Dialectic as Equilibrium.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Dialectic as Equilibrium. » Dialectic as Equilibrium.

Dialectic as Equilibrium.
Does human life substantially change with time?

Page: 1 2

Dialectic as Equilibrium.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/21/08 - 08:37 PM: Subject: Dialectic as Equilibrium.	#1
I believe dialectic is the constant natural balancing counterpoising the constant change. While certain things or ideas pass over into their opposite, not all things or ideas transform in that manner, and they do transform. The dichotomized balance is between existence and non-existence that are in constant opposition. Things, objects or ideas do not pass over into non-existence per se, especially with material objects governed by the law of preservation of material, but they pass over into non-existence of the form in which they existed before change. The process of change thus viewed is a constant and governed overlapping of death and life, existence and non-existence or nothingness. Material dialectic involves the tightly governed change in material reality. Every material transformation entails the passing over to nothingness of a previous ‘form(s)’ and the subsequent coming to being of [an]other form(s) in exact proportions. The building of a house requires the convergence of all the different types of materials used for the purpose and who’s convergence is both proportionate to the new ‘creation’ and to the necessary dissipation or passing into nothingness of all those ingredients. The dialectical balance here is the verity of material preservation. Material reality is locked; no absolutely new or novel existences are possible, nor are any enigmatic ‘disappearances’. Human dialectic is both the natural adjustment to changes in reality, external or internal, and the willed repositioning of the self in accordance with such changes as well as the effort exerted to force-change reality. In a word, human beings create their dialectic. Let us take as an example the human attitude or sentiment of contempt or simple hate. When we hate something, someone or some idea, we reassert and reinforce our position, we protect our self-image, and we shield our self-integrity. We hate those who hate us, we hate those who hold contradictory values to ours, and we hate those who do us harm. Receiving harm from those whom we like or those who purport to like us is much more damaging than if it were done by our foes. We hate all that we cannot master, control, or apprehend. Anything posing a threat to our well-being is hated, and as such almost neutralized as a source of danger or threat. It is not automatically thwarted, since hate entails a certain stance or attitude, a distance, and such the danger is forestalled. That certain harm is less damaging being done by a foe is due to the fact that we anticipate such harm, or at least expect it to happen. The value of anything is determined by its quantity or magnitude. In this case, expectancy or anticipation is a dimension of abundance, which entails that the value is substantially decreased. Love, as the perceived opposing sentiment, is similarly employed to achieve the same results. We associate with, imitate, support, and follow in the trail of those whom we like or approve as we determine our attitude or general positioning in regards to whatever we label “good”. All human sentiments as well as convictions and feelings (depression, anguish, and, on the other plane, happiness) serve as automatic (or even slow) adjustments to change. You are not what you hate and you are what you like. There is no better way to assert one’s existence, position, and self-image than this. That most of these sentiments result from perceptions, and that they may be institutionalized as if independently of their subjects does not preclude the role they play in our lives. When we lose a friend, we automatically and unwillingly experience anguish and sorrow, but with time, the painful readjustment to life (change of expectations, change of attitude) yields a new normalcy. When we experience a fortunate change, our happiness may last for some time, but cannot last for long because we will have readjusted our positions, our expectations, our power, and are ready to presume normalcy again. The willed adjustments and the exerted effort to control external change are what make us partially free-willed. Not all people exert the same effort to readjust to misfortunes, and not all people possess the same degree of immunity to such experiences. Thinking constantly about death makes it less of a disastrous occurrence. This constant thinking entails a different attitude, a different stance toward such enemy. It may be said that this dark brooding on a rather depressing issue may cloud one’s sunny days. It is true, but the impact of the thunderous ones will not be as destructive as if life was taken for granted. Creating dialectic is anticipating change, but again the act of constant readjustment to change, whether it was done sluggishly or energetically, will yield proportionate results. We cannot gauge human feelings, but presume by analogy that the human feeling spectrum from negative to positive averages an agitated zero. Those who are immune to misfortunes cannot be so sensitive to fortunate changes, and the opposite is true. Human capabilities to willfully change reality are never ending endeavors to improve it. There is, however, no agreed upon standard as to when such reality is deemed sufficiently improved. The human being's outstanding progress in their control of nature is not only outstanding as relative, but as positive. In its relation to the human position, it is never different. One cannot live now and assume a 2000-year-old position, which is the only way to actually experience and feel the difference human progress has achieved. This does not mean that the human quest to better their lives is futile, because it is impelled by the dialectic of positioning. Once a certain degree of ease or happiness is achieved, the repositioning, which is the self-same gleaning of that positive change, implies that that new ease has ceased to exist in the same form it appeared. The quest for a new one is concomitant with human breathing.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/22/08 - 06:40 AM:	#2
Following up to clarify. The question is, if human beings experience life in the manner described, as generally constantly adapting to changes (whether changing reality itself or changing our perceptions about it)then variations in regard to individual differences (happy vs miserable, poor vs rich, etc.) and temporal differences (living now or long time ago) do not amount to much, not substantially at least. If this is so, it wouldn't be far from truth if one considers human life as inherently constant. This depends on whether you are looking at the river or the water that flows through it. But is human life in its deeper structures the river or the waters? When we try to assign meaning to life we normally consider the generalities that make us human. The little details (waters) can always be dropped and we'd still have human life. One might argue that once details are dropped (Sartre's The Wall, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot are dramatizations of this philosophy)life becomes meaningless. I think what determines the perspective is what we consider most core. Things that make us happy or sad are not major constituents of our life, happiness and misery are. Happiness and misery(ups and downs) are in constant overlapping. Therefore there is a dialectical equilibrium. Edited by Abdulation on 04/22/08 - 07:36 AM

