![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 172 to 196 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 18:00:08
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 16:28:36
> I'm used to keeping arguments going
> Not so used to being diplomatic
> And sensitive to other peoples povI don't understand. It appears to me that most of the discussions, or arguments you've had on admin have been about hypothetical situations or potential situations wherein people might be hurt.
But if you aren't accustomed to being diplomatic, or sensitive to the person with whom you are discussing the subject, you're likely hurting someone in reality, while arguing how not to hurt people theoretically. It seems contradictory to me.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:22:40
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 18:00:08
> > I'm used to keeping arguments going
> > Not so used to being diplomatic
> > And sensitive to other peoples pov
> I don't understand. It appears to me that most of the discussions, or arguments you've had on admin have been about hypothetical situations or potential situations wherein people might be hurt.Well... Yes.
But I try to look at the situation
At the best arguments from either side
And make a decision from there as to what I think.
Sometimes people think of points that I hadn't thoguht of.
I add them and think about them and weigh what I believe again.
And so for me arguing (which is sort of a technical term) is a rational process.
But emotions and how people feel etc become part of that too.
When you have to weigh costs to some and benefits to others.
The 'strength' of the feeling factors in when weighing the costs and benefits.
And... It is rational to take 'irrational' (and even non-rational) responses into account if you can predict that they are likely to occur...> But if you aren't accustomed to being diplomatic, or sensitive to the person with whom you are discussing the subject, you're likely hurting someone in reality, while arguing how not to hurt people theoretically. It seems contradictory to me.
I'm used to arguing with people who are doing that same process... We use the same process and sometimes (actually most times) come to a different result.
So then we look at the factors that we considered before making our decisions.
Sometimes there is a relevant factor that someone didn't consider and once they are made aware of it they change what they think.
Sometimes there is a flaw in one of the arguments and once that is brought to the persons attention they change what they think.In philosophy we don't much go in for 'it is all subjective' or 'different people just have different values' because it PREVENTS arguments it rules them out. There is no point arguing because people are really talking about different things.
What you need to do is agree on a backdrop first. So xxx things count as polite and xxx things count as impolite and everyone agrees and everyone agrees that politeness = good and impoliteness = bad and then what is left to argue about is whether the particular thing you are discussing counts as being polite or not. How it is similar or different to the things that were agreed on as being part of the politeness or impoliteness list or whatever.
Getting to the heart of the dispute is the point.
Drag out the common ground and find the precise point of disagreement.It doesn't work out that everyone always agrees (philosophers have disagreed with each other for centuries) but it does work in a hell of a lot of cases...
But...
I buy into that process.
I think it is a worthwhile thing to do.
We think of it as a way of getting to the truth
Because 'the truth' is what interests us.
That is what the process of argument is about.But people don't talk just to argue.
There are other considerations than 'truth'.
Maintining friends is one.
And I have to remember that my world view is rather odd really.
Thats why I alienate most people.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:33:05
In reply to Re: not that strong » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:22:40
And I find the process of argument intellectually stimulating.
I find it puzzling the role that emotions and emotional responses and rhetoric (attempts to persuade on the basis of the power of the words used rather than by rational reasons) play in the process of argument.
I find it intellectually stimulating.
And people being hurt...
People feeing hurt is an unintended consequence to be sure.
Because I am considering the consistency or inconsistency of what people are saying. How what they say they believe about something might lead to contradiction when paired with other claims that they would want to indorse.And same for me, same for me.
I get led to contradiction too.
And when you spot a contradiction then something has to give.
And that is what I do with my life
That is part of who I am
I think about stuff
And try and resolve it
And that is part of me.And I don't mean for people to take stuff personally.
I am commenting on arguments which just happen to be used by particular people.
I am commenting on inconsistent claims which just happen to be endorsed by particular people.
I don't mean it as a personal attack when I point out this stuff
And I don't take it as a personal attack when people point out this stuff for me
Because I am working towards an ideal of consistency of beliefs
(contradictory beliefs cant both be true)
And sometimes the whole issue can be reframed so contradictions can be transcended
And I love that I just love that
And I get joy and peace there
When somebody says something
And I think
p->q
~p
______
~qAnd I think INVALID
And want to help people understand...
But.
A lot of people don't give a sh*t.
Or not as much as me at any rate.
And I need to respect that.
I do.
And it is not better or worse
It is just different
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 20:00:06
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 18:33:05
> And I find the process of argument intellectually stimulating.
>
> I find it puzzling the role that emotions and emotional responses and rhetoric (attempts to persuade on the basis of the power of the words used rather than by rational reasons) play in the process of argument.
>
> I find it intellectually stimulating.
>
> And people being hurt...
> People feeing hurt is an unintended consequence to be sure.
