— Imagine a beach ball suspended from the ceiling. further imagine all of us gathered around the perimeter gazing at this beach ball. Each one of us perceives a different portion of the beach ball. No one person can get a total view of the beach ball at once. This is a basic description of perspectivism, first defined by Gustav Teichmuller 1832-88 and taken up later by Nietzsche and Gasset.
—The most complete picture of the beach ball would be a conglomeration of all our views at once, which of course would be a monstrosity somewhat akin to viewing a fourth dimensional tesseract in three dimensions. Even spinning the beach ball or hypothetically jumping into each person’s consciousness would at best be a temporally disjointed view.
— Although it is not possible to view every perspective simultaneously (the act of knowing is always the act of excluding(Think about the consequences of this for omniscience)), Is it possible to view multiple perspectives as a totality? I am not sure that this can actually be done, but i am fairly certain that in some instances it may be closely approximated using certain procedures. One may be able to view certain aspects of the totality of perspectives, but proably not every aspect of every perspective simultaneously, For instance in the prisoner’s dilemma:
Two guys go to prison. They are in separate cells and can not communicate.
If neither confesses both get out in two weeks, presumably because the police can’t prove anything.
If one confesses, the confessor gets released immediately and the other gets 6 monthes.
if both confess, both do time for 2 years.
— If you view the potential prison time from the perspective of either prisoner, you may be tempted to confess; But if you consider BOTH prisoner’s perspectives and the TOTAL potential prison time it makes sense not to confess.
— One could further relate this to Peter Singer’s rule of considering the interests of every sentient being affected by our actions…, but alas, i have digressed enough.
For some reason I have been blessed to be able to take in many, many perspectives over time and simultaneously. I guess I have been fortunate to have had that opportunity. Sometimes, it is easier to take in different perspectives from music and books because it is de-personalized, you can discount the eccentricities of each person’s personality. Personality is often noise that gets in the way of understanding to use a communication theory metaphor. It is more pure. Also, some perspectives are poison and you can’t take it in and still be healthy. There was a wise man that said, “the philosopher as philosopher has no autobiography”, which is an idea that I will take to my grave.
— I think one of the tenets of perspectivism is that there are no privileged perspectives, no God’s Eye View. I think that is what cba1067950 was trying to say in that intelligence thread. Perhaps this thread would fit in better in the essays and theses section.
I think the classic theory is not the prisoner’s one but rather the friend one
You have a best friend.
Your best friend’s lover tells you he\she cheats.
OPTIONS:
If you tell your best friend, he\she will be upset cos he\she trusted you with that secret yet you told your best friend… even if your best friend is his\her lover
You don’t… but your best friend thinks “what kind of a friend is he if he knows, but doesn’t tell me my lover cheats on me”
So… in any option the old saying is right “the messenger always gets killed”.
On the other hand… is it so good to have many perspectives of soemthing ? Superficial peple settle with just the “what you see is what you get theory”. We may laugh at them and consider them shallow, but maybe they’re right. Metaphorically speaking I guess
— Interesting! My honesty has frequently gotten me into these type of situations. Nobody said that truth was going to be easy…
— Still i don’t believe that lying is always wrong ( i lean towwards consequentialism rather than deontology). If someone breaks into your house and asks where your children are…
— Remaining silent is always an option.
Well… silence is not always the best solution… as it is mostly interpreted as “YES”… lol… on the other hand it may prve indiference… and again a dispute between you and your friend… sort of like “you don’t even care ? blah blah”…
Which reminds me… it is said that for every problem there’s an infinite number of solutions… Maybe it is interpreted wrong… instead of “solutions” it should say “perspectives”. As not all “perspectives” are, indeed, solutions.
Personally, i would have to tell. Honesty is an over-flowing of the truth that lets things stand for what they really are. If she is really my best friend then she will understand that i value her friendship; And for the other person, Is cheating a cheater cheating? I think reciprocity would even indicate that i should tell, returning honesty with honesty, and dishonesty with dishonesty. I would tell even if the person cheating were a better best friend. Perhaps the problem demonstrates that lying is a necessary part of being honest, i.e. that it is necessary to break one's promise not to tell in order to prevent A GREATER EVIL (such as my best friend contracting HIV). I anxiously await your critique on this matter...
The messenger always gets it. Most people absolutely refuse to break out of the narrow perspective that contemporary culture has given them.
Not all perspectives are solutions, they just help you to understand the problem better; And understanding the problem is the FIRST part of the solution.
“The messenger always gets it. Most people absolutely refuse to break out of the narrow perspective that contemporary culture has given them.”
Nice observation! I think that tv and radio are no more no less than mind control but sometimes they are fun so you watch or listen anyway. Moderation is the key.
Nice touch, Marshall. I totally agree with you so far.
theoryofexist, I once saw an April 1st News report on a very popular TV Station… all 30 minutes of it which included “fake” news… Of course most people didn’t realize they were jokes occuring on April 1st… so they bought 'em.
Later on they told everyone it was a joke, to relax blah blah.
Then, calls were made to the station… some stating “Hehe funny one… good job… we were all uptight… blah blah… that was jsut what we needed… blah blah”… and other calls “Why did you do it ? blah blah… you scared the living daylights out of us… blah blah” and so on…
What honestly scared me was the fact that if the station REALLY wanted to fake a story, nobody would have known the difference between the real report and the made-believe one… But funny enough, nobody wondered this…
I think most people are starting to act like zombies"… being naive and believing everything that’s being thrown at them without wondering if it’s true or not. If TV said it’s night outside… nobody would look as to see if it’s actually daytime or nighttime, and just take their word… at least some are… Ah well…
I swear i almost said “Life is capricious” in that other thread about coins, that’s amazing.
I had a leftist friend who intoduced me to Noam Chomsky and his talks about media influences, it really opened my mind. It managed to give my life some balance.
Noam Chomsky rules, he would make a great president, I just wish he would run, I guess he doesn’t have the necessary toughness or personality to deal with all these political a’h’s. They should make me the next president, I would make things real good real fast. Too bad its never going to happen.
As for you almost saying that, I am not surprised since you seem to see reality somewhat clearly. It is a thousand year old saying among the Italians, who love capriciousness, and may have in fact invented it, I think it means something like “fast” like in the Itaian capricioso which I beleive it is a musical term that means “with haste” and furtherly comes from the word “choice” signifying that “he who lives makes decisions and seizes the day”. I could be wrong here however, this is all from my mind.
