The Relationship of Recognition.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The Relationship of Recognition. » The Relationship of Recognition.

The Relationship of Recognition.
Bringing it all back home.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Relationship of Recognition.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:28 AM:	#31
NicodemusNewman wrote: When it comes to knowing yourself in relation to others does that include trying to define ones self? No, it's defining yourself contrasting against others. NicodemusNewman wrote: To define ones self as a person who loves but is not fully a lover. If you define a 'lover' as someone who just lives for that sentiment, then maybe. However, the proposition is very unrealistic. In fact, I dispute the sentiment completely - as you cannot love yourself (or anyone) constantly. As in understanding this sentiment, you cannot love yourself as you already are yourself - and you cannot love another as you are biologically built to consume, not share. NicodemusNewman wrote: They are part lover and also some part hater. Does the definition lover arise because it averages out to lover? No, it doesn't. In fact, the definition might be one that is abnormal. What that is not normal in a biological existence. Or perhaps, a plain lie. NicodemusNewman wrote: That one is more inclined to love than to hate? Not really, you 'love' what gives, 'hate' what takes. These are not exactly that important in philosophy. NicodemusNewman wrote: And if so inclined then what makes one keep the status of lover? Keep giving to give your 'love' for a defined lifespan. In fact, no living entity can ever keep giving. All that is loved today will either be forgotten tomorrow or hated another day. Your 'love' cannot last, it's impulsive, nothing more. NicodemusNewman wrote: By continueing to love? What if the person hates as well? Well, don't expect anything in return. Perhaps that would generate 'hate' if you really don't get anything in return (if you want to continue 'loving'). No one can keep giving without receiving any form of incentive, it's not biologically possible. Altruism doesn't exist, it cannot. NicodemusNewman wrote: If they hate less than they love then are they still under the definition of lover? You will always hate (hate to remember, or really despise) what you 'love' one day. It's destiny, biological destiny. Love really cannot exist within a biological system of cannibalistic replication. NicodemusNewman wrote: Only dealing with the two love/hate qualities that a person can have is confusing? Is there a logical way to think about this idea? Exactly, follow the above. You will have all your answers. And you will finally understand.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 11/02/09 - 01:04 AM:	#32
Desidude666 wrote: You've not got the point. In fact, you cannot react by just understanding. Your understanding is irrelevant, whether you consider me an idiot, or a demi-God, it's irrelevant as it is not a reaction until you act. In this case, you have just stated that you aren't able to comprehend what is written up there because it might either be: 1. It's incoherent (to you, perhaps?) 2. You've over estimated the role of understanding and how it plays itself as a reaction to an action. 3. Your notion is entirely foolish to even propose (my radical side, I might add). But I don't think it is as such. My proposition to you is this: 1. You act. 2. Your act affects someone. 3. He then comprehends and thus forms a 'mindset' of your actions (Remember, he wouldn't form strong opinions if your actions don't exist, hence your actions represent you, not the other way around) 4. He reacts with an action - this is the reaction. A response to your act, hence then your 'mindset' exists. But you still wouldn't be able to guess rightly - because it's intangible. So what do you then do? Study the tangible action, or the intangible mindset? If you agree to this this far, tell me how understanding his mindset to your act can help you in understanding him. You cannot understand a mindset without understanding an action that forms that mindset, or reaction (and we are just predicting it). And remember, this prediction is merely judgment, actions are material, mindset isn't. What makes sense to you if you understand what is written up there? Studying what doesn't exist (mindset), or what forms reaction. When you say, "You've not got the point." it seems to me that you are correct, and that on the basis of my posts (acts) you are making a judgement of my mindset. Indeed, mindset forms reaction, prediction and judgement provokes and guides action. I don't know why you ant to say that mindset isn't material; are your acts mindless? Are you reacting without understanding? I'm sorry, but I cannot make sense of your position, it appears to be an extreme of behaviourism, that would be unhelpful in dealing with a computer, never mind a person.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/02/09 - 01:20 AM:	#33
NicodemusNewman wrote: "One exists, and comes to know oneself in relationship to the world and to others." When it comes to knowing yourself in relation to others does that include trying to define ones self? To define ones self as a person who loves but is not fully a lover. They are part lover and also some part hater. Does the definition lover arise because it averages out to lover? That one is more inclined to love than to hate? And if so inclined then what makes one keep the status of lover? By continueing to love? What if the person hates as well? If they hate less than they love then are they still under the definition of lover? Only dealing with the two love/hate qualities that a person can have is confusing? Is there a logical way to think about this idea? I am saying that one defines oneself always in relation to not-self. That is the way that words and thought work. I don't want to go into what is love and whether it is the opposite of hate here, but I will point out that here is where I think desi may have a point. There is something of a second order definition involved in talking about someone as loving as some kind of character trait. I don't know about you, but it takes me about half a second to go from love to hate, and this is exactly the kind of area where I think it is inappropriate to claim a 'loving' identity, because it does exactly seem to justify, paradoxically, hatred of those others who are not, or are less 'loving'. As a general rule, those who claim to be loving, are indeed full of hate, whereas those who actually love do not claim it or think about it.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 11/03/09 - 03:02 AM:	#34
I once saw a deaf musician being applauded for, in sign. I thought to myself, how is applauding normally (that of clapping hands together) different from that of applauding in sign (that of shaking hands in air). Really, to the person who is deaf, there is no difference. The only difference that is infered, is that we make a distinction between those that are like us and those that are not. I think this is what the OP is trying to say. Our recognition, and then further the distinction made, leads us away from ourselves. To label a person deaf, a rapist or gods son, means to take his humanity away, in such a way that it is different to our own humanity. These people are as human as you and I, and I wholeheartedly agree with unenlightened. I think Jung made some ground here, explaining that archetypes, the father, the mother, the killer etc. all reside within us, wether we like it or not. Being human is not being just, human being is understanding this. We are all the same.