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/22/08 - 07:35 AM:	#3
I think in the body of your argument, you've made the mistake of over-simplifying human emotions so that they fit into your model. Also, I'm not real sure what you were attempting to say with the last two lines of the "willed adjustments" paragraph. What exactly is an agitated zero? In the last line, the opposite of what is true? In that last sentance it seems like you're making a statement you believe is true, then ending the sentance saying that the opposite is true. And, if you're trying to say statement 1 is true and the opposite is also true, you get a contradiction. If the opposite is true, that would make statement 1) false and visa versa. In regards to the paragraph, again: Why would one presume human feelings average zero or normalcy? If one leads a life of complete misfortune, how could he average 0 if he is never happy - when, in fact, his demenor only seems to deteriorate? And for the opposite? What about the man that dies in a bad mood? In regards to the last sentance of the same paragraph, I think you misunderstand the nature of being immune to certain misfortunes. If I, like in your example, am immune to death because I dwell on the thought, why would I not be "regular" happy instead of "desensitized" happy because of my immunity of death? As a direct correlation, why could I not be extatic about an enemy dying? I'm really not going to touch the last paragraph, but what you attempt to describe is a dialectic, but I see nothing about equilibrium except what is inherent in the definition of dialectic; however, if I were to judge the thesis based upon the body of your post, I would say that the equilibrium described within does not exist, and, if it did, has nothing to do with dialectic in that it describes no progress but always a returning to an arbitrarily fixed position depending upon one's perception. With that, I'm going to assume I'm missing something or you've created something that doesn't work. Lastly, coherency and simplicity are a writer's best friends. I'm not sure why, but you chose to ignore them. I see this type of thing when I evaluate papers quite often, and I always tell the students: 'This is not the SAT or the GRE -- I don't care how long you studied your thesaurus. The only thing it does is detract from your ideas -- which defeats the purpose of writing in the first place.' I don't mean this as an insult, but your writing shouldn't sound forced and there were many places that simply using the noun instead of needlessly modifying it would have made your ideas much more coherent.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/22/08 - 08:09 AM: Subject: The willed adjustment.	#4
I am talking about human emotions as averaging almost zero if we consider the fact that they normally oscillate between the good and the bad. There is no such thing as calibrating emotions, this is just an assumption. You mention an example of someone who leads a miserable life as antithetical to my suggestion. This is not an invalid argument. But I think that misery and happiness are felt the same by everyone, and that we can only define or recognize these categories relatively. Every individual is like a balloon, balloons are not the same but each is blown to "feel" blown enough. You may be right in that I oversimplified life to fit my model, you may also be wrong. Looking at human life as constant oscillations between positive and negative is a form of simplifying, but how else can we come at any possible understanding without theorizing, which is nothing but simplifying and oversimplifying? More over, we are looking at human life from a distance where thousands of years of progress seem to touch only the details, not the core. Now I ask, regarding those whom we can label as miserable, do they or do they not experience life through this constant oscillation? Then consider values. Perhaps some people linger a little longer on the negative side of the spectrum. One can assume there that their return to the positive side (and of course there has to be a return because it is against reason to think that some people simply exist on the negative side all their lives)will compensate for the negative because their perception of the value of the positive will be higher than otherwise. The one flaw I can think of is that it is quasi paradoxical to speak of emotions objectively, as if we are examining life from the outside, which is not possible. It still makes a difference when you think that in essence you can hardly live better or worse than others (whether your contemporaries or not).

