[ENTJ] ENTJ Philosophy Thread (any topic you like) - Page 8

ENTJ Philosophy Thread (any topic you like)

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 87
Thank Tree109Thanks

This is a discussion on ENTJ Philosophy Thread (any topic you like) within the ENTJ Forum - The Executives forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by AngelWithAShotgun Play around with the UCC. It's useful commercial law. I spend most of my time in ...

  1. #71
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by AngelWithAShotgun View Post
    Play around with the UCC. It's useful commercial law. I spend most of my time in Article 3 and 9. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc
    Fucking nice! Thanks for this. I'll read through it during winter break.

    There's something about hiding behind a computer screen that makes people more outspoken and unite people. It's easy to criticize someone when you're not facing them. It's almost stupid how this "echo chamber" operates?
    Practically.

    From shows like Judge Judy, people have misperceptions about law. What if I told you an oral contract is enforceable (provided Statues of Frauds does not dictate it to be in writing) and doesn't have to be in writing? Or the receipts you get after purchases are actually sales contracts? Or that all purchases are not returnable unless it's the store's policy, and most stores allow their customers to return items merely out of competition with other firms? I honestly hope more people would do some research before they start debating something.
    Never knew those details at all. That's actually really cool info. I'm getting the urge to study more law again. After finals.

    That being said, I think the issue is law doesn't come into play in the lives of people, or at least they don't realize it. It's like food. Many people use it, but not many people appreciate the work, process, and meticulous craftsmanship that their cheeseburgers come from. It's a pretty big issue, though, because you can easily be screwed over if you don't know your rights. Did you know that thirteen states banned defaming beef? They're called food libel laws. It's more an issue for food protesters, but pretty funny stuff.
    Last edited by Baracuda902; 12-11-2017 at 07:49 PM.

  2. #72

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolderousness View Post

    Never knew those details at all. That's actually really cool info. I'm getting the urge to study more law again. After finals.
    Do it! I find the UCC more fun to read because it's commercial law, so it's more applicable. Criminal law, while interesting, isn't too applicable for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bolderousness View Post
    It's a pretty big issue, though, because you can easily be screwed over if you don't know your rights. Did you know that thirteen states banned defaming beef? They're called food libel laws. It's more an issue for food protesters, but pretty funny stuff.
    If it violates fitness for consumption in any way, the food can be banned.

    You'll always get people like me who know your rights but don't want to tell you because it's funny :P just kidding, I'm not that evil. If you dig deeper behind every big company/corporation, there's always a reason for them doing what they do. Take Walmart. They train their employees not to point out a specific item because by doing so they're implying it's fit for a particular purpose, and if that particular item doesn't work for whatever you were planning to use it for, they might get sued. Smart? Yes. Ethical? Eh, not the most ethical.

    Or take any business that requires shipping. They'd always state 4-6 weeks, though the item might arrive 3-4 days later. What happens is sometimes they ship you crappy goods (or in technical terms, nonconforming goods), and you have the right to reject the shipment and demand conforming goods, provided the delivery date has not ran out. Sneaky right?

  3. #73
    Unknown


    Quote Originally Posted by AngelWithAShotgun View Post
    Do it! I find the UCC more fun to read because it's commercial law, so it's more applicable. Criminal law, while interesting, isn't too applicable for me.



    If it violates fitness for consumption in any way, the food can be banned.

    You'll always get people like me who know your rights but don't want to tell you because it's funny :P just kidding, I'm not that evil. If you dig deeper behind every big company/corporation, there's always a reason for them doing what they do. Take Walmart. They train their employees not to point out a specific item because by doing so they're implying it's fit for a particular purpose, and if that particular item doesn't work for whatever you were planning to use it for, they might get sued. Smart? Yes. Ethical? Eh, not the most ethical.

    Or take any business that requires shipping. They'd always state 4-6 weeks, though the item might arrive 3-4 days later. What happens is sometimes they ship you crappy goods (or in technical terms, nonconforming goods), and you have the right to reject the shipment and demand conforming goods, provided the delivery date has not ran out. Sneaky right?
    You're right. Criminal law is cool, but unless you commit a felony, it ain't applicable. I'll give this shit a read and will discuss my reading ventures, like a book club.
    AngelWithAShotgun thanked this post.

