute stupid beliefs to smart people' roughly...
you are supposed to be charitable and attempt to translate into a valid form if possible.sorry...
i was agreeing with you there.
that was the point
i didn't express that so clearly...i do find it hard to talk to people outside philosophy.
it is like how there can be a theory in physics
and it describes what the world is like in terms of notions such as mass and charge and acceleration etc
and the terms 'mass' and 'charge' and 'acceleration' have technical meanings which is a little different from what those terms generally mean.
the subject matter of philosophy means that terms such as 'truth' 'falsity' 'validity' 'invalidity' 'ideas' 'thoughts' 'theories' 'reality' 'knowledge' 'justice' etc etc are technical terms with more precise meanings.
often the terms dont have the negative connotations / value judgements that they do with their more general use.so sometimes we do talk past each other a bit
that is why i try to 'translate' or 'reconstruct' what i think someone is trying to say into a language that i can understand
i try and be charitable in the translation
but sometimes i miss the point it is truethere is translation not only between languages
but within a language as well
in the words of Quine "word and object" radical translation begins at home
(ie within a language)
and there is a fundamental indetermincy with respect to what is really meant...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 23:08:49
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 21:42:59
> Right, but that is not an aside, that's a huge component of internet communication,
yes. and all communication not just intenet communication.
>and certainly enough for there to be a great deal of doubt as to whether or not something is "invalid" or "contradictory"
yes. i was agreeing with you.
> Some things cannot always be explained, you will never truly know how an apple tastes to me.
dare i say... that you are absolutely correct that i will never know how an apple tastes to you - AND i can explain why??? there is a principled reason why i can never have knowledge of that.
> > if the physical world, at base, is a mathematical function then why not human beings as well given that they are part of the physical world?
> If. I would have to ascribe to the premise in order to discuss the conclusion. I don'tok. i'll alter it slightly and turn it into an argument (note this is a little different to the claim above - i'm going to strengthen the argument a little by weakening the claim)
P1) human beings are objects in the physical world.
P2) the behaviour of objects in the physical world can be described as a mathematical function.
______________________________________________
C) the verbal behavior of human beings can be described as a mathematical function.What do you think???
It is valid (IF you accept the premises are true then you would be contradicting yourself in denying the conclusion)
Unless - you maintain that verbal behaviour is different from non-verbal behaviour (in which case the argument would be trading on an equivocation and the argument would be invalid)
But - if there is no equivocation between 'behaviour' and 'verbal behaviour' then if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion to avoid contradiction.so... if you don't want to accept the conclusion then what is to be done? you could say that one or more of the premises are actually false. it doesn't matter if the argument is valid if one or more of the premises are false then there is no reason to accept the conclusion.
P1) seems to be right...
though you could attempt to argue that we are not merely physical beings, we have an immaterial side to us as well (in which case P1 is wrong to imply that we are merely or simply physical beings)
P2)might be hard to deny. i defer to the physicists there...
so if there is a problem i guess it is to do with P1)???
???
there are probably different ways of looking at this...even if the argument fails to provide good reason to believe the conclusion (by being invalid, or by one of the premises being false) it doesn't follow that the conclusion is false. it just follows that the argument is not rationally persuasive. there could be better arguments for that conclusion. there could be better arguments for the opposite conclusion. that is where you have to weigh arguments...
> > 'expressions of feeling and thought' are not candidates for validity and invalidity.
'expressions of feeling and thought' are not even candidates for being true and false (so long as one speaks or expresses genuinely). That is why if you say 'i feel hot' it is silly for someone to try to deny that.