> Because I am considering the consistency or inconsistency of what people are saying. How what they say they believe about something might lead to contradiction when paired with other claims that they would want to indorse.No Alex, frequently you are seeing an inconsistancy where there is none, and claiming "invalid" because it's something that is not understood by you. Not because it's over your head, but because it's a different way of thinking. As much as philosophy would like to concretize all forms of human expression, and understanding it cannot, and it will never discover a way to make all aspects of humanity math.
Philosophy is a a drop in the bucket of awareness, perhaps one tool to be used in one's search further understanding, but to use little but a philisophical approach in order to declare an expression of both feeling and thought "valid" or "invalid" is like reading with your eyes closed.
>
> And I don't mean for people to take stuff personally.
> I am commenting on arguments which just happen to be used by particular people.
I do understand that, and I understand (though it was one of the many reasons I strongly disliked) the "organized philosophy" approach. It's not a way in which I learn, I find actually I have to be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when I do come in contact with it.
I have friends who I can argue with, but that's where it stops. I know who with whom I can and cannot, what mood they are in, and whether or not they will take it personally.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is, I think there's a place for everything, but using a mental health board (of all things)as a debate board, is really something I'm uncomfortable with, unless there is an obvious okay from the other party. In many cases though I've seen people ask for a *stop* and well, some people come here to escape tension, it's not that they aren't aware, or are confused, maybe they just come here to *escape* tension.> I am commenting on inconsistent claims which just happen to be endorsed by particular people.
> I don't mean it as a personal attack when I point out this stuff
> And I don't take it as a personal attack when people point out this stuff for me
> Because I am working towards an ideal of consistency of beliefs
> (contradictory beliefs cant both be true)
> And sometimes the whole issue can be reframed so contradictions can be transcended
> And I love that I just love that
> And I get joy and peace there
> When somebody says something
> And I think
> p->q
> ~p
> ______
> ~q
>
> And I think INVALID
> And want to help people understand...
> But.
> A lot of people don't give a sh*t.
> Or not as much as me at any rate.
> And I need to respect that.
> I do.
> And it is not better or worse
> It is just different
Posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 20:09:23
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 20:00:06
Thanks Gabbi. I was going to say something about the assumption of inconsistency but decided I probably couldn't explain well enough to be understood or, for that matter, civilly.
You clearly have a greater familiarity with philosophy, and did a much better job of it than I could. And civilly as well!
Posted by partlycloudy on June 7, 2005, at 20:19:17
In reply to Re: not that strong » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on June 7, 2005, at 20:09:23
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 20:39:51
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 20:00:06
> No Alex, frequently you are seeing an inconsistancy where there is none,
frequently?
i don't think i proclaim inconsistency all that often.
i don't think i have proclaimed it in the small boards debate>and claiming "invalid" because it's something that is not understood by you.
to say that an argument is invalid is to say that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. thats what invalid means. it applies to argument forms (ps and qs) rather than arguments in natural languages (ie english). it is true that there can be a problem of translation in translating arguments in natural language into their logical forms.
> As much as philosophy would like to concretize all forms of human expression, and understanding it cannot, and it will never discover a way to make all aspects of humanity math.
you think this can't be done as a matter of principle?
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?
> Philosophy is a a drop in the bucket of awareness, perhaps one tool to be used in one's search further understanding, but to use little but a philisophical approach in order to declare an expression of both feeling and thought "valid" or "invalid" is like reading with your eyes closed.'expressions of feeling and thought' are not candidates for validity and invalidity. validity and invalidity applies to argument forms where an argument is a series of propositions (premises) offered in support of a conclusion. to say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well. it is to say that if one believes the premises are true then one should also believe the conclusion in order to avoid inconsistency. arguments are the only candidates for validity or invalidity. thoughts are not unless they are used to construct an argument. ideas are not unless they are used to construct an argument. sentances are not unless they are used to construct an argument.
up until the 60's it was fairly much thought that the function of language was to make truth evaluable claims about the world. philosophers fairly much assumed this. wittgenstein then talked about language games. he said that making claims about the mind independent world is one thing we do with language but we also do many other things with language. we give orders. we make requests. we ask questions. we express our experience. those aren't truth evaluable. they are not candidates for truth and falsity. though there is such a thing as speaking truely so it gets a little complicated...
the point is that there are many different things we do with language. arguing is only one of them. logic is the science of what follows from what. the logical relation between thoughts / propositions. when one is making truth evaluable claims about the world. we need not know whether the claims are true or false in order to comment on the arguments structure (whether it is valid or invalid, however). but that is only one thing we do with language.
so logic applies to a limited domain.
no problem.
that doesn't rule out an account of the other things.
it is just that they haven't been the focus of much attention up until now.
but if understanding those other functions of language is beyond us as a matter of principle then there is no point in trying
we may as well give up now.
show over folks you might as well go home.> It's not a way in which I learn, I find actually I have to be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when I do come in contact with it.
yes. like cbt. there is a lot of nonsense. and some good stuff. best not to throw the good stuff out with the nonsense but sometimes it becomes nonsense by association.