  4. #74
    Unknown


    Alright. By popular demand, what's to discuss about net neutrality? From what I researched--very little--it's something that should be kept around due to businesses taking advantage of consumers. What's to discuss, if I'm either misinformed or not well informed?

  5. #75
    ENTJ


    Cannot speak about American telecom, however in Canada the telecommunications industry (tv, phone, radio, internet overseen by the CRTC) is *highly* regulated, with only a few real players in the market as ISP (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Xplornet and a few regional co's). This obviously has the potential to create conflict in terms of the information that we are allowed to access and how effectively it is transmitted to us. As consumers in Canada, we really have little *choice* for access and unfortunately have to rely on "unbiased" committees to interpret the legalese that surrounds the issues of highly monopolized paid-for services such as phone and data.

    For example, I read that Telus many years ago restricted access to certain labour union information when its workers were on strike:

    From Wikipedia:

    Telus vs. Telecommunications Workers Union

    In July 2005, while its union workers were striking, Telus blocked its subscribers access to Voices for Change, which was a community website run by and for Telecommunications Workers Union members.[16] Telus claimed the site suggested striking workers jam Telus phone lines and that it posted pictures of employees crossing the union picket lines. A Telus spokesperson said advocating jamming lines hurt the company, and access to those pictures threatened the privacy and safety of employees.

    Telus said in a news release that it had reached an agreement with the operator of Voices for Change to allow re-enabled access to the website. The agreement included the removal of all content, including photographs, posted with the intent of intimidation.[17

    When the information is perceived to threaten the actual ISP, then I can kind of understand their point (not necessarily in agreement with the tactics, though). It can (has) become highly politicized (what isn't lately?) and currently our telecom climate supports a stance of net neutrality.

    I am in support of this stance, simply because, as a Canadian consumer, I/we do not 25 different ISPs to choose from in order to the let the "invisible" hand of the market do what Mr. Smith thought it would do in every case (said tongue in cheek, of course). In fact, being in a rural area, I only have one option - Xplornet Satellite Internet (yes, I practically live off-grid), and streaming anything after 4pm is like jerking off in slow motion. Fucking painful and pointless.

    Now imagine Xplornet wants to block all content to their subscribers that Xplornet has a new competitor (Mplornet) in the market with a guaranteed mps speed (and they will buy out your existing Xplornet contract and offer you unlimited data for signing up with them). As subscribers of Xplornet, we would never know unless we were to search that information using another ISP (luckily there are a few others, so I am fully aware that the information can never be fully restricted unless ALL ISPs restrict or limit content). A policy of non net neutrality allows ISPs to protect what's in their best interests, however, it does not necessarily protect what's in the best interest of its subscribers (whatever you wish to call "best interest" and that is a whole other topic of discussion).


    Quote Originally Posted by Bolderousness View Post
    Alright. By popular demand, what's to discuss about net neutrality? From what I researched--very little--it's something that should be kept around due to businesses taking advantage of consumers. What's to discuss, if I'm either misinformed or not well informed?

  6. #76
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    More like you have the wrong answers.
    My general response to someone stating my answer is incorrect:

    "I think the problem, to be quite honest with you is that you've never actually known what the question was."

    Or, if you don't like the answers you are getting, then try asking different questions.

  7. #77

    Quote Originally Posted by Duo View Post
    Be careful of false correlations. Also, correlation does not necessarily imply causation or truth.



    Intake what you wish.
    I would add bit more.
    There are many things that we position as causal factors even though they aren't strictly causal in that the potential for something being a cause is often dependent on necessary and sufficient conditions.
    Two things that I think help explain are increasingly complex conception of causality...
     
    http://web.mit.edu/sgrp/2008/no2/EatonSAPF.pdf
    I suggest that what MacKinnon means by “positivistic linear causality” is a deterministic conception of causation where x is a deterministic cause of y if and only if (i) x is temporally prior to y and (ii) the occurrence of x is sufficient for the occurrence of y. Because MacKinnon finds a deterministic view inadequate to the task of describing social life, she calls for a “more complex causality,”54 although she does not explain what this means. But there is a readily available conception of causality that provides an appropriate framework for the harm hypothesis, circumvents problems raised by the critics, and is scientifically respectable, namely, probabilistic causality.

