The Philosophy Thread

[Heartlet Happer]

So, I can't be a unicorn?

Yes, you can. You will just have some difficulty of proving that for others.

The identity definition seems to be a choice: essentialism vs relativism.
Say.
There is an occurrence of one person, who once noticed that whole world has turned 90 degrees overnight. Now I am contemplating about how they were able to prove it to everyone.

In essentialism this change is impossible, since person's essence did not change. And neither the world's essence. Identities are static.
In relativism this change is possible, since the whole world is just one another participant in identity scene together with persons. Identities are fluid.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Just don't expect the rest of the world to buy into your delusion and try have them cancelled when they don't.

"You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are."

 

[Louanne Learning]

Yes, you can.

thank you!

You will just have some difficulty of proving that for others.

Should a person have to justify themselves to others?

essentialism vs relativism.

In essentialism this change is impossible, since person's essence did not change. And neither the world's essence. Identities are static.
In relativism this change is possible, since the whole world is just one another participant in identity scene together with persons. Identities are fluid.

But some people are just born that way.

 

[Stuart Dren]

Hm. I'm more on the pragmatic side of this. I'd argue our actions ultimately determine our identity more than our intent. Therefore, our identity does not strictly exist within our own mind. It has to exist partially in the minds of others so that we have context, for better or worse.

Further, is there any point in even having an identity if its traits have been decided solely in my mind, disregarding what others can observe? For example, what utility is there in me calling myself a five star chef if I'm only permitting myself the judgement?

"He is now a five star chef because he said so."
"Okay, then I'm the King of England. Where does that leave us?"
"About where we started."

Should a person have to justify themselves to others?

I don't think self can be divorced from action, so if I eat her entire plate of spaghetti and quaff her wine while she's away to the washroom, yes, some justification is required, else the whole coexisting with other humans thing gets real challenging.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

All right. If we can be anything we want to be, I am now Princess Margaret ... and Sergeant Smith of the Australian Federal Police.

Seriously, though, I've been on the receiving end of daily scams from people who -- while thinking that they're clever -- are about as smart as pickled cucumber. (I could say a lot worse, but I'm watching what I say, since this is a family forum).

Some instances of these scams include:
- Someone telling me I won 1 million GBP in a British lottery I can't even enter, and inviting me to send bank details (yeah, right)
- Someone with a gmail account pretending to be an IRS agent and accusing me of financial fraud, not once but twice (isn't that a crime?)
- Someone from Japan pretending to be my CEO and asking me to release financial information
- Someone from Slovakia, ditto (and someone from Los Angeles, ditto ... I work in accounting and support the families of disabled people, so I take data security VERY seriously)
- Someone sending me a text message and telling me to buy estrogen pills. Fine ... but I'm a man (and happy to be one)
- Someone calling me and pretending to be from Microsoft tech support ... or a local telecommunications company ... or the water company ... or the Chinese consulate ... or customs in an airport in Beijing (send money now to release your package!!!)
- Etc.

Five years of that, day in and day out, have made me extremely cynical, so it's hard to imagine a fellow human being as a literal unicorn (i.e. with hooves and a tail and a mane and unicorn poop in all the colours of the rainbow). You can be anything you want to be, but I'd like some physical proof before I truly believe that you are a unicorn. Sorry!

 

[Louanne Learning]

These questions about identity are very interesting - I didn't mean to imply that just "saying it" or "wanting it" makes it true - but rather who we are as individuals is determined by the neurological dynamics our brains (our biological identity - the "self") - as opposed to how we are perceived by others (our social identity).

 

[GrahamLewis]

...I must confess. Even though I did not enjoy Philopsphy class, I learned a lot and it's a subject that is growing on me. At least once a day, I apply or think about Philosophy. So... do you have any recommendations for Eastern and Western Philosophy books that are easy to understand?

What is it about philosophy that you find to be "growing on you"? What is it that you think about and would like to pursue? I ask because there are so many books taking so many different directions, from philosophical methods to philosophies themselves. And of course the initial divide between traditional "western" and "eastern" approaches. Though my impression is that the divide between the two is narrowing. I saw that Louanne suggested a translation of the Tao te Ching (eastern, of course) and I like that, though I would suggest the 1973 Vintage translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English, at least that's the one that really moved me when I first discovered it. And there is of course Alan Watts, especially his The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, which serves as kind of a western intro to eastern thought. In writing this I'm realizing how long it's been since I did much reading of western philosophy per se, but there are many overviews out there. Just none in my current home library -- it's been more than 50 years since I graduated with a BA in philosophy. There are Jean Paul Sartre and Merleau-Ponty (sp?) with existentialism and phenomenology. Hope that helps some. The best advice is to read and ponder and read some more.

 

[JLT]

"Unicorn origins lie in ancient Mesopotamia, India, and China, with early descriptions by Greek historian Ctesias (c. 400 BCE) based on traveler tales, likely describing the Indian rhinoceros. Later myths blended these with symbolic meanings of purity and healing, featuring a horse-like creature with a single horn, popularized by medieval bestiaries and biblical interpretations."

Of course, everybody knows that "rhinoceros" is Latin for "nose horn." (In German, the name for the critter is "Nashorn" ... there's no need to get all fancy and Latinate about it.)

Some instances of these scams include:
Someone calling me and pretending to be from Microsoft tech support ...