i left pc because my thoughts were not appreciated over there. i don't want it to come to that over here. i know i need to learn to tone it down and not get so involved and to express myself more diplomatically and to be sensitive to others and more especially to convey that sensitivity
i hope i do get the opportunity to learn that
it isn't that i use this as a debate board
it is that this is the way i look at things
this is what i think about
i can't help it
i can probably learn to express myself more appropriately etc
but i don't see me radically changing in the near future
i know it alienates me from people irl
i know it is alienating me from people here too
but i'm not just here to argue
i've joined up to philosophy chat boards
if i just wanted to argue with a bunch of philosophers i would stay there
but i am trying to learn
to think less like a machine
and more like a person
i have trouble reconciling my ideals of rational thought and precision
and my moods
my emotions
it is hard for me
im sorry
i don't mean to create tension
or to make people upset
i see that it happens
and i need to learn the middle way
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 21:11:25
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 20:39:51
im alienated from other philosophers because of my history of mental illness
because i come from a background of abuse and welfare
and im alienated from here because of the philosophy
i know ill never really fit in anywhere
and the parts should do what the parts are good at
but the trouble is that leads to internal breakdown and conflict
so there is crossover
and im supposed to encourage that
and i dont know
you can have this back now thanks
i dont like the noise it makes
it is strange how
consistency
can come of a very black world view indeed
how you can hold onto one proposition
absolutely
so long as you are prepared to revise most everything else
how logic can be reassuring
and terrifying
depending on the content you plug in to start with
and i wish there were no such thing as emotions
i wish i never had to feel anything
could just act from reason
and i didn't ask to be born
and you can have this back now
please
i dont like the noise it makes
Posted by Deneb on June 7, 2005, at 21:27:01
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 21:11:25
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 7, 2005, at 21:40:34
In reply to Gabbi is awesome:-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on June 7, 2005, at 20:19:17
Posted by TofuEmmy on June 7, 2005, at 21:42:18
In reply to Gabbi is awesome:-) (nm) » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on June 7, 2005, at 20:19:17
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 21:42:59
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 20:39:51
> > No Alex, frequently you are seeing an inconsistancy where there is none,
>
> frequently?
> i don't think i proclaim inconsistency all that often.
> i don't think i have proclaimed it in the small boards debateI suppose it's relative
>
> >and claiming "invalid" because it's something that is not understood by you.
>
> to say that an argument is invalid is to say that it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. thats what invalid means.I know what invalid means, I would not have used it in a sentance if I did not.
it applies to argument forms (ps and qs) rather than arguments in natural languages (ie english). it is true that there can be a problem of translation in translating arguments in natural language into their logical forms.Right, but that is not an aside, that's a huge component of internet communication, and certainly enough for there to be a great deal of doubt as to whether or not something is "invalid" or "contradictory"
Some things cannot always be explained, you will never truly know how an apple tastes to me.
> > As much as philosophy would like to concretize all forms of human expression, and understanding it cannot, and it will never discover a way to make all aspects of humanity math.
>
> you think this can't be done as a matter of principle?
> 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
>
> > Philosophy is a a drop in the bucket of awareness, perhaps one tool to be used in one's search further understanding, but to use little but a philisophical approach in order to declare an expression of both feeling and thought "valid" or "invalid" is like reading with your eyes closed.
>
> 'expressions of feeling and thought' are not candidates for validity and invalidity.But they are used in communication, communication is translated into argument.
It's the apple again.validity and invalidity applies to argument forms where an argument is a series of propositions (premises) offered in support of a conclusion. to say that an argument is valid is to say that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well. it is to say that if one believes the premises are true then one should also believe the conclusion in order to avoid inconsistency. arguments are the only candidates for validity or invalidity. thoughts are not unless they are used to construct an argument. ideas are not unless they are used to construct an argument. sentances are not unless they are used to construct an argument.
I would love to see an argument constructed and communicated without thought, ideas, or feelings.
"Organized" Philosophy is very much a construct unto itself. 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?You use terms and methods that are specific to a Philisophical approach as if they are basic truths, or concepts. 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?
>
> up until the 60's it was fairly much thought that the function of language was to make truth evaluable claims about the world. philosophers fairly much assumed this. wittgenstein then talked about language games. he said that making claims about the mind independent world is one thing we do with language but we also do many other things with language. we give orders. we make requests. we ask questions. we express our experience. those aren't truth evaluable. they are not candidates for truth and falsity. though there is such a thing as speaking truely so it gets a little complicated...That was thought by philosophers, again one tiny aspect of things, hardly universal.
I simply don't believe it is up to you to declare a considered opinion invalid, contradictory, or illogical because they are unable to communicate the whole of their argument in a way satisfactory to you.
I am sorry that this has hurt you, but you can't have it both ways, you can't declare someone inconsistant (verging on hypocritical) completely discout their argumement, or finalize things by saying "And that's that" without expecting a response.
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.
>
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
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.