New Social Thread

[Zephyrus]

Or we can let it rest.

 

[Mort Divine]

Or we can let it rest.

.

 

[Dak]

The truth is reality imposes itself onto us and we adapt to it.

Fixed (for clarity) and yes. We are quite good though at insulating ourselves from reality, both to our advantaget and also our detriment.

 

[Einherjar86]

I actually have been following Pat and whatshisname's discussion carefully, but was hesitant to say anything because I'm not grounded well enough in my (working) convictions on these matters. I'm with Pat on having faith (haha) in science, because it is a working definition of the dynamics and constitution of our universe. The laws of physics/nature are contingent only to this universe (we cannot yet prove that this is the only universe) and those laws formed randomly and evolved from primordial cosmic conditions, as did life on earth a few billion years ago.

My epistemology is that we never 'get' anything, rather we 'are getting' it. We are always beneath Plato's divided line, in the realm of becoming, and our knowledge of reality is just as subject to temporality as the subjects of that knowledge. Any attempt to impose any element of absolutes or permanence is delusional, whether that be to posit the existence of God or to describe anything in language, which just like any theology is an attempt to impose order on chaos. Language evolves and so do the concepts it attempts to isolate outside of temporality.

I think I agree with most of what you said. In The Order of Things, Foucault basically tries to show that throughout history, different eras are governed by different epistemes that dictate how humankind structures its knowledge about the world around it. There's a chapter on scientific classification that is very interesting.

Einherjar is right about this shit because I agree with him and his continual referencing of this Zizek guy keeps making me want to check him out.

Yeah, Žižek's cool. He's become kind of a "pop" philosopher in recent years, unfortunately. He does lots of work with movies and popular culture; but he's achieved such a high seat in the academic hierarchy that he can basically throw around complicated terminology, attributing it to whatever he pleases without substantiating his claims. His most recent works, such as Living in the End Times, are more sensationalist than anything.

For his most interesting and influential stuff, look into his earlier material. His book The Sublime Object of Ideology is both highly intellectual and was hugely influential. It put him on the map, and it's a great read.

His other good ones (that I've checked out) are Welcome to the Desert of the Real (his critique of the political reaction to 9/11), and First As Tragedy, Then As Farce.

To say we impose order onto chaos is completely subjective and false. The truth is reality imposes order onto us and we adapt to our condition.

I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy, but you sound like you walked straight out of their camp.

I have to emphatically disagree with your above comments. I think that we biologically adapt/evolve to our surroundings, but our application of language to nature, the attempt to account for the universe mathematically, the entire system of Linnaean classification; none of these are forms of us adapting to our surroundings. They are blatant impositions upon an inhuman realm.

 

[Pessimism]

scroll scroll scroll

.

 

[Dak]

I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy, but you sound like you walked straight out of their camp.

I have to emphatically disagree with your above comments. I think that we biologically adapt/evolve to our surroundings, but our application of language to nature, the attempt to account for the universe mathematically, the entire system of Linnaean classification; none of these are forms of us adapting to our surroundings. They are blatant impositions upon an inhuman realm.

How exactly do these things impose on the "inhuman realm"?

 

[Einherjar86]

How exactly do these things impose on the "inhuman realm"?

Bear in mind that I'm not taking a moral stance against classification or any of the human sciences. I'm merely suggesting what I think is an inherent trait that causes most people to view the process of acquiring knowledge erroneously.

They impose upon the inhuman realm because they attempt to put things (things that existed long before speaking humans) into an order by means of a human conception of knowledge and language that ultimately falls short. When modern peoples understand the word "arbor" to signify "tree" (which still isn't the actual thing but merely a representation), what they understand is a word steeped in thousands of years of linguistic evolution and scientific appropriation. This history has nothing to do with the actual existing trees that stand outside my window, or the trees in the Black Forest.

I realize that we have no other choice; as signifying creatures, this is just how we understand the world. But I think most people take it for granted that our epistemological practices actually get at the way the world really works. By classifying whole species of wild animals and plants into catalogues using the Linnaean system, we understand things as they exist for us (otherwise, why would we feel the need to put them in museums and zoos?). We don't understand things as they really are.

The best example (which is deployed as satire, but painfully close to the point) is Herman Melville's humorous description of the whale (in general):

"The whale is a spouting fish with a horizontal tail."

This is the process of Linnaean classification; narrowing a creature down to its fewest unique attributes to make it easier to identify. Of course, science has moved beyond this mode of acquiring knowledge; but we still retain the names given to animals/plants by Linnaeus, and we still can only understand things through the ways in which our language works.

 

[Dak]

You didn't really answer my question, or we have different definitions of "impose". How do our classifications have any real impact on what the creature(s) we call whales are or do? It is merely an arbitrary, abstract thing.

 

[Einherjar86]

Point taken. Our classifications have an impact on how we perceive what whales do and are. In a way, I still see this as an imposition because it forces upon nature an order that we in turn expect it to conform to. It's more appropriate (I think) to understand that nature doesn't really give a damn about us; it doesn't give a damn at all. There is no "it."

 

[unknown]

peace duders, gotta go to the afghey tomorrow

if by that you mean afghanistan, good luck! don't get blown up

 

[Cronopio]

Heaven Shall Burn are so fucking good.

 

[Krow]

Fuck this thread.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I just bought an iPod Touch. Syncing that shit with my music.

