Originally posted by E V I L
You're repeating things I have wiped my ass with many a time, rudimentary thinking that you believe is the summit of philosophical thought, original to you. Your naivety is your point of view.
Finally a breakthrough! Your naivety is ALSO *your* point of view, as it is everyone's, which is *exactly* what I have been saying ALL along, a fact so incredibly obvious that I think it needn't be stated (yet again). Thanks for so eloquently re-stating my original point. I'm going to have to remember this one, "our naivety is our point of view", concise and brilliant!
[First you say "the degree to which they appear to accurately reflect the external world is not the issue here.
Then you say "an interpretation.....is inherently biased"
Not directly, but this jeapardizes your first posture, which is what I'm toying with.
You are confusing the point with the explaination, which I'll explain later on in this post when you restate this for a 3rd time..
As I have said before many times, I am aware of the fact that these ideas are ONLY ideas and therefore do not necessarily reflect reality, it's only one of many ways of looking at things.
The "accuracy" of a particular interperation is not the issue since the accuracy can never truly be measured. What would we compare it to? Another interpretation? I have no interest in debating the supposed accuracy of interpretations.
The philosophy is ultimately completely self-defeating, unlike most other philosophies which try to hold themselves up as some sort of "truth" (haha, such crap). I have never claimed that anything I've said was any more than just an interpretation. Unlike you, I do not hold my thoughts up as accurate reflections of reality or pinnacles of absolute truth, I would not be so presumptuous or full of myself to make such a ridiculous claim. I'm just a stupid primate with biased interpretations, as are you, the difference being that you seem to have trouble admitting to it. It's not so hard, just repeat after me, "I am a stupid primate, my interpretations are subjective, biased, and short-sighted, I don't know everything but this does not make me any less of a person." Now doesn't that feel better? Kinda takes the pressure off eh? muwahah
[Otherwise, your kant-esque statement means very little to me, which, sketched out, is only stating:
Human beings' perceptions are peculiar to human beings--- not that the validity of things such as "cyanide is poisonous to human beings" is in question. It's how it's perceived. I look at a tree and see X, a bat looks at a tree and sees Y-- why? a bat has a different optometry, among other things, from human beings. Who doesn't already know this? You're missing the larger picture.
There is no "larger" picture, you are just creating one in your own mind or else discussing a completely different idea. This is exactly what I'm talking about (the nature of perception), which you have now agreed with and state as being completely obvious (just as I said it was all along). I don't know why it took you this long to see that this was all I was saying. I think you thought I was talking about something else (ie. the supposed "truth" or "validity" of perceptions, which, to me, isn't worthy of discussion cuz it's just so low-level, completely pointless, and boring to me, we may as well debate whether or not coke tastes better than pepsi, it's the same crap).
Human being Satori says: "bats experience the world differently from eagles." This is a proposition of a kind. The focus is (and my challenge to you) what if any relevance do differences of perception peculiar to organism x, y, z, have in these kinds of proposition-making?
It shows that what we SEE is reflected in who we ARE. Weren't you paying attention?
You are either saying that propositions are beliefs (therefore held by a beleiver, a subjectivity), or you are saying all beliefs are equidistant to "objectivity", and are therefore equally false, or equally true.
2 people can view an event from different angles and see 2 completely different things. Who's right and who's wrong? They are both right and both wrong, depending entirely on how you look at it (of course). We perceive according to our point of view. Since the 2 people have seen from different angles, each interpretation is completely valid from that person's perspective. You would seemingly have us believe that there is some "absolute truth" above and beyond interpretation, but this "truth" is only another interpretation (since "truth" cannot exist outside of interpretation), inherently subjective/biased as any other. There is nowhere to stand from which one can view the "whole" picture and therefore know the "whole" "truth". No matter how hard we look, we only see fragments of the universe that can be detected by our senses which are further distorted by our minds. Most people tend to agree that a desk is pretty solid, which of course it is not, it just appears that way to our senses. Of course, now I realize you see this already, as I am sure many reading this thread do as well because it's just so incredibly obvious once you actually take the time to consider it (as I see you have).
To bring back your cyanide example: 2 wives give this substance to their husbands. Hubby 1 dies, hubby 2 (who is an alien) gets a 6 hour hard-on and fucks his wife till she passes out. Then the next day the 2 wives get together to discuss their experiences. Wife 1 says it's a poison, wife 2 says it's like viagara. Now I ask you, who's right? who's wrong? According to their own particular point of views, they are both right, relative to their opposing point of view's, they are both wrong. It ain't rocket science to see that the idea of absolute truth above and beyond interpretation is simply short-sighted bullshit.
