• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My theoretical framework

quixotecoyote said:
Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.
Click to expand...

You want fries with that?
 
Phaedrus74 said:
Considering the fact that the theoretical framework proposed is a pretty good, albeit rough, summary of Kant transcendental idealism would be a more apropriate name.

Also quixotecoyote, don't forget that hermeneutics is in the end about things not words or concepts! "Being" is ontologically prior to "being-there"...

And finally, just because knowledge and inference start with perception does not warrant the conclusion that the connection between an event and the beliefs caused by that event are inherently unreliable. Error-prone?Maybe. Unreliable? No. There simply is no good reason to assume that the noumena that cause my perceptions at this moment are anything other than what I believe them to be, namely a desk, a bunch of paper and a computer monitor. It's a lot of fun to imagine otherwise, I enjoyed the Matrix a lot (though I enjoyed eXistenZ more), but in everyday life (also the everyday life of an academic philosopher) it's nearly always a waste of time. (Except when you're in a pub drinking a couple of beers...)
Click to expand...


(non-sarcastic clapping)
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
You just have a radically different cognitive style than the more metaphysically minded Bodhi Dharma Zen. You're two completely different cognitive animals who naturally seek out and function in different niches.
Click to expand...

I think the difference may be that I spent 13 years in academia -- studying language, how it is used and misused, and how we process it... and reading more than anyone's fair share of academic bloviation, as well -- and I can smell verbal BS 3 counties away.
 
Robin said:
I think he of the eternal quixotic and fruitless search for klaxonic sustenance in the wilderness is perhaps having us on.
Click to expand...

Yes, I considered that, as well. If so, it's an excellent effort.

Nonetheless, my comment regarding the language itself stands, seeing as how, if it is a parody, it is one which is indistinguishable from the real article.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Is the moon out there when we are not watching it?

It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in the world.

Only someone lost in their own mental musings could make a statement like that.
 
D'rok said:
I'm almost disappointed to find out that plain old-fashioned post-modernism is at the root of the OP. Hasn't the academic world left that mess behind yet?
Click to expand...

Nah, still popular in certain disciplines (literary theory for instance).

In philosophy it depends on the area (Social and political philosophy: yes. Epistemology: no.) and the University where you study...
 
Phaedrus74 said:
Nah, still popular in certain disciplines (literary theory for instance).

In philosophy it depends on the area (Social and political philosophy: yes. Epistemology: no.) and the University where you study...
Click to expand...

Encountering Heidegger, Derrida, and Lyotard sent me screaming from political philosophy and into law. (Hegel too...but he's not post-modern; Hegel just killed modernity and made post-modernity possible). (Law is making me scream too, but for different reasons).
 
D'rok said:
Encountering Heidegger, Derrida, and Lyotard sent me screaming from political philosophy and into law. (Hegel too...but he's not post-modern; Hegel just killed modernity and made post-modernity possible). (Law is making me scream too, but for different reasons).
Click to expand...

I personally didn't have any problems with Heidegger (apart from his politics that is). Derrida and Lyotard I didn't encounter enough to develop a like/dislike relation, but then again I specialized in epistemology and philosophy of language....

I did take a class in "Political Theologies" which I enjoyed a great deal, but this class was taught by the same guy that did the Heidegger class and he was generally level-headed and very knowledgable about other disciplines (guess I was lucky in that respect).

What I liked about some of the work associated with post-modernism (Foucault springs to mind) is that it really forced you to take a step back and evaluate your presuppositions. In that sense it can be 'therapeutical' (Rorty's term). But if you're sane to begin with it will probably just annoy the H%^^ out of you :D
 