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/22/08 - 08:20 AM:	#5
Those who are immune to misfortunes cannot be so sensitive to fortunate changes, and the opposite is true. I don't think this statement is paradoxical. The 'opposite' here means that those who are sensitive to changes will feel negative changes badly but will enjoy fortunate changes better than their counterparts. It is just another way of saying that oscillations are proportionate in their flight from the equilibrium.

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/22/08 - 09:14 AM:	#6
Abdulation wrote: I am talking about human emotions as averaging almost zero if we consider the fact that they normally oscillate between the good and the bad. There is no such thing as calibrating emotions, this is just an assumption. You mention an example of someone who leads a miserable life as antithetical to my suggestion. This is not an invalid argument. But I think that misery and happiness are felt the same by everyone, and that we can only define or recognize these categories relatively. Every individual is like a balloon, balloons are not the same but each is blown to "feel" blown enough. You may be right in that I oversimplified life to fit my model, you may also be wrong. Looking at human life as constant oscillations between positive and negative is a form of simplifying, but how else can we come at any possible understanding without theorizing, which is nothing but simplifying and oversimplifying? More over, we are looking at human life from a distance where thousands of years of progress seem to touch only the details, not the core. Now I ask, regarding those whom we can label as miserable, do they or do they not experience life through this constant oscillation? Then consider values. Perhaps some people linger a little longer on the negative side of the spectrum. One can assume there that their return to the positive side (and of course there has to be a return because it is against reason to think that some people simply exist on the negative side all their lives)will compensate for the negative because their perception of the value of the positive will be higher than otherwise. The one flaw I can think of is that it is quasi paradoxical to speak of emotions objectively, as if we are examining life from the outside, which is not possible. It still makes a difference when you think that in essence you can hardly live better or worse than others (whether your contemporaries or not). Ok, I understand what you're getting at a bit better now. What I meant by the over-simplification is that you assume that there is always, or at least in the majority of people, a balancing act that always comes back to, or close to, what is relative normalcy or complacency. Also in that you regard happiness and its opposite as one-dimensional -- and I will try to explain that. What I mean is that, as an example, I have a week of depression about my wife leaving me, but one day at the end of this week my friends take me out drinking. I enjoy myself for a small amount of time, but was I really happy? Was I really the opposite of what I was feeling that week? Even put into terms of negative and positive emotion, was the positive truly a positive or was it a false positive? Also, in order to being to see an equilibrium or any meaningful oscillation, it would first be necessary to be able to quantify what it is we are studying in a meaningful way. In your theory, you seem to be saying that we can observe this oscillation, and eventual equilibrium, mearly be qualifying something as negative and positive. I understand you admit that we can not accurately quantify a single emotion (e.g. I felt 5 units of happy when I took a walk today), and I think your theory would still have some weight behind it regardless; however, there are other quanitfications that are even more important -- like time and relative categorization. While categorization of emotions is a qualifier, I am speaking more to relating categories to each other in some sort of qualified manner. As an example: Are happiness and sadness equal but opposite -- meaning, 0 being complacent, would happiness be 5 and sadness be -5? This is easily dealt with, but what happens when you compare two emotions that are not "natural opposites like happiness and discomfort? What if somebody were uncomfortable all their life (e.g. people with gender identity issues) but has happiness at times? Do we just assign discomfort with some arbitrary quantity of negative emotion so that we may directly equate it to any incongruent opposite? Do we just compare natural opposites? In your theory, do all natural opposites eventually equal out to zero? Time in that I am sad for one week (with varying degrees) and happy for a half an hour (again, varying degrees). The question becomes, does one minute of extreme happiness counter-balance two minutes of regular sadness? Now, I'm not rejecting that you should simplify or simplifying is somehow disasterous to theorizing, but in order for your theory to be useful or meaningful, you would have to somehow systematize emotions to a degree more strict that you currently have. Now, this simplification would work in other places, but when you are attempting a conclusion such as everybody, or at least a majority, of people reach an emotional equilibrium (and I'm assuming again you're using this in the same sense as the law of averages does), the simple act inherently demands for certain things to be demonstratable. In this case, demonstration is impossible.