NicodemusNewman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/04/09 - 10:51 PM:	#35
Minyun: I think this is what the OP is trying to say. Our recognition, and then further the distinction made, leads us away from ourselves. To label a person deaf, a rapist or gods son, means to take his humanity away, in such a way that it is different to our own humanity. These people are as human as you and I, and I wholeheartedly agree with unenlightened. So we all have the potential to to become these things? A rapist becomes that because of his choices and we see him only as that. Should we see him for his greatest act which draws the most attention or judge him by his whole life? By the things that brought him here to the point where he is considered a rapist. What of the choices of others that changed his life? Should they be factored in before we see him as such? I think a man isn't the sum of his parts but what parts he uses most willingly? Can this idea be connected with the idea that we only love what gives? That we are takers by nature and that all of our decisions are based off of that one quality?
Make me understand.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:04 AM:	#36
NN wrote: So we all have the potential to to become these things? I believe so, given the right circumstances. NN wrote: A rapist becomes that because of his choices and we see him only as that. This is precisely it, his choices do not make him any less human. You see his choices, you do not see his humanity, you do not see him as yourself. NN wrote: Should we see him for his greatest act which draws the most attention or judge him by his whole life? Should we see a child who steals, a thief? Or should we see him as a child? A car with problems does not mean it no longer is a car. I saw a TV show, this guy kidnapped two 15 year old's, he went to prison and is serving 70+ lifetime sentences. The crowd went wild, applauding at his misfortune. I thought to myself what has changed since we put people in the gallows? Why do we treat this person, this life, as if it were not. NN wrote: I think a man isn't the sum of his parts but what parts he uses most willingly? If this man has not been shown that he has some sort of will, do we fault him or those around him for not showing him? The disgust I see in people's faces when they see a homeless man talk to them, is true of them and not of the homeless. NN wrote: Can this idea be connected with the idea that we only love what gives? Yes, I think so. In the Zulu culture it is normal that the bigger woman are more attractive, this is because it shows that clearly they have more to give. The same can be said for white culture, those that are fit are those that can afford it, these are the ones that can give me more.