> I would love to see an argument constructed and communicated without thought, ideas, or feelings.There are two building blocks of arguments: thoughts or propositions
there are two candidates for truth and falsity:
thoughts or propositions
nothing else can be true or false
and nothing aside from arguments
composed of thoughts or propositions
can be valid or invalid
that is analytic
that is just what philosophers mean by those terms> "Organized" Philosophy is very much a construct unto itself.
yes. just like 'proton' 'electron' etc are interdefined by their relationship to each other so are 'truth' 'proposition' 'thought' 'valid'
philosophy is a technical subject like any other
it is just hard because it masquerades as english
with no translation required.>When used right from the text I find it rather like shotput. If you aren't going into the olympics.. what application does it have?
i guess some people just like shotput
they enjoy it
so they practice it
get good at it
then they get to go to the olympics
same with philosophy
same with philosophy
i am interested in the relationship between
thought
language
the external world
how these things interrelate
what is the contribution of each
what are the limits of each
what does that tell us about who and what we are
and what our place in the world is
the limits of what we can know
i don't know why
but sometimes i find peace there
but translating from english to logic...
it gives me a headache
some reformists think we should rewrite english
so it more acuratly reflects logic
others say we need to improve logic so it more acurately reflects english
but it would give me less headaches if they just met
if they just met somehow
but i take your point that they do not :-(
> You use terms and methods that are specific to a Philisophical approach as if they are basic truths, or concepts.yes. that is what the terms mean in philosophy by definition (bang thump) ;-)
we might be persuaded to revise our definitions but we would need good reason...>If I were a born again Christian, and conversed as if my truth was what everything stemmed from how palatable do you think you would find it?
i would describe it as playing a different language game
i have talked about this a little over on faith...> That was thought by philosophers, again one tiny aspect of things, hardly universal.
Ah. but they were wrong. that was my point there. they claimed language was supposed to be for making truth evaluable claims about the world and that was shown to be false.
we do many other things with language
and one function isn't more important than another
the idea is...
the idea is...
to learn what the terms are supposed to mean
how the story is supposed to run
and then the crucial bit is in seeing what the story lets you do
logic explains a lot
a lot of stuff that isn't explained by anything else
philosophical theories are attempts to explain
there are problems to be sure
but the game is supposed to be about coming up with something consistent and explanatory
a theory has structure
it has propositions related to one another in certain ways
and logic helps us with respect to internal consistency
and working out how those propositions are related
i don't know what to say
it is a world view
but it offers me explanations better than any i could have come up with without studying philosophy
and there is enough room
enough problems
to keep me interested in improving the theory
to tell a better story
to explain and account for more stuffemotions
how to fit them in to the picture
logic is about the structure of thought
emotions might have more to do with desires or goals
more to do with reasons for action
what motivates us to move
i don't know...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 23:18:56
In reply to Re: I need to reword this » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 22:27:47
>
> sorry...
> i was agreeing with you there.
> that was the point
> i didn't express that so clearly...
>
> i do find it hard to talk to people outside philosophy.
> it is like how there can be a theory in physics
> and it describes what the world is like in terms of notions such as mass and charge and acceleration etc
> and the terms 'mass' and 'charge' and 'acceleration' have technical meanings which is a little different from what those terms generally mean.
> the subject matter of philosophy means that terms such as 'truth' 'falsity' 'validity' 'invalidity' 'ideas' 'thoughts' 'theories' 'reality' 'knowledge' 'justice' etc etc are technical terms with more precise meanings.
> often the terms dont have the negative connotations / value judgements that they do with their more general use.Okay, I've got that, I know much of it is jargon, or variations on words, thank you. :)
Still, and of course this is entirely up to you.
But you had mentioned your ideas not being accepted. I really don't think that's it. I could have a beautiful singing voice, but if I stood up and sang in the middle of a stuffy conference meeting, it probably wouldn't go over very well.
When people ask you to agree to disagree (and I do mean people in the plural not just me)
And you persist after they've asked. Well I would feel as if I was not being respected.
To make a comparison, if you had asked me to please not talk to you about something more classically triggering, like abuse, and I continued, and then explained by saying "Well I discuss it with my friends and it doesn't bother them, and this is how I learn about people's experiences, I don't mean to hurt people". How would you feel?