Cyanide exists completely independent of your opinion of it. You can label however you want, you can call it the moon if you want, that doesn't change what it actually is (except of course in your mind).
Human beings experience the world in *a* way. This "bias," this anthropomorphized optic, infringes on the color of our experience of the world, however, it does not infringe on what most people term *interpretation*-- science, beliefs about the world, etc, and whether they are correct or incorrect.
Obviously, but what was the point you were trying to make with this?
The same rudimentary platitudes I deal with in the above. But going further, again, it's safe to say that most people when they say "cyanide is poisionous, or, trees are big" are describing what's relative *to them*. This is an obvious given.
You're right, it IS an obvious given. Thanks for finally realizing and admitting this inherent subjectivity of awareness.
Go deeper than this. Focus on the sensibility that concludes these things about "Bias" etc. Does this apply to peoples's attempts to understand the world?
Not only does it apply to people's attempts to understand the world, it describes the underlying nature of perception itself which allows them to attempt to understand the world. It's deeper than mere thoughts, it's the basis of interpretation itself.
I say no, and if you say "yes it does" are you saying all "interpretations" are equally valid, or equally false?
I am saying that all points of view are valid to the people perceiving them. I am not pitting one perception against another, I am looking at each individually and saying it is valid from the context of that particular person's point of view. Of course, if we put one interpretation against another, then they can mutually exclude (invalidate) each other, but they are still consistent within themselves. So, a particular interpretation's "validity" or "invalidity" depends entirely on which side of the fence you happen to reside. Big/small, good/bad, poisionous/yummy, it depends entirely on your point of view (which is ALL you have, you don't have "truth", you have an opinion/interpretation).
Understand that if you do, you'd be contradicting your prior assertion that "the degree to which they [interpretations] appear to accurately reflect the external world is not the issue here."
Nope, and here's why: I am talking about the subjective nature of perception, NOT how accurate the perceptions may or may not be. The "accuracy/inaccuracy of the perception" was a tool I used to clearly show the complete subjectivity of perception, but it was not my primary point, only a way of explaining *the* point in a way that can be easily understood by everyone. Again: the point is: interpretations are subjective, to show this I gave examples of how innacurate interpretations can be when viewed outside the context of the individual. You are obviously confusing the explanation with the thesis and going off an yet another fruitless tangent.
Again, do you realize what this means? This ultimately only says this much: Beliefs are held by believers and cannot be held without a believer. The retard's retarded five year old son could have told me this.
This is not what I was saying (see the "point" above), though it is true and I'm glad you see that, but you are free to interpret it any way you please. Again, my point is the subjective nature of interpretation, an idea I'm positive you will no longer claim to have issues with.
The important thing to note is the incosistency in your thinking which I am trying to flesh out and expose.
Hahah, good luck! You'll need plenty of it since for the majority of this conversation you weren't even aware of what I was talking about.
This inconsistency harbors in the word "subjectivity" which conflates
1) perceptions (and the qualitative biases thereof, peculiar to an organism)
with
2) the validity of interpretations (truth-making, arguing, denotating)
to which (2) there is the immanent problem of
a) relativism
paradoxically conjoined to your
b) absolutist arrogance.
Yet another fine example of subjective bullshit. Thanks for sharing. The "absolutist arrogance" line again shows me how little you comprehend what I'm saying, as I am so not absolutist that I don't even take MYSELF seriously.
So you're two times the bitch? the bitch of the world, and the bitch to the one who is the bitch of the world? Now here's something I agree with, but a retard could have told me this too.
.
I am a bitch to my own perception and external stimulus of the world, as is everyone (IMO), and going deeper, I don't draw such a stark line between my "self" and the "world" as you do.
To recap: I'm saying that perceptions are nothing more than internal representations of the external world which are twisted by mind and ultimately biased, subjective, and incomplete. This is what I've been saying all along, and yes, I am aware that this idea is itself just a perception of mind and therefore subject to the same personal validity and interpersonal invalidity (as is *everything*). Since you have agreed with this (as I knew all along you eventually would) then I really see no point in continuing this discussion, unless you can come up with a new angle or pull the conversation into the direction or come up with a new "topic" entirely.
ta-ta,
Satori
PS: Just a note: the word "retard" is somewhat akin to the word "my pals" in many parts of the civilized world, something you should perhaps be aware of if you don't want to accidently offend people by appearing insensitive to other's biological impairments. However, if your intent IS to offend certain people with such juvenile language then you are on the right track, and may I suggest you throw in some other childish slurs to extend your range.
( --- the um radio scares me.....)
