Yes, I agree. Only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the thought object and the material object. On what grounds? For me, the difference between expectation/fantasy and experience is that they the first seems incomplete in comparison to the other; but for me, this incompleteness is due to poor training (and poor use of imagination/fantasy) and not some other, inherent distinction as you seem to suggest. Do you ever get lost in dreams, thinking they are "real"? Have you ever studied productivity advice and study skills, how one should "visualize" being successful? Ie. painting in one's imagination the situation of when one wins, all the sights, sounds, smells, feelings in the body, ... everything.
So do you have a hard time knowing whether you are with someone you care about or when you are thinking about them?
Can you explain how you see essentialism connected to this ? es·sen·tial·ism –noun Education. a doctrine that certain traditional concepts, ideals, and skills are essential to society and should be taught methodically to all students, regardless of individual ability, need, etc.
Enmos, you needed to scroll down a bit. es·sen·tial·ism (ĭ-sěn'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. The metaphysical theory that the essential properties of an object can be distinguished from those that are accidental to it. Not that that is a great definition, but you can see how it moves the word into this ballpark.
Oh right.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's not how I mean it. I'll whittle things down to the difference I'm trying to point out: When with someone, there are the thoughts: "Mary is here in the same room with me." "Mary is a nice person." When not with Mary but thinking about Mary: "Mary is not here in the same room with me." "Mary is a nice person." When I am with someone ("Mary is here in the same room with me"), I have thoughts about this person ("Mary is a nice person"); and these thoughts are for the most part the same ("Mary is a nice person") when I am not with someone, except for the thought ("Mary is not here in the same room with me"). The thoughts "Mary is here in the same room with me" and "Mary is not here in the same room with me" are descriptions of circumstance, not of Mary. I think this depends on a person's priorities. However, I am sensing that you are trying to pragmatize this whole issue, while Glaucon and myself are arguing along the lines of general principles of thinking. But, this here might shed more light - We seem to have a different understanding of what is "real", and this difference seems to be key. I would venture to say that only an "essentialist" would make a distinction between the "real" and the "unreal".
Yeah, hehe. Whatever an "essentialist" is hehe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Funny. We won't hear that ! hah! "an essentialist is precisely this. an essentialist does things precisely with that in mind. an essentialist is someone who" And a nice little description written out nicely. Heh. It's funny how I am dismissed all the damn time here. Words have meanings. Maybe they're hard to figure out. But definately.
Are you saying words exist, and it is up to humans to find them, and figure out their meaning? Would you say that for every word, there is an objective meaning, that has existence, separate from the individuals who are required to find that meaning?
Uh, sorry, I know this will probably make decent communication harder, but I'll have to say it anyway... This sounds a LOT like you're trying to justify delusions. Not saying imagination is all bad, but y'know... it sounded lke it. You can give Mary characteristics. That's what you imagine her as. But like you said, there's a difference in whether she's with you or not. And if she hasn't been with you and you can't access it from memory, you can't even "correctly" imagine yourself with her.
Confuse, no. But you cannot not have a thought of your car, when observing your car. Again, while you can think of an object in absence of it's attendant material object, the converse cannot be said. I would say that it's impossible to act without thinking. If that were the case, it would have to be possible to have no brain activity whatsoever while performing the act. Note that, simply because you're not deliberately thinking on the act, thinking nonetheless must go on. The exception to this possibility could be if it's the case that you beleive bare perception to be a non-thought process (which I suspect is indeed your position..). If that is the case, then we're opening up an entirely new can o worms..
I don't think this is correct. I just tested this out. I stared at a green apple and thought about a red apple and, while the images were sort of superimporsed, muttered, mentally to myself about apples. Pardon my dullness, but I need you to lay out the converse. I think we need a definition of thinking. Are animals thinking when they move? Are they thinking when they roll over in their sleep? if I am thinking about my wife while I am driving does that count? Again, I am sure there is brain activity. There always is. If that is always 'thinking' then I agree. Noted the answer to one of my questions. let's open that can of worms and start with a definition of thinking.
It wasn't important so much whether the thought of Mary was verbal or not. Like I said, I've tried to whittle things down to point out the difference I was aiming at - that the presence of another person is a matter of circumstance, not of that person per se, and that this difference enables one to distinguish the situation when a person is present from the situation when they are not present, whereas the thoughts about that person might be the same in both cases. Of course. But essentialism is not necessarily an adequate description/explanation of what goes on in the human mind.
In general I agree. It certainly is possible to have the same thoughts while they are present. I think you and I should probably have a definition of thinking also. Perhaps not. I'd be interested in hearing more here. The reason I confessed to being an essentialist or at least in part one, was so it did not seem like I was contorting myself not to be one - like being a member of the communist party or something.