How does it work?
Does it work for me?
What, if anything, do I contribute to its working?
What, if anything, contributes to its working other than I?
“It” here=any idea.
“Work”=has meaning for.
If the something is a movie, I believe the ability to work is independent. The meaning of the movie Sorority Row (2009) or Spectre doesn’t need me to watch it in order for its meaning to exist (or potential meanings); but then is that a contradiction?
If I get more out of a movie at night than during the day, I’ll still just believe that that’s an arbitrary occurrence, and that potentially the meaning is possible in the reverse: art books or movies don’t need timing in order to have meaning.
Yet the movie has to have someone to watch it in order for it to have meaning other than that of the producers.
What, if anything, contributes to its meaning other than I? Can you not discuss a movie with a friend who has seen it simply because you have not seen it?
Yet the movie has to have someone to watch it in order for it to have meaning other than that of the producers.
What, if anything, contributes to its meaning other than I? Can you not discuss a movie with a friend who has seen it simply because you have not seen it?
[/quote]
I don’t believe that art or movies need someone to experience them, because I don’t believe in personal subjectivity. The meaning of Sorority Row applies to anyone in Tehran, or to anyone who fought in the Second World War, despite the setting of the film being the US, and an American College.
I don’t believe that art or movies need someone to experience them, because I don’t believe in personal subjectivity. The meaning of Sorority Row applies to anyone in Tehran, or to anyone who fought in the Second World War, despite the setting of the film being the US, and an American College.
[/quote]
You don’t believe in personal subjectivity? What else is there? What planet are you from? You are taking into account my posts subjectively!
But we’re getting away from the OP. I don’t want a dead end discussion on what is subjective or objective. I’m trying here to set some parameter for the wide range of philosophy known as pragmatism.
You don’t believe in personal subjectivity? What else is there? What planet are you from? You are taking into account my posts subjectively!
But we’re getting away from the OP. I don’t want a dead end discussion on what is subjective or objective. I’m trying here to set some parameter for the wide range of philosophy known as pragmatism.
[/quote]
Pragmatism implies subjectivity, but subjectivity and objectivity both being real is counterintuitive isn’t it? Or is it? Relative to art, what is your goal in applying pragmatism? If movies are free to have their meaning changed, what is the ability that’s allowing that universal relativism?
I won’t slide on the subjective vs objective slippery slope. The most we know of objectivity amounts to consensus of agreement on subjective opinions.
The question is–if it works for you, is it true for you?
Even facts change. Atlanta was not always the name for the capitol of Georgia. It used to be called Marthasville.
Science progresses because of the possibility that any scientific theory is falsifiable.
“The only constant is change”—Heraclitus
So how does one describe a constant in a state of flux?
In other words, the ability of reality is the ability of error.
“Ability of reality?” What do you mean by that? Error is the illusion we believe to be real.
And we constantly believe our illusions (thoughts, beliefs, feelings, emotions) to be real rather than temporarily fabricated imaginings.
What might you specifically identify a fabricated imagining?
I was referencing scientific progression being dependent on error. My own research has suggested that reality needs no resolution, and thus needs error.
Temporarily fabricated imaginings are any/all thoughts, feelings and beliefs (including attributing meaning to this text that I write and you read).
Any thought is potentially false. I see. What if though thoughts are the means to real progress - real progress meaning a state that “God” wants to exist?
Thoughts can mean the difference between WWIII and global peace, therefore if thoughts are possibly all unconnected to the reason of existence (assuming there is one), relative to God global peace is meaningless.
Makes sense, Shelly. I’d say you’re right on that point.
Do the bombs grasp and understand the horrors of non-peace or is it minds (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, emotions) that grasp and understand the horrors of non-peace?
What do you mean?
I mean, if a house is knocked down (by an earthquake or alterntively a bomb) and someone dies, it is our minds (thoughts, feelings, emotions, beliefs) that grasp and understands the event.
Of course. I think uniformity is what stops civilizations from preventing all means of violence. An example being that all homo sapiens can be the reality of a forum discussion, or a query to a literary agent, but uniformity stops this as being a means to no war.