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/22/08 - 09:36 AM:	#7
Abdulation wrote: Those who are immune to misfortunes cannot be so sensitive to fortunate changes, and the opposite is true. I don't think this statement is paradoxical. The 'opposite' here means that those who are sensitive to changes will feel negative changes badly but will enjoy fortunate changes better than their counterparts. It is just another way of saying that oscillations are proportionate in their flight from the equilibrium. Ok, I see what you mean now. Well, I think I do. Are you saying that desensitized people don't feel emotions to the same extent as sensitive or normal people -- as in, DP feel 5 units of happy during situation A while SP feel 10 units and likewise for negative events as well? In that case, I can see how you would get to that conclusion; however, I believe you over-simplify the human condition and reduce it to something more mechanical or robitic. If we take a normal person (not a schitzophrenic, bipolar, or medicated person), you will never find that any one person that is completely sensitive or desensitized. There may be some people who don't view death as a tragic event; however, they see its opposite (birth) as a wonderous event. Here we have a lessened departure from 0 on the negative but a normal or sensitive departure to the positive in the same person in relation to two opposite emotions which are derived from the same category. The examples are limitless, but the point is, is that you can not truly lable anybody as sensitive or desensitized unless you qualify the sensitivities singularly -- and to fit these people or this idea in your model would require an exhaustive listing; however you could use it to just explain that there is this phenomena, but that is as far as you could take it. But, allowing this phenomena into your system further complicates it even further beyond what the original idea sets out to show -- and this is why. Your conclusion necessarily and implicitly argues for a general human disposition -- that we are emotionally equal (that no matter how we feel about particular things, all of us continue in an equilibrium); however, stating that some are sensitive or desensitized to certain things asserts that we are not equal. These sensitivities are not birthed with their opposites. E.g. when I become desensitized to death, it does not necessarily follow that I will also be desensitized to birth as well; therefore, I am left with an inherent disposition to the positive (by taking away from a negative) which will cause some deviation, at no specific time, to what is considered stable to this me. This doesn't bring about an equilibrium through dialectical repositioning, but, instead, implants chaos into the system. In turn it would become even more impossible to observe with any certainty, even enough to postulate, because even the generalization itself becomes impossible.

Abdulation
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 20

Posted 04/22/08 - 11:37 AM:	#8
Again it is quite impossible to calibrate human emotions as in the physical world, but this is what makes this merely theoretical. You don't think it makes a lot of sense because you believe that some people can be more prone to either side of the positive/negative spectrum of things. I do think that there is an equilibrium. I doubt that any normal person can be indifferent to death while being an adulator of birth. Death is the loss of that birth that we cherish. One may argue that an equilibrium entails some type of indifference or latency regarding life as a whole. For what would be motivating if we really incorporate this and come to a realization that being richer or healthier or better in any form will not substantially change us? This is true, but if some type of equilibrium exists, it does so only as viewed objectively, and also it exists with this human inclination to constantly seek betterment as a main constituent of this equilibrium. Let me make it all simpler. I may have stripped life of much of its contents and circumscribed it to basics. All I am suggesting is that the basics in life do not change with individual variances or with time. First man must have had his ups and downs, his happy moments juxtaposed against his sad ones, etc. Now what could have been enigmatic to people a few hundred years ago is completely different from what it may be now, but we as humans sharing the same original film or perceptiveness do experience enigmatic phenomena in almost the same manner. Now consider someone saying "I felt more pain than anyone could endure" or "I am the happiest (or most miserable) person on earth". The fact that each one of us is a captive to his/her own subjectivity means that we project shared labels on subjective experiences. So it can not be far from truth if someone's happiest moment in life be possibly something boring or plebeian to another. I cannot think of a better example than an animated balloon that feels blown enough, while it may be blown only half way.