    Debates about the correct way to capture the notion of probabilistic causation need not concern us here.55 The heart of the view is this: x is a cause of y if and only if (i) x occurs earlier than y and (ii) the probability of the occurrence of y is greater, given the occurrence of x, than the probability of the occurrence of y given not-x. That is, x bears positive statistical relevance to y in the sense that the occurrence of x makes the occurrence of y more likely.56 An important feature of this conception of causation is that it admits of degrees: causes can be more or less effective, and one measures the effectiveness of a cause by how much it raises the probability of the effects.

    Probabilistic causation is a defensible, practical, and common conception of cause that any sensible APF should adopt.57 It’s not only the conception of causation accepted and employed in all areas of science,58 but it also fits our ordinary uses of the term ‘cause’: when we say, for example, that smoking causes cancer, we mean that the first phenomenon significantly raises the chances of the other. The fact that smoking does not guarantee cancer and other diseases does not undermine a causal connection between smoking and ill health effects.
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/a.../ch02-s06.html
    The cause-effect connection can be conceived as a one-way, one-directional action only in the simplest and most limited cases. The idea of causality as the influence of one thing on another is applied in fields of knowledge where it is possible and necessary to ignore feedback and actually measure the quantitative effect achieved by the cause. Such a situation is mostly characteristic of mechanical causality. For example, the cause of a stone falling to the ground is mutual gravitation, which obeys the law of universal gravitation, and the actual fall of the stone to the ground results from gravitational interaction. However, since the mass of the stone is infinitely small compared with the mass of the earth, one can ignore the stone's effect on the earth. So ultimately we come to the notion of a one-way effect with only one body (the earth) operating as the active element, while the other (the stone) is passive. In most cases, however, such an approach does not work because things are not inert, but charged with internal activity. Therefore, in experiencing effect they in their turn act on their cause and the resulting action is not one-way but an interaction.

    In complex cases one cannot ignore the feedback of the vehicle of the action on other interacting bodies. For example, in the chemical interaction of two substances it is impossible to separate the active and passive sides. This is even more true of the transformation of elementary particles. Thus the formation of molecules of water cannot be conceived as the result of a one-way effect of oxygen on hydrogen or vice versa. It results from the interaction of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Mental processes are also a result of the interaction of the environment and the cortex.

    To sum up, all processes in the world are evoked not by a one-way or one-sided action but are based on the relationship of at least two interacting objects.

    Just as various paths may lead to one and the same place, so various causes lead to one and the same effect. And one and the same cause may have different consequences. A cause does not always operate in the same way, because its result depends not only on its own essence but also on the character of the phenomenon it influences. Thus, the heat of the sun dries out canvas, evokes extremely complex processes of biosynthesis in plants, etc. Intense heat melts wax but tempers steel. At the same time an effect in the form of heat may be the result of various causes: sun rays, friction, a mechanical blow, chemical reaction, electricity, disintegration of an atom, and so on. He would be a bad doctor who did not know that the same diseases may be due to different causes. Headache, for instance, has more than one hundred.

    The rule of only one cause for one effect holds good only in elementary cases with causes and effects that cannot be further analysed. In real life there are no phenomena that have only one cause and have not been affected by secondary causes. Otherwise we should be living in a world of pure necessity, ruled by destiny alone.

    To understand the cause that engenders a change in the state of an object we should, strictly speaking, analyse the interaction of the object with all other objects surrounding it. But experience shows that not all these interactions are equally significant in changing the state of the object. Some are decisive while others are insignificant. So, in practice, we are able to single out a finite number of decisive interactions and distinguish them from those that are secondary.



    Quote Originally Posted by SkyRacerX View Post
    I wouldn't think that an ENTP would limit themselves to only two versions of the truth.

    In fact, ENTJs are much more intellectually flexible than you realize. There are actually three versions of the truth:

    1. What he said happened
    2. What she said happened
    3. What really happened
    And I wish to muse on this a bit to stimulate some questions for myself in the future.