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:37 AM:	#37
unenlightened wrote: When you say, "You've not got the point." it seems to me that you are correct, and that on the basis of my posts (acts) you are making a judgement of my mindset. Indeed, mindset forms reaction, prediction and judgement provokes and guides action. I don't know why you ant to say that mindset isn't material; are your acts mindless? Are you reacting without understanding? I'm sorry, but I cannot make sense of your position, it appears to be an extreme of behaviourism, that would be unhelpful in dealing with a computer, never mind a person. Exactly... however, my opinion over our contention here has been one based on your assertion over mindset! Remember, your mindset, to me, is irrelevant. You might even consider me a fool after finishing up what you write and perhaps praise my ability to complete a coherent sentence. So in all, your mindset may not be 'understood' and probably is not worth understanding as it would need prediction. Because it has limited applicability over your actions, it's value for me decreases - as I am affected not by your mindset, rather your actions. If you call me foolish, then I would then react based on your actions - that you've stuck on me an undesired term on a public board. So, this would then provoke my reaction - not for what you think, but for what you've posted, or done. You can easily read something else I've posted and think in an exact same manner too. If I don't react, our discussion will die off - and you will forget about it, next time around, after noticing my views, you may change your mind. My point to you is that no sentient being acts because of a mindset - he acts because of an action. Your acts are indeed 'mindless' ONLY if you discard the importance of an action. Your 'mindset' is thus a reaction, and only exists if you react. And the proposition is not at all extreme because we would thus acknowledge action prior to a mindset, which is only a reaction, and forms any relevance only should you act to react. A state of mind isn't constant - that's my point. You will eventually forget about an action - if you don't react. That's all I am suggesting, and I assume it is coherent, we could always expand if you don't see relevance still.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 334

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:48 AM:	#38
Minyun wrote: I once saw a deaf musician being applauded for, in sign. I thought to myself, how is applauding normally (that of clapping hands together) different from that of applauding in sign (that of shaking hands in air). Really, to the person who is deaf, there is no difference. The only difference that is infered, is that we make a distinction between those that are like us and those that are not. He can see, that means he is thus appreciating the reaction to his action of playing the musical instrument. Remember, the reaction of the applause is appreciated because our recognition of visual/audible actions depicting reaction that is desirable. Minyun wrote: I think this is what the OP is trying to say. Our recognition, and then further the distinction made, leads us away from ourselves. To label a person deaf, a rapist or gods son, means to take his humanity away, in such a way that it is different to our own humanity. These people are as human as you and I, and I wholeheartedly agree with unenlightened. Not really. In fact, this label can do his 'actions' a lot of 'good'. It might act as an incentive or even add value to his performances. I agree with enlightened, but to a degree where he emphasizes on mindset before a reaction. However, once you over-estimate a mindset to an action, that's where we contend. Minyun wrote: I think Jung made some ground here, explaining that archetypes, the father, the mother, the killer etc. all reside within us, wether we like it or not. Being human is not being just, human being is understanding this. We are all the same. Right, this is the reason what distinguishes us is our actions - that is a pre-requisite to a 'mindset'.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 11/05/09 - 01:24 AM:	#39
Minyun wrote: I once saw a deaf musician being applauded for, in sign. I thought to myself, how is applauding normally (that of clapping hands together) different from that of applauding in sign (that of shaking hands in air). Really, to the person who is deaf, there is no difference. The only difference that is infered, is that we make a distinction between those that are like us and those that are not. Desidude666 wrote: He can see, that means he is thus appreciating the reaction to his action of playing the musical instrument. Remember, the reaction of the applause is appreciated because our recognition of visual/audible actions depicting reaction that is desirable. It is in the way one appreciates his actions, he becomes unique. Where does difference lead us? Minyun wrote: To label a person deaf, a rapist or gods son, means to take his humanity away, in such a way that it is different to our own humanity. Desidude666 wrote: In fact, this label can do his 'actions' a lot of 'good'. It might act as an incentive or even add value to his performances. ...or he could now think he is different from you. Where does difference lead us? Desidude666 wrote: Right, this is the reason what distinguishes us is our actions - that is a pre-requisite to a 'mindset'. This is true of reality at present but is it right? Imagine what a 1000 years of distinguising peoples actions cause... some people are human and some people are animals, but the truth behind it all is that we are all people. It is no wonder why every generation is plagued by conflict. If we really want to bring it all back home then this is the line of thinking that needs changing.

Minyun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 247

Posted 11/05/09 - 02:26 AM:	#40
Perhaps I should note that our actions are influenced by things around us (unless we become nothing), therefor freedom is insignificant. All our actions derive from previous action, his action is our action. We think that his action was somehow spontaneous, that evil really exists, and this is where we make the distinction between the good (us) and the bad (them), dividing them further and farther, adding fuel to the fire. Too often do we sit back and make a divisions where there need not be. If freedom existed, then I could say that one person is different to myself, I could then happily distinguish between the rapist and the therapist ...alas, freedom does not exist. Remember all those serial devices from way back when? The ones with countless different pins and technologies, Universal Serial Bus did alot to solve this conflicting issue, by making everything the same, allowing one machine to talk to another machine without conflict. Imagine what we could achieve if we were all the same. What do you get when you divide division?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.