Sanchez
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 27

Posted 04/22/08 - 02:07 PM:	#9
Abdulation wrote: Again it is quite impossible to calibrate human emotions as in the physical world, but this is what makes this merely theoretical. You don't think it makes a lot of sense because you believe that some people can be more prone to either side of the positive/negative spectrum of things. I do think that there is an equilibrium. I doubt that any normal person can be indifferent to death while being an adulator of birth. Death is the loss of that birth that we cherish. Those people are called pessimists and optimists. They exist. There's also a boat-load of psychological problems that make people more prone to negative or positive -- such as mania, general anxiety disorder, schitzophrenia, etc. To ignore what is human when evaluating human emotions is folly. And what you consider "normal" is only normal in a very westernized view. There are many fringe religions and popular religions that don't view death in the negative manner the West does -- such as Buddhism, Toasim, Shintoism, Hindiusm, and many "religions" in Africa. Some of these religions celebrate death as much as they celebrate birth. Which brings up an interesting point. To say that these emotions are shared (or even that a majority are shared) in any manner other than analogously (read: Heidegger's explanation) is, again, over-simplification that renders the conclusion impotent and incapable of it's original goal. Abdulation wrote: One may argue that an equilibrium entails some type of indifference or latency regarding life as a whole. For what would be motivating if we really incorporate this and come to a realization that being richer or healthier or better in any form will not substantially change us? This is true, but if some type of equilibrium exists, it does so only as viewed objectively, and also it exists with this human inclination to constantly seek betterment as a main constituent of this equilibrium. This is where you start getting confusing again. How can we view an equilibrium, which is based upon a decidedly unquantifiable and subjective set of criteria, be viewed in an objective manner? That's like asking somebody to objectively view god. Abdulation wrote: Let me make it all simpler. I may have stripped life of much of its contents and circumscribed it to basics. All I am suggesting is that the basics in life do not change with individual variances or with time. First man must have had his ups and downs, his happy moments juxtaposed against his sad ones, etc. Now what could have been enigmatic to people a few hundred years ago is completely different from what it may be now, but we as humans sharing the same original film or perceptiveness do experience enigmatic phenomena in almost the same manner. Now consider someone saying "I felt more pain than anyone could endure" or "I am the happiest (or most miserable) person on earth". The fact that each one of us is a captive to his/her own subjectivity means that we project shared labels on subjective experiences. So it can not be far from truth if someone's happiest moment in life be possibly something boring or plebeian to another. I cannot think of a better example than an animated balloon that feels blown enough, while it may be blown only half way. I'm not arguing the subjectivity of emotions or perceptions, but attempting to theorize some type of common equilibrium, not only to man in the same time period, but also with man in other time periods is just impossible. You're trying to simplify humanity into some type of Mill/Bentham number-line that failed when they tried to envision it. On top of this, you want to carry it further and state that not only is there this numberline (which can't be quantified), but there is also an equilibrium (which doubly can't be quantified) added to the idea that the basics of human happiness/unhapiness are shared regardless of temporality. It is more than presumptuous to believe that there is any other basic drives to human existance than survival -- everything else will always vary. This is what makes us individual and your theory is an attempt to strip that away from human existance -- whether implicitly or explicitly. Either way, it just doesn't work. The concept is nice, and give some work and more thought, it could turn into something nice, but, as it is now, there are just too many holes, contradictions, and baseless assumptions that seemingly defy what it is to be an individual.

Findley
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/22/08 - 03:13 PM:	#10
-The exact specificity of an emotion must necessarily be ascertained in order to subject it to some sort of empirical analysis (-and thus conclusion.) Unfortunately, I will argue that that requisite specificity is going to be impossible to grasp, considering it's existance is necessarily contingent on an inconceivably vast myriad of ....contingencies. (I believe you already mentioned the difficulty of objectively analysing something on a grand-scale that is only subjectively experienced by the individual?)

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.