    Whilst there can be subjective views so distorted and distant from the natural world as to be dismiss on ground of subjectivity, I think it important to emphasize that it's always a subject that perceives things and as such one's subjectivity mediates one's relation to the natural world. The truth necessarily entails the link between the subject and object.
     
    Thinking and Being: Lacan versus Parmenides | Philosophical Explorations
    The correspondence theory utilizes a mirror model between subject and world; the removal of the mirror leaves us in the dark concerning the real.

    The second reason for Lacan’s rejection of the adequation theory is the elimination of the subjective dimension of truth. It assumes that the knowing subject is self-transparent. What is the difference between a proposition “p” and “p is true”? Against deflationary theories of truth, which claim that there is no difference, one can argue that the second proposition, “p is true” is a proposition about a proposition: it adds not more content, but another dimension. This dimension is no longer independent from the subject. Whereas traditional theories of truth only consider the polar opposites true/false, Lacan considers the opposition truth/lie. The reason for his emphasis on the “I am lying” example is exactly this: If one only thinks of the relationship between concept and reality for the question of truth, as the adequation theory does, then one has already foreclosed the dimension where the question of truth gains its relevance for us: the human dimension. Subsequently, on the level of concept/reality alone, the “I am lying” becomes a paradox, because “I” can only be understood as an entity that thinks: being has ontological priority. (This is the shadow of Parmenides.) The contradiction dissolves if one separates “I” from being; the separation shifts the dimension of truth from concept/reality to subject/Other (understood as the locus of the signifier) or to the relationship subject/language. In order to gain such a two-dimensional view of the concept of “truth” one has to accept the priority of the signifier in relation to the signified as a well as in relation to the subject.

    Representatives of the adequatio theory realized that although truth is always truth for somebody, it cannot be subjective. They argue that the subject has to be excluded from the definition of truth because we live in a common reality (the facts of the world are the same for all of us). The exclusion of the subject is done with the assumption that the mind – as mirror – is self-transparent and that the subject in its particularity can be separated from the epistemic process. Because human consciousness can be self-referential it is easy to assume that the “I” is identical with itself; the next step is the subtraction of the subject from the equation of truth, even if it is the subject that enunciates the truth-statement. For Lacan, then, the correspondence theory hides the deeper split between the subject and the real as well as the split within the subject itself. What remains is the construction of a common reality.
    This is visible with the British empiricists in how they erase the subject.
    Ilyenkov’s Dialectic of the Abstract and the Concrete I | Marx Returns from the Grave
    Ilyekov then reviews the failure of the empiricism of James Stuart Mill:

    “For example, value in general, value as such, may according to Mill be conceived in abstraction, without analysing any of the types of its existence outside the head. This may and must be done precisely for the reason that it does not exist as a real property of objects outside the head. It only exists as an artificial method of assessment or measurement, as a general principle of man’s subjective attitude to the world of things, that is, as a certain moral attitude. It cannot therefore be considered as a property of things themselves, outside the head, outside consciousness.

    According to this kind of logic, of which Mill is a classic representative, that is precisely why value should be regarded only as a concept, only as an a priori moral phenomenon independent from the objective properties of things outside the head and opposing them. As such, it exists only in self-consciousness, in abstract thinking. That is why it can be conceived ‘abstractly’, and that will be the correct mode of considering it.”

    Hence why everything is so simple for the empiricists as material reality has been rigorously defined in advance as existing outside of the head that much of sophisticated philosophical enquiry into the nature of logic was seen as wasted effort. This mode of thought is the dominant one in western philosophy whereby we can dispense with abstract thought being a reflection of anything in the material world as this is completely fixed, unchangeable or static. All that is required is to gather more knowledge of the real existing state of things whereby we accumulate more understanding of it; a mere piling up of more and more facts about the objects of investigation before us. In this sense abstract thought has no real place in philosophy and definitely not in logic but deserves to be placed in the field of ethics or morals.

    Ilyekov dismantles the faults of this system by recourse to the advances in logic made by Hegel.
    project mayhem: Christianity’s Perversion: Zizek and Latin American Liberation Theology
    This, however, does not mean that the Real is self-evident, or that the symbolic carries or shows its meaning by itself. After describing two identical maps of a tribal village drawn by both some of the elites who live in the area more central to the temple and the less individuals who are pushed to the outskirts of town, Zizek points out that while the two maps may be identical, what those maps mean and symbolize can be very different. While one group may see an equally dispersed layout, the other may see an invisible, but present, line delineating the elites of the village from the rest. He writes,

    It is here that we can see in what precise sense the Real intervenes through anamorphosis. First we have the “actual,” “objective” arrangement of the houses, and then its two different symbolizations that both distort, in an anamorphic way, the actual arrangement. The “Real” here, however, is not the actual arrangement, but the traumatic core of the social antagonism that distorts the tribe members’ view of the actual antagonism.[7]

    He further adds that “the ‘truth’ is not the ‘real’ state of things, that is, the ‘direct’ view of the object without perspectival distortion, but the very Real of the antagonism that causes perspectival distortion. . . .” In other words, the truth of the Real is not a hard objective kernel that we attain by peeling away subjective perspective. Instead it is the truth of the reality of those perspectives.
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/s.../ot/zizek1.htm
    The key question thus concerns the exact STATUS of this externality: is it simply the externality of an impartial “objective” scientist who, after studying history and establishing that, in the long run, the working class has a great future ahead, decides to join the winning side? So when Lenin says “The theory of Marx is all-powerful, because it is true,” everything depends on how we understand “truth” here: is it a neutral “objective knowledge,” or the truth of an engaged subject? Lenin’s wager — today, in our era of postmodern relativism, more actual than ever — is that universal truth and partisanship, the gesture of taking sides, are not only not mutually exclusive, but condition each other: in a concrete situation, its UNIVERSAL truth can only be articulated from a thoroughly PARTISAN position — truth is by definition one-sided. (This, of course, goes against the predominant doxa of compromise, of finding a middle path among the multitude of conflicting interests.)

    So the truth isn't merely what is, it is always in relation to someone and this is how there can be a series of truths from different standpoints. But it is an error of a postmodernist kind to treat the two views as equally valid.
     
    Hegel's Grand Synthesis: A Study of Being, Thought, and History. | Philosophical Explorations
    The understanding employs dialectic to rigidly exclude the mediation of opposites. In this sense, dialectic sets up an “equilibrium” of opposite determinations, so that every opposing determination has equal value. This is just what leads to scepticism, the epoche or suspension of judgment (which Hegel calls ”paralysis”) in the face of equally competing opposites. In this way, “dialectic is just a subjective see-sawing” from one determination to its opposite (SL -81 Anmerkung). Hegel refers to this as the “bad infinite” (die schlechte Unendlichkeit) of the understanding (e.g., HPh 2:268- SL -45 Zusatz, 94 & Zusatz, 95 & Zusatz, 104 Zusatz, 194 & Zusatz) — the opposing of one finite determination to another finite determination where the opposition effects an equal “neutralization” of its terms. The “true infinite” of reason, on the other hand, involves the “connective reference” and “reciprocal dependence” of the opposites, so that their opposition or mutual negation does not result in a neutralization, but in a “completer notion,” that is, in a concrete unity of the opposing terms (v. SL -95 Anmerkung).
    https://www.marxists.org/reference/s...p/foucaul1.htm
    So when, for example, my male chauvinism confronts your feminism, it is not true that both are equally true, nor that the truth of each are incommensurable, or that the truth of each is in my life and your life, or yours is true for middle-class Western women and mine for backward males, nor surely that "truth" is meaningless, or something trivial that interests only dogmatists!? Nor that I make a better, more convincing, politically-correct defence of my position which is published in a reputable journal, or vice versa, or that I get more votes than you. But nor can I make the claim that my idea reflects what objectively exists, independently of human experience and yours not - what an absurdity! Perhaps we can say that yours is liberatory and mine repressive, and although neither is true, one is good and the other is bad, and that is all that matters? Perhaps we could settle the matter by arm-wrestling?

    We must not get this question confused with the right of an individual to hold a view. This is of course a basic bourgeois right. But that is not the point; I do not thank you for allowing me the right to walk across a mine-field. I am interested in whether my idea of the best way home is objectively correct or not.