I get those, too, telling me that my "Microsoft Windows operating system is now compromised and you must not shut down my computer or it will be damaged."
I'm running Apple OSCX Big Sur on my MacBook Air.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

Omg, thank you so much for the recommendation! I just downloaded it to my Kindle for $1.99!

the opening sentence -

This book explores an unrecognized but mighty taboo—our tacit conspiracy to ignore who, or what, we really are.

 

[GrahamLewis]

"Enough" is a quality or quantity that's hard to pin down. On the one hand, when you have reached the pinnacle of an aspiration, like getting to the top of a mountain that you've always wanted to scale, it's totally understandable that you'd start looking for a higher mountain. But from a perspective of distance, like when you know your mountain-climbing days are over, it would be totally understandable to look back on that ascent and say "That was enough. I did what I set out to do."

"The point of life is to know what's enough." Gensei

 

[Rath Darkblade]

I get those, too, telling me that my "Microsoft Windows operating system is now compromised and you must not shut down my computer or it will be damaged."
I'm running Apple OSCX Big Sur on my MacBook Air.

The last time I got that "Microsoft Windows" scam, they tried calling me. I had some time, and decided to have some fun and waste their time.

So when they told me to open a window, I said "Gimme a sec", put the phone down, went out to get the mail, came back, opened a window to let in some fresh air, picked up the phone, and said, "You still there? So I opened a window. There's a nice breeze in here. Now what?"

There was a whole bunch of sputtering on the other end and then a dial tone. Oh well ...

 

[Riddley Walker]

When we explore what it is that we can really know, it is tempting to fall back on Descartes' concept of "cogito ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am". In other words, knowledge is founded in our experience of the self. We know that we exist because we perceive. However, the Eighteenth century Scottish pholosopher, David Hume, suggests that there is no fixed self. Our experience of self is merely a bundle of perceptions, sensations and memories that is in constant flux. There is no external way to corroborate the existense of a self or a soul. This aligns with the teaching of Buddha, who claims that the self is an illusion. More resently, Hume is echoed by psycholgist Bruce Hood in his book "The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity." Hood argues that the sense of "self" is a social construct created by the brain, to help us navigate reality, rather than an objective reality in itself. The self is a narrative generated by social interaction and memories; the residue of firing neurons . Therefore, the sense of individual identity is an "illusion", a kind of magical thinking, but one that is necessary for survival.

In the greater discussion of knowledge, this would seem to undermine the Cartesian concept of cogito ergo sum, suggesting that we really can't know anything at all, for certain. And even in science, we've learned that the mere act of observing an experiment can alter the outcome of the experiment. So all knowledge, even the perception of self, is frought with an element of uncertainty. We can't know anything for sure. All of this rubs against our own existential experience. We interact with the world and, given certain circumstances, we are able to predict outcomes. Certainly this indicates a kind of knowledge. And one must ask, if we perceive a self, and if we construct an identity, what is to say that this constuction is not real? The ultimate question comes down to: what, exactly, is reality?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Our experience of self is merely a bundle of perceptions, sensations and memories that is in constant flux. There is no external way to corroborate the existense of a self or a soul. This aligns with the teaching of Buddha, who claims that the self is an illusion. More resently, Hume is echoed by psycholgist Bruce Hood in his book "The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity." Hood argues that the sense of "self" is a social construct created by the brain, to help us navigate reality, rather than an objective reality in itself. The self is a narrative generated by social interaction and memories; the residue of firing neurons . Therefore, the sense of individual identity is an "illusion", a kind of magical thinking, but one that is necessary for survival.

if you speak to anyone who has suffered from psychosis - with its loss of a sense of identity - they will tell you that the self is indeed a very real thing, and when identity/self is recovered you are made whole again

We can't knmow anything for sure.

But we have to operate from a position of subjective truth

The ultimate question comes down to: what, exactly, is reality?

This introduces the idea again of objective vs subjective reality.

Objective reality is very different from the way I perceive reality with my senses.

Objective reality is a huge conglomeration of different shapes of colourless particles involved in various level of chemistry.

My senses give it its meaning.

 

[Riddley Walker]

Quoting Louanna Learning:

But we have to operate from a position of subjective truth



This introduces the idea again of objective vs subjective reality.

Objective reality is very different from the way I perceive reality with my senses.

Objective reality is a huge conglomeration of different shapes of colourless particles involved in various level of chemistry.

My senses give it its meaning.

Which is why Existential philosophy is the most sophisticated form of philosophy yet. Throughout all the various perspectives of the existentialists, they all agree that the only way to know anything is through subjective inquiry. You can't count on the outside world to give you anything objective or real. It must all be processed through the subjective lens and the subjective undertanding of what is true.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Quoting Louanna Learning:

if you highlight what you'd like to quote, then click on "reply" - the passage will appear in your new message box

must all be processed through the subjective lens and the subjective undertanding of what is true.

What else do we got?

 

[Riddley Walker]

What else do we got?

Well, we have all of human knowledge that came before us, the Tower of Babble, The writings of Aristotle. The Library of Congress, the Bible, The Koran, The Internet, everything written since the writing was invented. All the canons stacked to the moon. You can take it all as authority or hogwash or you can cherry pick. The point is, we consider it a body of knowledge, but looking back on it we can also say that much of it was delusional or at least misinformed.

 

[Louanne Learning]

we have all of human knowledge that came before us,

That all came from subjective experience? That all came from our consciousness? Does the mind extend beyond the head?