It may not tug at the same babble heartstrings, but it *can* be a trigger, we all have different ones. Additionally it's hard not to feel condescended to or that your priorites are somehow deemed less worthy, when a simple request is not respected.
> so sometimes we do talk past each other a bit
> that is why i try to 'translate' or 'reconstruct' what i think someone is trying to say into a language that i can understand
> i try and be charitable in the translation
> but sometimes i miss the point it is true
>
> there is translation not only between languages
> but within a language as well
> in the words of Quine "word and object" radical translation begins at home
> (ie within a language)
> and there is a fundamental indetermincy with respect to what is really meant...
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 23:32:19
In reply to Re: I need to reword this » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 23:18:56
Yes.
I hear what you are saying.
I take your points.
I'm sorry.
I f*cked up that time
I see that.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 0:06:06
In reply to Re: not that strong » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 23:08:49
> > Right, but that is not an aside, that's a huge component of internet communication,
>
> yes. and all communication not just intenet communication.
>
> >and certainly enough for there to be a great deal of doubt as to whether or not something is "invalid" or "contradictory"
>
> yes. i was agreeing with you.
>
> > Some things cannot always be explained, you will never truly know how an apple tastes to me.
>
> dare i say... that you are absolutely correct that i will never know how an apple tastes to you - AND i can explain why??? there is a principled reason why i can never have knowledge of that.Well to me that's not important, what's important is that there are crucial componants in an exchange that aren't always going to be conveyed (I know, you agree with that)
So I think it's reductive to try and and place some arguments into a formula and come up with a "logical" conclusion. Or at least
it's not something that needs to be declared.> > > if the physical world, at base, is a mathematical function then why not human beings as well given that they are part of the physical world?
>
> > If. I would have to ascribe to the premise in order to discuss the conclusion. I don't
>
> ok. i'll alter it slightly and turn it into an argument (note this is a little different to the claim above - i'm going to strengthen the argument a little by weakening the claim)
>
> P1) human beings are objects in the physical world.
> P2) the behaviour of objects in the physical world can be described as a mathematical function.
> ______________________________________________
> C) the verbal behavior of human beings can be described as a mathematical function.
>
> What do you think???
> It is valid (IF you accept the premises are true then you would be contradicting yourself in denying the conclusion)
> Unless - you maintain that verbal behaviour is different from non-verbal behaviour (in which case the argument would be trading on an equivocation and the argument would be invalid)
> But - if there is no equivocation between 'behaviour' and 'verbal behaviour' then if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion to avoid contradiction.
>
> so... if you don't want to accept the conclusion then what is to be done? you could say that one or more of the premises are actually false. it doesn't matter if the argument is valid if one or more of the premises are false then there is no reason to accept the conclusion.
>
> P1) seems to be right...
> though you could attempt to argue that we are not merely physical beings, we have an immaterial side to us as well (in which case P1 is wrong to imply that we are merely or simply physical beings)
> P2)might be hard to deny. i defer to the physicists there...
> so if there is a problem i guess it is to do with P1)???
> ???
> there are probably different ways of looking at this...Again, I think it's concretizing the impossible.
Perhaps one day I'll think enough of self ordained "thinkers" (not you) to hazard an answer.I do very well at logic puzzles. The subject matter on that one though, underlines where our thinking diverges.
>
> even if the argument fails to provide good reason to believe the conclusion (by being invalid, or by one of the premises being false) it doesn't follow that the conclusion is false. it just follows that the argument is not rationally persuasive. there could be better arguments for that conclusion. there could be better arguments for the opposite conclusion. that is where you have to weigh arguments...
>
> > > 'expressions of feeling and thought' are not candidates for validity and invalidity.
>
> 'expressions of feeling and thought' are not even candidates for being true and false (so long as one speaks or expresses genuinely). That is why if you say 'i feel hot' it is silly for someone to try to deny that.