    The structuralists were right when they identified the location of truth in the social practice of a culture, but limited by the conception of culture in anthropological static isolation (dynamic, static or partial "equilibrium"). The truth and error of my view and your view (continuing the metaphor from above) is a really-existing patriarchal society of which we are both a living part and which is undergoing transformation under the impact of the socialisation of women's labour and your struggle for the value of your labour. That is the source of the concepts (of "feminism", "male-chauvinism", "sexist language", etc.), that is the criterion of truth and that is what is changed by the material struggle of our ideas, that is the meaning.
    The language merely reflects the real world conflict and struggle, words do not change the world.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/ily...t-leninist.htm
    Moreover if some ideas displease you, then you should analyze the soil from which they spring and disseminate, i.e., find a theoretical solution to the real conflict, to that actual conflict from which they arise. Expose them; only in this way is it possible to fulfill that tense social demand that expresses itself at the sight of these ideas. Then, and no sooner, will unpleasant ideas disappear.

    In this, essentially, is the position of the young Marx. This is not the position of a communist nor of a Marxist in the modern meaning of the word. It is simply the position of a sensible and honorable theoretician. It is precisely for this reason that Marx in 1842 did not turn to a formal analysis of contemporary communist ideas (they were indeed quite naive), nor to a criticism of the practical attempts to implement them (they were quite feeble), but rather he contemplated a theoretical analysis of the conflict within the social organism which spawned these ideas and the elucidation of that real demand which expressed itself in the form of ideas such as Utopian socialism and communism.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...y/ch06_3_c.htm
    Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force.
    https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12613281/index.pdf
    Even in the German Ideology, Marx explicitly points out that “circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstance” (GI. 165), and this sentence obviously shows that the real concrete’s relation to law, morality, religion, consciousness etc. is not one-sidedly determined. Of course, intellectual wealth directly depends on material conditions (GI. 154, 163, 166, and 172), but human beings affect and even change the material conditions and the circumstances in so far as it is possible for them to do so within the boundaries of the restrictions set by these conditions. Material conditions and intellectual wealth affect each other: “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness; is at firstly directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men” (GI. 154 italics mine)


    To which I would also add that there is a part that is typically conceive as subjective and thus not objectively true that I would say is actually true in an objective sense though it's shaped by the person's subjectivity, but their perception is no mere free creation of their mind but reflective of their social reality as they act.
    Such that the same empirical object within a feudalistic society has different meaning inscribed upon it than when it exists as a commodity during capitalist relations and mode of production. Such a view of objects isn't their own individual consciousness but a result of the relations which are organized and do not dissipate
    It is expected in the very British empiricists that argued against the rationalists, that it the inadequacy of their materialism/nominalism leads to subjective idealism when pressed far enough, not properly integrating the subjectivity impressed upon empirical things. As one doesn't simply see an empirical/sensuous entity but something that has a social meaning.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/pil...ing2.htm#Pill2
    Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge rests upon the false proposition that perception and sensation constitute the only material and source of knowledge. Marx as a materialist, of course, never denied that the material world, existing prior to and independently of consciousness, is the only source of sensation. But he knew that such a statement, if left at that point, could not provide the basis for a consistent materialism, but at best a mechanical form of materialism, which always left open a loop-hole for idealism. It is true that empiricism lay at the foundation of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century materialism in England and France. But at the same time this very empiricist point of view provided the basis for both the subjective idealism of Berkeley and the agnosticism of Hume. How is it possible, starting with the proposition that sensation is the sole source and material of knowledge, to end up either denying the objectivity of the external world (subjective idealism) or denying the possibility of an exhaustive knowledge of that external world (scepticism)? To take the latter case, the argument runs as follows: to men are given directly perceptions and sensations; they provide the only legitimate source of knowledge. But in these perceptions are to be found no internal necessary connections. How do we know that one thing is the cause of another? We see only one thing followed by another; if this is constantly repeated we come to expect the second whenever the first occurs. This is merely a psychological expectation, not a causal connection. These were essentially the conclusions drawn by Hume from the empiricist theory of knowledge. It followed that any statements about the objectivity of the categories of philosophy or science (causality, interaction, law, etc.) are purely metaphysical, reflecting nothing in the sensed material of knowledge. On this view, logical categories are only schemes which we use (purely out of convention and habit) for the organisation of sense-data. But such schemes remain, necessarily, wholly subjective. They are subjective first in relation to the external world, the existence of which, according to scepticism, can never be established; second in relation to the very sense data themselves, since they are determined by the very constitution of the subject – that is by the aggregate of the individual’s former psychical experiences.
    It's the relation between things that constitute their meaning and so their essence/meaning that seems subjective to the empiricist, is in fact very real, is a supra-sensuous impression upon the entity. But it's impossible identify it's essence/meaning by abstracting the entity from it's real world relations, in such a mental position it indeed possesses no meaning.
    Ilyenkov’s Dialectic of the Abstract and the Concrete I | Marx Returns from the Grave
    is a mistake to conceive thought as a separate entity from empirically presented facts in this view and it is the specific task of logic to move from the abstract contemplation of notions or concepts of the empirically presented facts to work out an abstraction that would express the essence of the presented facts given in our notions and concepts. The problem is in drawing out the generalised expression of the real nature of the object under investigation from the empirically obvious facts. This is far from straight forward and constitutes the real challenge in dialectical logic.

    For Hegel the essence or content of objects of investigation cannot be known by examining them in isolation. The thing cannot be known in itself as its essence exists outside of itself and in relation to, or in its connectedness with, other objects or phenomena. As Ilyenkov explains:

    “That is why a concept, according to Hegel, does not exist as a separate word, term, or symbol. It exists only in the process of unfolding in a proposition, in a syllogism expressing connectedness of separate definitions, and ultimately only in a system of propositions and syllogisms, only in an integral, well-developed theory. If a concept is pulled out of this connection, what remains of it is mere verbal integument, a linguistic symbol. The content of the concept, its meaning, remains outside it-in series of other definitions, for a word taken separately is only capable of designating an object, naming it, it is only capable of serving as a sign, symbol, marker, or symptom.”

  8. #78
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by SkyRacerX View Post
    My general response to someone stating my answer is incorrect:

    "I think the problem, to be quite honest with you is that you've never actually known what the question was."

    Or, if you don't like the answers you are getting, then try asking different questions.
    It's not about your or anyone's answers. If your set of questions is smaller than your set of answers, then you necessarily have wrong or unnecessary answers. One question can only have one correct answer. Not sure how you can have 10 questions and 12 answers.

  9. #79
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    It's not about your or anyone's answers. If your set of questions is smaller than your set of answers, then you necessarily have wrong or unnecessary answers. One question can only have one correct answer. Not sure how you can have 10 questions and 12 answers.

    you need to expand such linear thinking and also read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to understand my humorous reference to Deep Thought.
    Personally, I will always have more questions than answers - it is the nature of an inquisitive mind. Some people think they have all the answers and don't really bother asking questions or search for the validity of the answers they pulled out of thin air.
    yentipeee thanked this post.

  10. #80
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by SkyRacerX View Post
    you need to expand such linear thinking and also read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to understand my humorous reference to Deep Thought.
    Personally, I will always have more questions than answers - it is the nature of an inquisitive mind. Some people think they have all the answers and don't really bother asking questions or search for the validity of the answers they pulled out of thin air.
    I will expand my thinking the moment I know it's wrong. Been wanting to read that book though, just not getting around to it.. or any book for that matter.

    Mankind will always have more questions than answers.


     
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Do any of you like the Darkover novels by Marion Zimmer Bradley?
    By FlaviaGemina in forum INFP Forum - The Idealists
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-18-2016, 03:29 PM
  2. [INTJ] Any of you like to build models
    By purposive in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-09-2013, 05:34 AM
  3. What positive stereotypes do you like if any?
    By Happy in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 06:51 PM
  4. [ENTJ] Which ENTJ Moniker do you like the best?
    By dude10000 in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-17-2010, 05:18 AM
  5. ENTJ's what would you like to see changed in the world?
    By Blue Butterfly in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 05:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:00 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0