Then it's perfect: I have fun posting and you are amused by my posts.
Another topic
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Another topic
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Another topic
More masochism
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Another topic
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Another topic
You know the old joke:
- Hit me! - screams the masochist, to which the sadist replies
- I won't.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Another topic
Your approach seems solitary and passive. Let's say, for simplicity, that we all accept your philosophy. Nothing that any of us says will be considered, but only heard and acknowledged. So there's no purpose in any of us saying anything at all. Our exchanges are collected monologues. We are not talking (writing, communicating...) to each other, we are talking at each other.stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 1:21 pmWhat? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.Atla wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 1:13 pmI don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
Whatever we say, we know it will not be considered by our audience. When our audience speak, we do nothing except acknowledge that words have been spoken; we make no considered response to those words because there is no response to be made. So what is the point (in communication)? There is none, that I can see.
I respect your views, but I see them as nihilistic, in a way, and as an active impediment to learning (from one another). Your belief(s) prevent mutual communication and understanding. They isolate us in a solitary confinement from which there is no escape.
Even these words that I have posted here will have no effect on you — why should they? — so, by your standards, I have wasted my time in writing them. You will hear my words, and maybe even acknowledge them, but you will not consider them. Mutual communication is impossible, and for that (practical and pragmatic) reason alone, I reject your position. It has no constructive use that I can see.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Another topic
Your judgements don't appear to be appropriate. To me it appears that conversation is an exchange of individual verbal expressions that each of the individual participants understands as expressing her/his thoughts given a particular context. The verbal expressions as spoken sounds or written signs are evident and can be publically observed independent of beliefs. However the meanings of the verbal expressions intended by the individuals that used them to express their thoughts are necessarily non-evident which is why the meaning understood by the recipient of the sounds or signs doesn't necessarily match the intended meaning of the sender. This potential mismatch of meanings however doesn't affect the potential mutual inspiration of thoughts through exchange of verbal expressions in a conversation.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 5th, 2022, 7:40 amYour approach seems solitary and passive. Let's say, for simplicity, that we all accept your philosophy. Nothing that any of us says will be considered, but only heard and acknowledged. So there's no purpose in any of us saying anything at all. Our exchanges are collected monologues. We are not talking (writing, communicating...) to each other, we are talking at each other.
Whatever we say, we know it will not be considered by our audience. When our audience speak, we do nothing except acknowledge that words have been spoken; we make no considered response to those words because there is no response to be made. So what is the point (in communication)? There is none, that I can see.
I respect your views, but I see them as nihilistic, in a way, and as an active impediment to learning (from one another). Your belief(s) prevent mutual communication and understanding. They isolate us in a solitary confinement from which there is no escape.
Even these words that I have posted here will have no effect on you — why should they? — so, by your standards, I have wasted my time in writing them. You will hear my words, and maybe even acknowledge them, but you will not consider them. Mutual communication is impossible, and for that (practical and pragmatic) reason alone, I reject your position. It has no constructive use that I can see.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Another topic
Conversation is not limited to the exchange of data. It usually also involves those having the conversation reacting and responding to what has been said to them. This reacting and responding is what your philosophical principles prevent you from, and the consequence of this is that you are incapable of conversation, in the way that it is normally carried out.stevie wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 12:42 am To me it appears that conversation is an exchange of individual verbal expressions that each of the individual participants understands as expressing her/his thoughts given a particular context. [...] This potential mismatch of meanings however doesn't affect the potential mutual inspiration of thoughts through exchange of verbal expressions in a conversation.
I agree that our exchanges can stimulate our own thoughts, based on what has been said to us, but those exchanges almost always include the responses I've described, and I think these responses form a necessary part of conversation. I don't mean that conversation must — is mandated to — contain these responses, but only that these responses form an essential and valuable role within conversation, and are, in that sense, necessary.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 762
- Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am
Re: Another topic
It appears to me that I am reacting and responding to what you express to me through my verbal expression as a reaction and response.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 8:57 amConversation is not limited to the exchange of data. It usually also involves those having the conversation reacting and responding to what has been said to them. This reacting and responding is what your philosophical principles prevent you from, and the consequence of this is that you are incapable of conversation, in the way that it is normally carried out.stevie wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 12:42 am To me it appears that conversation is an exchange of individual verbal expressions that each of the individual participants understands as expressing her/his thoughts given a particular context. [...] This potential mismatch of meanings however doesn't affect the potential mutual inspiration of thoughts through exchange of verbal expressions in a conversation.
I guess we have here an instance of what I called a "mismatch of meanings". The meaning intended by you using "reacting and responding" doesn't seem to match the meaning understood by me when seeing the concatenation of signs r+e+a+c+t+i+n+g and r+e+s+p+o+n+d+i+n+g.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 8:57 am I agree that our exchanges can stimulate our own thoughts, based on what has been said to us, but those exchanges almost always include the responses I've described, and I think these responses form a necessary part of conversation. I don't mean that conversation must — is mandated to — contain these responses, but only that these responses form an essential and valuable role within conversation, and are, in that sense, necessary.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023