>
> > I would love to see an argument constructed and communicated without thought, ideas, or feelings.
>
> There are two building blocks of arguments: thoughts or propositions
> there are two candidates for truth and falsity:
> thoughts or propositions
> nothing else can be true or false
> and nothing aside from arguments
> composed of thoughts or propositions
> can be valid or invalid
> that is analytic
> that is just what philosophers mean by those terms
>
> > "Organized" Philosophy is very much a construct unto itself.
>
> yes. just like 'proton' 'electron' etc are interdefined by their relationship to each other so are 'truth' 'proposition' 'thought' 'valid'
> philosophy is a technical subject like any other
> it is just hard because it masquerades as english
> with no translation required.
>
> >When used right from the text I find it rather like shotput. If you aren't going into the olympics.. what application does it have?
>
> i guess some people just like shotput
> they enjoy it
> so they practice it
> get good at it
> then they get to go to the olympics
> same with philosophy
> same with philosophy
> i am interested in the relationship between
> thought
> language
> the external world
> how these things interrelate
> what is the contribution of each
> what are the limits of each
> what does that tell us about who and what we are
> and what our place in the world is
> the limits of what we can know
> i don't know why
> but sometimes i find peace thereOh, I did not mean "What reason is there for it"
Not at all, reasons are so very personal.
I meant the application to the world, and only because you had mentioned that it alienates you from people and you seemed uncomfortable with that, but I could well be wrong. And I do find it odd when people (not you) can debate for hours how best to help people, when they could actually be helping people.
> others say we need to improve logic so it more acurately reflects englishAnd this is that type of philisophical quandry
that I become irrationally irritated by.
I think of the old boys network having a meeting, drinking coffee, discussing how the world should be, becuase of course they already know just *how* it is..Now that, was me. That was not intended to offend, or sneakily insult.. that's just my vision when I hear statements like that.
> emotions
> how to fit them in to the picture
> logic is about the structure of thought
> emotions might have more to do with desires or goals
> more to do with reasons for action
> what motivates us to move
> i don't know...
Too bad you have to kill a butterfly to get it to lie still under a microscope.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 0:55:44
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 0:06:06
> Again, I think it's concretizing the impossible.
> Perhaps one day I'll think enough of self ordained "thinkers" (not you) to hazard an answer.ok. i didn't really want to argue about that. i was just trying to convey how the process goes of setting an argument up into standard form and evaluating it with respect to validity and then the truth of the premises. just to convey the general spirit of the story. the trouble comes with translating what people say into standard form (the process of translation). and of course this process only applies to arguments. not to expressions of experience or reports of ideas or anything else aside from arguments. on all the other things we do with language it is silent.
im not sure what you mean by 'concretizing the impossible'. do you mean that deriving the standard form from what people actually say is impossible??? (i would say that maybe one needs to check ones interpretation back with the person before going on to evaluate it). or do you mean that we will never be in a position to know whether the premises are true? we could take P1 and use it as a conclusion and construct an argument for P1. premises in one context can be conclusions in another and conclusions in one context can be premises in another..
The real interest in arguments (for me) is that if someone does accept the premises as true and the argument form is valid then they are contradicting themselves in denying the conclusion. So often we don't need to worry about whether the premises actually are true, we just need to worry about whether our audience will accept them as true. nobody has a perfectly consistent belief network. everybody endorses contradictory beliefs. and a contradiction describes the world in a way that it is impossible for the world to be. contradictions are necessarily false. i just find this interesting i suppose.
but i should remember.. that other people do not
> Oh, I did not mean "What reason is there for it"
> Not at all, reasons are so very personal.
> I meant the application to the world,oh. well... contradictions describe the world in a way that it is impossible for the world to be. its application... imo... it attempts to describe the structure / nature of rational thought. we have an intuitive understanding of what follows from what and what count as good reasons and not so good reasons relevant reasons and not so relevant reasons. it systematises that. it subsumes the indefinately many different arguments we could have into finitely many different kinds of argument. it describes general rules or laws that apply to rational thought processes or the laws of what follows from what.
it teaches us something of the limits of human thinking. for us contradictions and dissonance is aversive. but surely it is possible that there could be beings for whom dissonance is a delight (wittgenstein said that). for us as human beings logic constrains our thoughts and theories and contradictions are fatal. but logic is something that thought and propositions (sentances) has. logic is a fact about us as human beings about the nature of human rationality. there could be beings with different logics. they would have a very different conception of the world indeed.
so how much of the world can we know or comprehend when all of it is filtered via thought and language. we can't conceive of a contradtory state of affairs.
is that a limit of us
of our kinds of minds
or is it reflective of the structure of the world
do we see the world in that way because the world is that way
or is our thought constrained like that from without
becaue those constraints apply to reality
im not making much sense now
(not even to me)
but the relationship between logic and the world is puzzling indeed...
as is the relationship between thought and language
and thought and the world
and language and the world...>and only because you had mentioned that it alienates you from people and you seemed uncomfortable with that, but I could well be wrong.
yeah.
i need to get better there...
im never going to stop thinking this stuff
but i guess you are right that there are more or less appropriate places and ways with respect to expressing it>And I do find it odd when people (not you) can debate for hours how best to help people, when they could actually be helping people.
Ah.
But how can you help people before you know what you have to do to help them?
Or what counts as helping?
etc etc
i do get your point
i think the idea is...
that i have limitations
i might be helping in an indirect way
but that is where my skill / ability lies
other people are more practically minded
their strength lies there
but not me
though i should improve there too hopefully> > others say we need to improve logic so it more acurately reflects english
> And this is that type of philisophical quandry
> that I become irrationally irritated by.Ah. thats about where my eyes light up.
> I think of the old boys network having a meeting, drinking coffee, discussing how the world should be, becuase of course they already know just *how* it is..
ah.
hmm.
it can be a little like that...
but with respect to reforming language...
if we reform english to bring it into line with logic then that might f*ck up english's ability to do all those other things we use language to do. it might not be so good for expressing our thoughts or telling jokes. :-(
progress is being made...
do you feel the same way about physicists?
what if they said that people should stop saying 'the sun rises and sets' because they are wrong - i mean the earth goes round the sun it isn't that the sun goes up and down. the physicists get to tell us about the world. they study it. that is what they do. they are authorative in a certain way. which is not to say that they couldn't be mistaken and it is pointless to question them. but they are more likely to have it right than the people who don't really think about such things.and similarly... why can't the logicians be considered authoratitive (to a point) with respect to the structure of thought and the laws of what follows from what? which isn't to say that we can't question them. just that they are more likely to be right becaue they think about it really hard and systematically whereas the average person doesn't give a sh*t.
i care about this stuff.
i know some people don't.
but i do care.
and in studying what you are doing is reading what other people have to say.
other people who cared enough about it to write a book on what they thought about the issue.
and there are many books
and the idea is to take what you perceive to be the good stuff out of everything you have read
and leave behind what you consider sh*t
and construct the best story you can
and progress is made
though it would be fair to say that some issues have been around for centuries...
> Now that, was me. That was not intended to offend, or sneakily insult.. that's just my vision when I hear statements like that.i know. and thats ok.
> > emotions
> > how to fit them in to the picture
> > logic is about the structure of thought
> > emotions might have more to do with desires or goals
> > more to do with reasons for action
> > what motivates us to move
> > i don't know...
>
> Too bad you have to kill a butterfly to get it to lie still under a microscope.hmm.
do you mean that there is a mystery about life that you like
and that you are afraid that if everything can be explained
then that sense of mystery
of wonder
will dissapate
and so that is a very bad thing indeed???
is that it?
if so
then you are not alone.
other people have said this too.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 1:09:42
In reply to Re: not that strong » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 0:55:44
why dont i help people rather than theorising...
because i figure the best way i can help is by theorising.
im still working out what im going to do precisely
but i guess what i have been doing is writing theorietical stuff on mental illness.i have written papers / seminars on DID and am currently writing my thesis on delusions.
i try to come up with a theory that explains the phenomena
that explains what is going on for people who meet criteria
in a way that is non-judgemental
explanatorycompared to the old school theorists who are fond of attributing malevolent intent attention seeking manipulativeness etc
i want to come up with a theory that clincians can embrace
a theory that offers them a way of seeing
of making sense of
of understanding what is going on for their client
a way that leads to sympathy
and hope
and empathy
and doesn't blame or judge
thats an application of the principle of charity
currently im working on delusions
the DSM defines them as
'radically false beliefs about reality'
i don't think they are false
i don't think they are beliefs (so much as expression of experience)
i don't think they are about reality so much as the subjects experiencewhat that means is that delusional subjects aren't wildly irrational (as is often supposed)
to see them as wildly irrational seems to imply that it is pointless to listen to them or take them seriously because they dont make much sense.
the DSM seems to entail that we cant explain or make sense of delusional utterances as a matter of principle.IMO that isn't good enough.
we need to try harder with respect to understanding
what is required isn't 'radical translation'
(their problem isn't to do with reason)
but 'radical empathy' with respect to us being able to empathise with their anomalous experinece.i am just trying to give you the general spirit.
i can't be a clinician gabbi.
im too up and down with my own moods
i hope to help by providing a way for clinicians to view and relate to their clients
a way that is more likely to help them than judging them to be irrational and incomprehensible is likely to help them.
i cant help the clients directly
but i can write
sort of...and for me...
that is the pointand all that 'crazy' abstract stuff
gives me tools
concepts
with which to explain what im trying to say
in a language that other specialists
(philosophers unfortunatly)
can understand
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 1:23:31
In reply to Re: and what am i doing with this???, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 1:09:42
> why dont i help people rather than theorising...
>
> because i figure the best way i can help is by theorising.
>
> im still working out what im going to do precisely
> but i guess what i have been doing is writing theorietical stuff on mental illness.
>
> i have written papers / seminars on DID and am currently writing my thesis on delusions.
>
> i try to come up with a theory that explains the phenomena
> that explains what is going on for people who meet criteria
> in a way that is non-judgemental
> explanatory
>
> compared to the old school theorists who are fond of attributing malevolent intent attention seeking manipulativeness etc
> i want to come up with a theory that clincians can embrace
> a theory that offers them a way of seeing
> of making sense of
> of understanding what is going on for their client
> a way that leads to sympathy
> and hope
> and empathy
> and doesn't blame or judge
> thats an application of the principle of charity
> currently im working on delusions
> the DSM defines them as
> 'radically false beliefs about reality'
> i don't think they are false
> i don't think they are beliefs (so much as expression of experience)
> i don't think they are about reality so much as the subjects experience
>
> what that means is that delusional subjects aren't wildly irrational (as is often supposed)
> to see them as wildly irrational seems to imply that it is pointless to listen to them or take them seriously because they dont make much sense.
> the DSM seems to entail that we cant explain or make sense of delusional utterances as a matter of principle.
>
> IMO that isn't good enough.
> we need to try harder with respect to understanding
> what is required isn't 'radical translation'
> (their problem isn't to do with reason)
> but 'radical empathy' with respect to us being able to empathise with their anomalous experinece.
>
> i am just trying to give you the general spirit.
> i can't be a clinician gabbi.
> im too up and down with my own moods
> i hope to help by providing a way for clinicians to view and relate to their clients
> a way that is more likely to help them than judging them to be irrational and incomprehensible is likely to help them.
> i cant help the clients directly
> but i can write
> sort of...
>
> and for me...
> that is the point
>
> and all that 'crazy' abstract stuff
> gives me tools
> concepts
> with which to explain what im trying to say
> in a language that other specialists
> (philosophers unfortunatly)
> can understandWhen I said *not you* I meant it.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 2:48:50
In reply to Re: and what am i doing with this??? » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 1:23:31
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:40:52
In reply to Re: sorry (nm) » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 2:48:50
Thanks guys.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:47:32
In reply to Re: and what am i doing with this??? » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 1:23:31
in general...
philosophers dont talk about helping people
it isnt about helping people
it is about investigating the nature of
knowledge
truth
reality
or whatever.over in the psychology dept you find people talking about helping people
mostly in clinical
teaching them stuff to help them practice
otherwise they dont really care about helping people
they are interested in finding out about the nature of
neurons
prejudice
whatever
just because they find it interesting
though practical implications are typically hauled in
when it comes to obtaining that research grantwe do that with ethics
sometimes it is considered 'selling out'
to adopt a topic
because of an associated research granti have come to the conclusion it is more about comprimise
but in general
helping people is not a consideration at all
it isn't in management
in most jobs
advertising
whatever
its not usually about helping people.i don't know
i don't know if that was even a question that you wanted answered or whatacademia is removed from the real world
it is its own world
in general people are kinder there
than the people who aren't
in my life expereince anyways
i dont know waht to say
sorry
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:52:08
In reply to Re: and what am i doing with this??? » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 1:23:31
im sorry
im pretty fragile at the moment
i should have stopped when you asked me to
im sorryi moved pretty quick from the topic to talking about arguments / philosophy in general
my thoughts on that didn't bear any direct relation to the initial topic.
in particular:
dinah,
i didn't think you were being inconsistent
i was just saying...look.
it doesnt matter
im sorry i didn't stop when you asked me to
im sorry you felt upset last night
i didn't feel very good either
i was hoping to repair that today but i think i just made it worse
Posted by Dinah on June 8, 2005, at 5:08:37
In reply to Re: gabbi - dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 3:52:08
I'm sorry if you're upset, Alexandra, or feeling fragile.
It is difficult for me to believe that you didn't intend your comments on consistence or contradictions to have anything to do with me, since they closely followed statements by you on your perception that the party and the restrictive boards were essentially the same. And were unleavened by any intervening acknowledgement of my thought processes on why they were not indeed the same, and could not be considered the same, because the locus of the inability to join was different.
However I will try for the sake of mutual good will to believe that your statements were unrelated to mine.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2005, at 8:27:30
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:33:05
I love a good debate as much as the next guy. Just ask anyone here....
But - one of the first things kids learn in language arts is how to read a sentence and label it "fact" or "opinion."
Debating "facts" - or using logic to show that a set of premises naturally come to a conclusion is one thing - and one that no one should have any problem with, because the premises can be shown to be true or untrue.
Debating "opinion" however is usually an exercise in futility. Opinion doesn't involve just facts, it also involves feelings and personal experiences.
And anytime feelings are brought into an argument there is a strong chance they will get hurt.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 14:14:25
In reply to Re: debating the undebatable » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2005, at 8:27:30
Thanks so much. Here's a little to much info, but I'll get to the point eventually. I've become Dr. phobic, after dealing with an antibiotic resistant infection (sorry if you've heard this) seeing 5 Doctors and 3 specialists, and being told there's either nothing wrong,
(yeah nothing wrong except every once in a while the whole side of my face swells up..) or at worst, hallucinating, or self injuring for attention..or because I'm stressed. "Maybe you should try and figure out the reason for your stress that's causing you to do this, do you have any idea?"
"Yeah, well you see, I have this infection and no doctor seems to be taking me seriously.."I'm actually scared to go. Today I have a dissapointment with a new guy about something different. I've been nervous for three days, But this morning I thought..hey.. "I'm AWESOME!"
and I think I shall greet him with a smug smile on my face.You never know how much words can mean.