 

[Cronopio]

Fuck this thread.

 

[damnromulans]

STOP USING MY PHOTOS WITHOUT ASKING

 

[Cronopio]

Dat lol.

 

[Dak]

Point taken. Our classifications have an impact on how we perceive what whales do and are. In a way, I still see this as an imposition because it forces upon nature an order that we in turn expect it to conform to. It's more appropriate (I think) to understand that nature doesn't really give a damn about us; it doesn't give a damn at all. There is no "it."

I disagree. Regardless of how we expect nature to conform to our ideas, classifications, and expectations, it does exactly as it does, because it neither knows, cares, nor is affected by them.

There is, however, an "it", and it rejoices or languishes under our actions as we seek to bend reality around us. Whether or not we classify a white tail deer as such, or as Odocoileus virginianus matters not to the deer nor affects it. Whether we decide it is food though, and treat it as such does render affect, and we do not even need language or structured thought to do so.

Our aspiring to ever higher plateaus of intellectualism are mostly vanity in the grand scheme of things, and we really do hold our mental faculties in much higher regard than does the the whole of this universe, as the universe is quite decidedly oblivious to us, which is as much a statement to our falling short as anything.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. Regardless of how we expect nature to conform to our ideas, classifications, and expectations, it does exactly as it does, because it neither knows, cares, nor is affected by them.

I agree with this, Dak.

There is, however, an "it", and it rejoices or languishes under our actions as we seek to bend reality around us. Whether or not we classify a white tail deer as such, or as Odocoileus virginianus matters not to the deer nor affects it. Whether we decide it is food though, and treat it as such does render affect, and we do not even need language or structured thought to do so.

This I'm confused about. How can nature be an "it" if it has no unified essence? You yourself said nature doesn't care; it doesn't care specifically because it isn't some interconnected organic whole. There isn't a holistic entity that can be called "nature."

Our classification of a deer is intimately tied to our knowledge of it as potential food, so how can the two be so different? When something is classified as a deer, a part of us acknowledges that it is edible.

However, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say us treating it as food renders affect. Do you mean the deer experiences an emotional response? That I don't agree with. Do you mean that its obliteration from the world has an effect on the environment around us? That might be so; but this effect isn't quantifiable, nor is it part of an order that can be measured and predicted. There is no "supposed to" when it comes to nature. Other than our immediate survival and sustainability, there is no moral value to preserving nature. Nature has no concern over whether or not it subsists.

Our aspiring to ever higher plateaus of intellectualism are mostly vanity in the grand scheme of things, and we really do hold our mental faculties in much higher regard than does the the whole of this universe, as the universe is quite decidedly oblivious to us, which is as much a statement to our falling short as anything.

I don't necessarily find fault with this. Although I don't condemn higher plateaus of intellectualism. As I said before, there is benefit to acquiring new knowledge.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'm not that familiar with analytic philosophy, but you sound like you walked straight out of their camp.

I have to emphatically disagree with your above comments. I think that we biologically adapt/evolve to our surroundings, but our application of language to nature, the attempt to account for the universe mathematically, the entire system of Linnaean classification; none of these are forms of us adapting to our surroundings. They are blatant impositions upon an inhuman realm.

Regardless of what language or system we use symbolically to describe our perceptions there will never be an artificial order in the universe that we control, and it's definitely not chance or chaos ( by definition) but what would be the alternative? nature. that the universe (everything that exist) has always been here and you can not discuss anything that was here before or what parallels existence because a zero doesn't exist. You have to take what exist as a fact and start with what exist and continue to see how much you can learn about it. Abstractions do not exist. Only the reality in which we are aware and identify with.

I digress and will turn to the philosophy section of the site if any of you would like to discuss this further.

 

[Dak]

This I'm confused about. How can nature be an "it" if it has no unified essence? You yourself said nature doesn't care; it doesn't care specifically because it isn't some interconnected organic whole. There isn't a holistic entity that can be called "nature."

Our classification of a deer is intimately tied to our knowledge of it as potential food, so how can the two be so different? When something is classified as a deer, a part of us acknowledges that it is edible.

However, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say us treating it as food renders affect. Do you mean the deer experiences an emotional response? That I don't agree with. Do you mean that its obliteration from the world has an effect on the environment around us? That might be so; but this effect isn't quantifiable, nor is it part of an order that can be measured and predicted. There is no "supposed to" when it comes to nature. Other than our immediate survival and sustainability, there is no moral value to preserving nature. Nature has no concern over whether or not it subsists.

I meant only that we perceive the construction of atoms we have labeled as a "Deer" as a source of nourishment, which precipitates actions to kill and consume said source of nourishment, and the actions have an affect on nature. What we call the source of food doesn't really matter.

I don't necessarily find fault with this. Although I don't condemn higher plateaus of intellectualism. As I said before, there is benefit to acquiring new knowledge.

Of course I am not saying that knowledge itself is bad, I meant merely that our stance, especially the more learned we are, should be one of ever more humility in the face of the unknown, since the more we learn, we are simultaneously made aware of how much we do not know.

Scientists are not gods, our finite and miniscule amount of current achievement and flounderings vs total truth/knowledge should temper our strides and pride. Instead we vaguely illuminate a new square inch of knowledge, vastly mis-interpret misuse/mispply the knowledge, and boast as if we have conquered worlds and have created new utopias.