i feel so bohemian like you.

B

Bohemian Nightmare

I am better than you
Registered Senior Member
i propose an engaging debate on subjectivity. i know this is likley to get very nihilistic and existential and things but i doesent necessarily have to. anway, we interpret the world through our sences, and all our sences are subjective, then we really cant be sure anything we see/hear/taste/touch/smell is real. how does this fact effect your understanding of the universe and your place under the sun. do you believe in objective truthes?
are morals truthes intrinsicly infused inside mankind or are these value based? is there an objective good and evil or are they subjective? i realise youve probably covered this 477474457 times on this message board and im looking kind of stupid bringing it up one more time but hey im new and im trying to make conversation. + i am facinated with this subject. anyways it would be cool if someone would indulge me.
fankyou :)
 
BN:

It was "common" thought in modern philosophic circles (god knows what goes on in Postmodern circles) that the sensual characteristics of an object, such as its color, its flavor, its scent, whatever noises can be made by it were considered secondary to the primary conditions of its existance, namely its volume, its mass, its position, *AND* its function. (Special note: this was the main argument of the catholic church at the time of Galleleo, since his evidence was simply visual, they argued that one cannot always trust one's vision).

We can, a priori have knowledge of the existance and primary characteristics of an object, but never can we have any knowledge about secondary characteristics, but these are essentially meaningless features anyway. For instance, consider a dog. Without giving a thought to breed, give the characteristics which make a dog a dog, and not an easy chair.

When you say "we interpret the world through our senses" I have to immediately disagree. We do experience the world through our senses, I'll admit. But we have to sift through those experiences, using rational thought, to find the small nugget of truth in the mountain of raw sensual data.

Man is not born with any intrinsic moral bent. Justice and Morality are things that MUST be instilled into a person as they grow, and it's also something that the indivisual himself will pick up over time, provided the correct stimuli.

Ok, I think I pretty much briefly answered your questions, so feel free to decide where you'd like to go more specifically from here.
 
Riomacleod ...

Re. "We do experience the world through our senses, I'll admit. But we have
to sift through those experiences, using rational thought, to find the small
nugget of truth in the mountain of raw sensual data.

Is not the individual's 'rational thought' a result of that particular
individual's life experiences - which are acquired through that
particular individual's senses?

Or am I missing something (other than brain cells) :confused:

Take care ;)
 
No, rationality is a condition of being human. We all have it, and it develops independantly of our own experience.
 
Riomacleod ...

Re. ... rationality is a condition of being human.

I take it then that you do not consider other species to be 'rational'?

Please describe your understanding of 'rational'.

Thanks, and take care ;)

Sorry, left out 'not' in the original post (mia culpa!) :(
 
Last edited:
Rational: having the ability to reason.

Reason: The ability to make abstractions from experiences and to postulate experiences from abstractions.

Ok, those aren't the best definitions I've ever given, but I think they suffice.

As to whether I think that other species are capable of reason: yes. But beasts (using the term to refer to non-human, non-plant animals) do not, and a lump-at this moment-all scientifically documented encountered species into this group. I do not, however think for a moment that rationality is unique to humanesque beings, or beings of higer orders. I refer to the Greek orders of creatures: Rational beings-humans on up into nonfinite beings, Appetitive beings-beasts, and Nutritive Beings-Plants.

My point is that human beings are necessarily rational beings, and that one could separate a child from the world and allow it to grow up in the jungle. If it survived to adulthood, it would be a rational being, just not a particularly educated one.
 
Riomacleod ...

Re. "...and that one could separate a child from the world and allow it
to grow up in the jungle. If it survived to adulthood, it would be a rational
being, just not a particularly educated one."

Other than the myth of Remus and Romulous, what do you base that
statement on? More recent examples of feral children?
 
Chagur, can you explain how learning could occour without being preceded by some reasoning ability? Certain reasoning abilies seem to be needed for someone to be capable of learning from experience. Even separating sight from sound, or a particular shape from another shape, requires a type of reasoning.
 
Hoth ...

I take it you've never seen moma teach her kittens to hunt.

If you have, then I would imagine you agree with my contention
that 'reasoning' is not limited to our species.

Take care ;)
 
I admit, I have no experimental data to back up my claim. I base my statement on my understanding of what it is to be human.

(I accidentally destroyed my computer over the weekend, so I can only respond from work until I figure out exactly how I destroyed it, and I've also been going through withdrawl, so if I'm a bit short, excuse me.)

Chargur:

The difference between a cat teaching its kittens how to hunt and a human learning other things is abstraction. That is, we are capable of learning abstract ideas, and then applying them to situations, where the cats are all learning a concrete skill, namely to catch a mouse with your mouth... which is very difficult if you've ever tried it.
 
Riomacleod ...

Re. " ... we are capable of learning abstract ideas, and then applying
them to situations, where the cats are all learning a concrete skill,"

Hmmmm ... Am I then to believe then, that what separates our species from
the other predators is the amount of 'abstract' B.S. we believe is neccessary
to learn to become a 'human'?

Oh, and as far as catching mice with your mouth ... I think it would be
far more effective to pounce, grab, and then bite them ... like cats do.

Try it sometime. :D

Take care ;)
 
Re: Hoth ...

Originally posted by Chagur
I take it you've never seen moma teach her kittens to hunt.

If you have, then I would imagine you agree with my contention
that 'reasoning' is not limited to our species.
Click to expand...

Chagur, I never said nor believed that reasoning is limited to humans. All animals have to have some basic reasoning abilities in order to learn, and they obviously do learn. Point is, experience can build on the reason but the reason has to be there first for learning to be possible. The origin of reason, presumably, is evolutionary. That's why rocks, even if they have plenty of experience being thrown around, don't learn like kittens do. ;)

Abstract reasoning is done by cats. It's a certain level of abstract reasoning to simply learn from the actions and habits of one bird that you can hunt all other birds in a similar way. It requires abstracting the individual bird to a group, and then categorizing other individuals not yet seen into that group.
 
Hoth,

You should look into Hebbian learning. No reasoning required, just straightforward habituation. Even sea slugs do it.
 
I disagree, Hoth. I don't think there is abstraction there. I think that it is "This is how I kill anything that I want to try to put into my mouth". *All* of the cats that I've seen follow the same pattern for dogs as birds as mice as little balls with the dingle bell inside. It doesn't take reason to be trained to do something, which is what the cats are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top