Thanks for the pat on the back.Sorry for hi-jacking the thread.
And now back to...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 14:41:25
In reply to Emmy, Dinah, P.C » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 8, 2005, at 14:14:25
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 16:22:46
In reply to Re: gabbi - dinah » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 8, 2005, at 5:08:37
> It is difficult for me to believe that you didn't intend your comments on consistence or contradictions to have anything to do with me, since they closely followed statements by you on your perception that the party and the restrictive boards were essentially the same. And were unleavened by any intervening acknowledgement of my thought processes on why they were not indeed the same, and could not be considered the same, because the locus of the inability to join was different.
YOU:
>>I don't think it's the same,
ME:
>ok.I never said you were being inconsistent Dinah.
You haven't said anything that is explicitly inconsistent that I noticed.But that is a general strategy, yes.
To explore the issue more to see whether they are truely analogous and to pinpoint the difference, or to see that there isn't a relevant difference.You think there is a relevant difference
I think that they might be fairly much the same in some relevant respects
But...
Apparantly our values are different so it is pointless to discuss it further.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 16:28:32
In reply to Re: debating the undebatable » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on June 8, 2005, at 8:27:30
> Debating "facts" - or using logic to show that a set of premises naturally come to a conclusion is one thing - and one that no one should have any problem with, because the premises can be shown to be true or untrue.
> Debating "opinion" however is usually an exercise in futility. Opinion doesn't involve just facts, it also involves feelings and personal experiences.Validity and invalidity (logical notions) don't require one to know whether the premises are in fact true or not.
To say that an argument is valid is to say that IF the premises were true THEN the conclusion would just have to be.
So if someone believes that the premises are true it doesn't matter whether they are right that they are true or whether they are wrong that they are true the point is that that person would also have to accept the conclusion as true if they accept the premises as true.
So they are led to contradiction if they want to assent to the premises and deny the conclusion. So they have to decide whether they want to change their mind and say that actually one of the premises is false, or that actually the conclusion is true after all.
It isn't about mind-objective truth
It is about consistency in ones belief network
>
Posted by henrietta on June 8, 2005, at 19:31:59
In reply to Re: Auntiemel, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 16:28:32
I'm sorry you're feeling fragile. Maybe when you're feeling fragile this is not the best place to be.
I get everything you're saying (studied a lot of phil in college, and husband has masters in philosophy), but you're right, there's not much point in trying to continue this conversation here. In my opinion, your goals are entirely different from the goals of those you're trying to converse with, and not much good can come from that .
And I think you're awesome AND amazing! Sorry I'm not able (or, to be honest, willing) to hang out here much---but I'm supporting you in spirit.
XXO hen
Posted by henrietta on June 8, 2005, at 19:33:41
In reply to Alex, posted by henrietta on June 8, 2005, at 19:31:59
please take care of yourself!
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 23:04:07
In reply to Re: Alex PS, posted by henrietta on June 8, 2005, at 19:33:41
Thanks.
Yeah.
I should have just let it go.
Admin probably isn't the best place for me to be when I am feeling fragile.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 23:04:32
In reply to Re: Alex PS » henrietta, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 23:04:07
because logic is my coping strategy
Posted by Dinah on June 9, 2005, at 0:37:09
In reply to Re: dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 8, 2005, at 16:22:46
Quite probably true on this topic, Alexandra. But hopefully not true on all topics. At least it hasn't seemed to be in the past, and hopefully won't be in the future.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 9, 2005, at 3:33:25
In reply to Re: dinah » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 9, 2005, at 0:37:09
Sorry peoples.
I did ramble today / yesterday, didn't I...
Thought it might be time for a hug break.
(((Dinah)))
(((Gabbi)))
(((AuntieMel)))
Especially.
And (((everybody))) else too.
:-)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.