quixotecoyote said:
Ha! It is the sheltered philosopher who dares not question the assumption of shared perception. In fact, the oft trumpeted empiricism so commonly associated with positivism requires shared assumptions as its axiomatic bedrock. Without acknowledging the need for a standard basis of comparison, it is impossible to reach anything objectively. Thus the colorblind person conversing with one capable to observing the normal spectra of human perceptible wavelength must, by default, disprove the assumptions of empiricism and by extension unenlightened skepticism. Thus the asynchronism of brain-wave patterns, the logical extension of BDZ's post #99, delivers a withering barrage of subjectivity suppression fire against Alric's objectivity cannon. For if brain activity is observed to be markedly different in separate individuals in response to the same phenomena, then it verifies the precedence of noumena in the ontological hierarchy to the point of rendering any meaningful epistemology inaccessible. Only through an alternative praxis can an approximation of the natural world be attained. It is this new vision that BDZ casts before you. The progressive staging of perception to conceptualization replaces the flawed reliance of observation as a foundational heuristic.
Click to expand...

I've never nominated a post before, but this one deserves it. I love it, man. I don't know why I chose this over your first post, probably only because I was looking at it now. Good parody is never a waste.:)
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
I've never nominated a post before, but this one deserves it. I love it, man. I don't know why I chose this over your first post, probably only because I was looking at it now. Good parody is never a waste.:)
Click to expand...

So he was having us on then? I thought this seemed out of character, based on my limited exposure to coyote's other posts.

Well played.

ETA: I suppose the name "quixotecoyote" and the avatar should have clued me in earlier. Wile E. and quixotic indeed.
 
Last edited:
D'rok said:
So he was having us on then? I thought this seemed out of character, based on my limited exposure to coyote's other posts.

Well played.
Click to expand...

Parody in a sense but if you read what he is saying it all makes sense - it's just a rather very wordy way of saying it. The parody for me is that it is demonstrating that wordiness for its own sake, such as the opening post of this thread, is actually a hindrance to communication.
 
:wave1
Darat said:
Parody in a sense but if you read what he is saying it all makes sense - it's just a rather very wordy way of saying it. The parody for me is that it is demonstrating that wordiness for its own sake, such as the opening post of this thread, is actually a hindrance to communication.
Click to expand...

I <3 Language(abuse)

Everybody can use a post-modernism generator, it's the creation of a meaningful text whilst maintaining the semblance of non-sense that is hard.

:wave1
 
Darat said:
So that explains why a degree in philosophy takes so long...... :duck:
Click to expand...

You should have seen the looks when I told them my Master's Thesis would be no longer than 50 pages. They nearly kicked me out then and there :D
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Toothbrushes aren't concepts.

Confusing the idea of a thing for the thing itself is a sophomoric mistake.
Click to expand...

Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

Welcome to woo land! a fairy tale kingdom in which you can assume things without thinking. People like you would have never find out anything about atoms, nor would be pushed in to thinking if gravity was a force or a distortion of something else.

But don't feel that bad, this utterly naive POV of yours is shared by countless of millions. Now go play with the paste (as I guess thats the kind of thing you'll find interesting).
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Let see. Objects are real things even when you are not watching them. If you close your eyes in your bathroom the mirror, your toothbrush, the soap, the jacuzzi, everything is right there, exactly the same as when you open your eyes.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Yep and very easy to prove*


*For a definition of prove that actually makes any sense at all when used in English - of course if you want to hold that we can't "prove" anything, ever, at all - well I tell you what you invent a new word and when it's adopted for general use I'll start to use it.
 
PixyMisa said:
Yes.

The point is, if the noumena (real world) causes thought, and the noumena can uncause it, then the noumena is what is. Pure materialism.

If you want to say naturalism, rather than materialism, then that's fine too.
Click to expand...

Naturalism is, IMO, the best, followed by Physicalism. But I believe it is important to choose any of them instead of Materialism. Why?

Materialism is an old term, it represents a very naive point of view, that things are things whether we see them or not. In this sense, and from this perspective, is mere woo, and so better terms should be the tool of choice for us skeptics.

In another thread, for example, I have argued that it is preferable to say that somebody is a psychopath, instead of "evil" for the same reasons.

A definition of Naturalism comes handy:

"The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws."

I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom