a new understanding of today, time and space.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:05 pm

Peter Kropotkin: a plane figure with three sides and three angles...…..

what am I?

K: can you figure out what a plane figure with three sides and three angles
is, without, without resorting to experience?.......

Now some may say, I learned that in school and that is using experience
to find out what my riddle is..... without using any experience, can you
discover what my riddle is?

the answer is no... you cannot figure out what my riddle is without
a resort to experience....... experience of some sort or another......

If a priori understanding was actually possible, then we wouldn't need to
teach children in school what items such as....hint, hint, squares and circles
and ..... what triangles are...... we spend a great deal in childhood playing
with toys that represent the various shapes that exists..
if we had a priori understanding of the world, that wouldn't be necessary......

we learn from teaching and experience how to order the universe
and what morals are and the shape of objects and that 1 + 1 = 2......
all matters we learn from experience......

Kant claimed that we have an innate group of categories that
allow us to understand reality... the problem lies with some
understanding from where do the "innate categories" come from?

we are born with innate categories but we aren't born with
an innate understand of math or english or shapes or space/time....

so where does this innate catagories come from?

it has to come from somewhere, so where?

answer me this and I shall die a happy man........

answer me this and I shall become a convert to Kantism........

where do innate catagories come from?

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:22 pm

as I read and attempt to make sense of Kant,
I wonder a couple of things...… first of all,
what does this whole idea of Kant's really mean for
the human problem of existence...………..

yes, Kant was aiming as all philosophers aim for, which
is certainty and order...……...but I am old and I have reason to
suspect this need for certainty...….

the most dangerious people on planet earth are the ones who
are "certain" that this is so or that is true.........
religious fanatics are "certain" that there is a god and that
there is heaven and the entire point of existence is to reach
heaven and they are certain...........

certainty leads people to ignore logic, understanding, compassion,
intelligence............ why have any of those things if you are certain?

IQ45 is certain he is right and acts upon that certainty... to the clear
and obvious detriment of America.........he is unable to see the damage
he is doing because he is "certain" what he is doing is right.... he is simply
the most visible and obvious candidate of someone who is "certain" and
doing incredible damage to us as a country............

being absolutely certain allows one to act as if it doesn't matter
what the cost are, because you are certain and to be certain means
to be right...…. and if you are right, then the cost is negligible because
you aren't paying the cost...… someone else is.... and that is the problem with
being certain..... the cost is almost always being born by someone else,
not the person who is certain...…….

in my ideal world, we would have no certainty, no reason to be
certain because everything is in doubt and when people are in doubt,
they act more slowly and with care and caution..... unlike those who are certain...…

having doubt or uncertainty doesn't mean less will happen or
that we will become timid.... no, it just means that we
won't act stupidly because we aren't so certain that we are right...….

so in regards to philosophy, I reject the object of philosophy
as being a search for certainty...………..the object of philosophy
is to gain the truth or to find one's place in the universe or to
at least understand the questions of life... and none of these have
anything to do with certainty or finding certainty...…

the search for certainty is the search for a need to be filled, but
that need to be certain leads one to make grave and dangerous
mistakes...………… better to do without
certainty then to have certainty and think you have all the answers....
and when you act with certainty, others pay the price for your
"certainty".

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:48 pm

we must accept the fact that we are subject to the same
"laws"/ "rules" that govern planets, stars, biological matter,
space/time.........

they have their set rules, for example, light must travel at a
certain speed and pig cannot grow wings and we cannot overcome
gravity and fly with just our arms flapping......

are their exceptions to the rules/laws of nature? of course, but
and this is important, to violate those rules means that violation undermines
the stability or order of nature..........order here means the order needed to
maintain a stable system, which is what we are talking about.... if we violate
the rules, we threaten the stability of the system in question........

we can violate the rules/laws of society, but we threaten the stability
of society.... if planets can move outside of their orbits, they threaten
the stability of the solar system they reside in.......

the rules/laws exist to allow the system to maintain order in which it
needs to maintain its stability........ and allows it to keep functioning.....

so, when Kant propose a rule/ law that says, what if we made this law universal,
so, he says,

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity both in your own
person and in the person of all others, never as a means only but as an end"

now the real question becomes, does this "law/rule" allow the system,
the social system to continue to function, does it allow the system to
to remain stable? and if the answer is yes, then it is a good rule/law.....

Kant treats moral issues as part of "duty"..... it is your duty to
act in such a way as to treat humanity as a end, not as an means.....

a duty.................. where would this idea of duty come from?
duty is cold and inhuman and heartless...…… for following duty
and only duty, it allows much of the inhumanity of the day.....

the I.C.E agent who separates a child from his family isn't heartless
or insensitive, no, he is just following his duty...…
a guard at a concentration camp sending Jews to their death isn't
heartless or insensitive, nope, he is just following his duty...….

at what point does becoming responsible for ones actions,
override duty.... at what point does the concentration camp
guard becomes responsible for his actions even if he was doing his
duty...…………..so at some point, following one's duty can lead one
to commit acts of treason or acts against humanity...….

so we might be able to accept Kant's individual idea's like
treating humanity as an ends, not an means,
we cannot follow Kant and make morality as a matter
of duty because in following duty, we can commit actions
against humanity and by claiming duty, we can escape
our responsibility for said acts...……….

following duty cannot allow us to be no longer accountable
for our actions...……………… a concentration guard is accountable,
is responsible for his actions of marching the Jews to their death,
regardless of their "duty"...……

so, we reject Kant and his belief that morality is an act of duty...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:37 pm

Who am I?

the way we self identify suggest that we don't know "who we are"?

for example, I might self identify as a liberal or a democrat
or as an American...….but, those self identification
aren't really who I am, they are what I believe.... I for example,
being a liberal means I am telling you what political philosophy
I follow, or being a democrat means I am telling you what political
party I follow or identify with...…….I am an American not by choice,
but because I was born on this side of a line and not on the other side
of a line...…….being an American is about an accidental trait like
being white or being male.. I didn't choose them... they were accidents
of my birth...…. just as being born handicap..... it choose me, I didn't choose it.....

we self identify with our accidental traits, white, male, American.....
that can't really be who we are if they are accidents of who we are...…
something that happened without any choice on our part...….

as far as being liberal or being democrat, it means we are identifying
with a ism, an ideology...……. we identify with an ism, that doesn't
mean that is who we are, that is merely an ism we believe in, not who
we are...………… so this question of who we are, who am I, is really
a question that we don't even understand because we
identify ourselves with accidental traits or ism's, that have nothing
to do with us personally, they are just things we believe in...……….
but that isn't who we are, is it? perhaps that is exactly who we are....
we are simple a collection of the things we believe in, accidental traits
and ism/ideologies that make up, who we are...…..

there is not there, there.... there is no thing I can point to
and say, that is who I am...………………… it is simply a
collection of beliefs and accidental traits that make up the
human being...….we are those, the who we are, is the collection
of beliefs and accidental traits...…… that is who we are...…….

perhaps...….perhaps not...… maybe, just maybe Hume was right...…

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:48 pm

Now Hume thought there was no such thing as a personality..
Who am I, was really just a series of reactions to sensations,
no real "I", just a rapid series of reactions to stimuli with no central
coordination or central place for the "I"....and if you see people respond
to the question, Who are you? with responses like I am an American or
I am white, answers that are about the accidental properties or traits
we are..... but this doesn't understand or answer the question,

Who am I? Who am I, isn't about being white or being an American,
it is about, who we are...…...do I read, yes, but that isn't who I am,
do I study philosophy, yes, but that isn't who I am

think of the question, who am I...……..and put the answers into
a set theory of math...… I read, that gets me into a subset of readers,
I study philosophy and that gets me into another subset...…

I am male and that gets me into a subset of being male or
the subset of being white or the subset of having brown hair.....

then within the circles of the various subsets, you get circle after
circle after circle with me being in the middle of all of those subsets....

but is that really who I am? just a listing of various accidental
traits? traits I had no choice over like being white or being born American?

how about traits, wait a minute, should I call my choices like being
religious a trait? If I choose to believe in god, is that a trait or is that
something else? but do I believe in god because of my childhood
indoctrinations which means I didn't get to choose again, I was trained
to believe in god and that isn't choice...…….. it was accidental once again.....
so we cannot admit certain traits to being mine and mine alone if the
are the result of being childhood indoctrinations like being an American
means being indoctrinated into capitalism or democracy from childhood.....
but the reality is that if I don't choose an ism or an ideology, but was
indoctrinated into them from childhood, that those beliefs of capitalism
and democracy, they too are accidental and thus subject to be called
traits...…. but what if I choose to be something, what if I chose
to believe in god, not as an accidental traits from childhood indoctrinations,
but from an actual understanding of what it means to be religious???????

something that is no longer an accidental trait, but being a choice, freely done....
is that who I am? freely made choices about what I believe in..... that still
tell me about my choices, not who I am...………..let me think about this for
a moment...……… ummmmmmm, I read a lot of philosophy books and I think
and I study philosophy, that seems to paint a picture of someone who is
rational, someone who thinks, someone who resolves problems with thought,
not just feelings..... that does tell us something about who I am.....

I am a rationalist, someone who thinks and that does tell us something
about me, who I am...……. that thinking is not a accidental trait or
something I was indoctrinated with, because how we think is not a function
of being indoctrinated...… it is a choice we make as to how we respond to
the world and the sensations we get from our senses, eyes, ears, nose, touch,
tongue...……..

who am I?

I am someone who thinks...….

we have reduced our question into the basic form of thought or
reacting emotionally, and I think...………

so one response to the question of who am I, is
the answer, I think...….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:06 am

we have a couple of reactions to make...….

in light of the good versus evil question...…
we understand "good" and "evil" as two distinct
and separate issues, but we understand that "good"
and "evil" are really just perspectives...…….

take the Holocaust, it has been classified as "evil" and yet,
and yet, was it? People did benefit from the removal of Jews
and communist and Gays into those concentration camps....
People were able to get better jobs, make more money,
have a better house because the Jews were taken away...
from this standpoint, the removal of people into concentration camps
was not "evil".... it was good because it benefited people
and any event that was a benefit to people cannot be counted as
"evil"

but take the Jewish people or the communist or Gays that were transported
to concentration camps to die, it was "evil" nothing more, nothing less.....

so, is removal of people into concentration camps, "good" or "evil"?
depends on your viewpoint...….. but take an event and let us look at it.....

for example, a tree falls.... in one case the tree falls and it kills a lion
that was about to eat some people..... in another case, the tree fell
and killed some children.... now for some people, the tree falling and killing
the lion was a "good" thing and for some people the tree killing children is an
"evil" thing...…. depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

so, how is one to understand the tree falling?

you see the act, the tree falls, you see the tree killing either the lion
or killing the children...…………. but you cannot make a judgment without
bringing in some other evidence...…….. for example, the visual image
of the tree falling doesn't allow one to make some moral judgement..
the fact the tree will kill one life form or the other life, still doesn't
allow some moral judgement..... to make a "moral judgement" one must
have facts outside the actions itself...…

to make this clear, let us take two similar emotions.....

let us say, that for me, to get a sexual thrill, I like watching two women,
now let us say, that for some person, raping and killing children, also
brings about a sexual thrill..... if we just judge it based on the
result that the actions have on us, we both get sexual thrills....if that
is the criteria, then it doesn't matter what the action we take to reach
the sexual thrill.... the point is to have the sexual thrill...……….
not how we got the sexual thrill...………….

but to justify either action, we must go beyond the act of causing
the sexual thrill...…. It can be argued that my looking at two women
having sex is "less" a danger then some person raping and killing children...…
but we have to go beyond the action, go beyond the sexual thrill and
bring in outside reasons for our actions to be "judge" right or wrong...…..

Now one may object to both actions equally, as watching two women
debases and demean and destroys what women are and raping and killing
children destroys lives that had no choice of any kind...……….

in other words, the path to understanding the "rightness" or "wrongness"
of any action lies outside of the action itself.... you cannot call an action
"right" or "wrong" or "good" or "evil" based on just the actions themselves.....

any explanations must come from outside of the actions...…………

the criteria for judging "right" from "wrong" doesn't come from the action itself,
the criteria comes from some outside source..... society cannot function if we allow
people to rape and kill children but society can and does function if we allow
men (or women) for that matter to watch two women have sex...…..

and we can create other reasons for accepting one action or another, but
those reasons come from outside of the actions itself....

so the standard we might use to judge such matters arise from outside of
the actions because we cannot know from an action itself if it is "good"
or "evil" until we take some inventory of the event and note the pluses
or minus of any given event...……. it is after the fact that we decide
if an event is "good" or "evil" or simply just neutral...…………..
and we use criteria outside of or beyond the event itself...……..

So "good" and "evil" require some analysis, some full understanding
of the event and its aftermath before we can consider an event to
be "good" or "evil"...…………

or said another way, understanding "good" and "evil" requires some
perspective and a full accounting before we can make some declaration
to the value of the words "good" or "evil" and apply the words "good" and "evil" to
any action...…..

to understand "good" and "evil" requires a judgement to be made...
and we must understand the basis of that judgement for the
judgement to have any value...…………..

and the judgement requires an explanation outside of the event
and outside of some personal moral understanding...…………

is "good' and is "evil" "subjective"?

the problem with that, is the fact that we must bring in outside
evidence to "correctly" understand any judgment we might make...….

we cannot properly understand an event until we use some outside
criteria and not just judge the event by itself..... but we run into
another problem, which outside criteria should we use?

But Kropotkin, you haven't answered anything, you haven't solved
anything.... you just have more questions...…….. yep...…….

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:00 pm

so if we understand this whole question about "good" and "evil" correctly,
then to be able to judge something being "good" or "evil", we must resort
to some outside the event criteria...…. in other words, we see an event,
a tree falling and we cannot judge the moral implications until we've done
a complete analysis of the event...…..

ummmmmm, ok, we have our childhood indoctrinations,
the myths, biases, prejudices and superstitions that we are taught
from birth...…………… we take these indoctrinations and accept them as is....
we are taught that there is a god or that America is the greatest country
on earth.. prejudices really... and because we haven't done as Nietzsche
has suggested which is.. "to have the courage for an attack upon our convictions"
we just simply accept our convictions, the myths and biases and prejudices
and superstitions of our indoctrinations as the basis for our understanding
of the universe, of reality...…

when we look to outside evidence to understand if something is "good" or "evil",
we resort to our convictions, which are nothing more then the myths and bias
and ism's and prejudices of our childhood indoctrinations...………..

the very evidence we use to understand if something is "good" or "evil" is itself
bias and prejudice and of superstitions...………..

that outside criteria we use to understand if something is "good" or "evil"
is nothing more than the biases we are used to since we have had them
since childhood...…."good" and "evil" is nothing more then the
myths and biases and prejudices and superstitions of our childhood
indoctrinations...…………

so how are to know what is really and truly "good" or "evil"?

by overcoming our myths, habits, bias, prejudice, superstitions,
and ism's that we were indoctrinated with as children...…

that is the only sure path to our becoming aware of what is truly
"good" or "evil"...…….............

If a man declares an event to be "evil" what he really means is,
that is an bias I was indoctrinated with as a child and I never outgrew it
because I never overcame it.........................

what we call "good" and "evil" are simply childhood indoctrinations
that we haven't the courage to overcome.............

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: a new understanding of today, time and space.

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:52 pm

how do we actually understand things?


let us take a previous example, a tree falls down...….

how would a child who hasn't been indoctrinated understand
a tree falling down?

it becomes a magical event...….. the child does not and can not understand the
cause of events required to have a tree fall down...………

if you don't have some causal understanding of an event, it becomes
magical...…..

another example is a elevator..... from a child perspective, a door
opens up and then people walk out... and the elevator is empty...the door closes....
then a few moments later, the door reopens with more people in it...….
wow...… a magic event where a door opens up and an empty box/ room,
becomes full again with people who then walk out and over and over again....
we know that the elevator goes from floor to floor picking up people...
but a child doesn't know that...….. and we have to explain to the child the
"trick" of the elevator...….. it no longer becomes a magic event...….

but for a child to understand, they must be taught the causal relationship
of the event, the elevator and how it moves from floor to floor....
until the child understand it is the elevator that moves from floor to floor,
the child won't understand how it picks up people...………. from the child's
standpoint, most of life seems to be magic..... and from their perspective, it
is...………… because they don't have the causal understanding of reality...……..

which is why Kant is wrong in his understanding of the universe being in
categories...…………… we don't understand the universe that way until
we are taught the categories and what the categories are for...…..

in other words, we learn from experience what the categories are and
how they are used...……….. not from some innate sense of the categories...…

we learn what motion is from people describing motion or we learn motion
from actually doing motion... from experience.... we learn what space
is from either a description or from experience, not from some innate
category because the category itself must be furnished from experienced.....

when we are adults and we have categories, learned from cold hard experience,
we can label or categorize or time or weigh matter or experiences and put
them into a category learned from experience...………. not an innate idea...…


the category of hot things we learned from experiencing hot things
and the category of hard things we learned from experincing hard things.....
and time and space from our ever present existence in space and time.......

does a fish understand it is in water? no, it is just the enviroment
that the fish has existed in all its life and it doesn't know or understand
any other enviroment... space and time are simply the enviroment we
have existed in all our lives.........and thus we don't need to have an "innate"
or a category of space/time.... it already exists and has all our lives......

what we fail to understand is the human being has existed within
a enviroment all of our lives... it is a part of us......we no more think
of the sun as being a star as we do of earth being a planet..........
it just is and has been all of our lives... it doesn't need a category...

oxygen was discovered in 1772... no one bothered to look for it because
it never occurred to anyone.... because we have always have had
oxygen... it is part of the enviroment.... why look for something that
is ever present..... the question of space/time is the same thing....
it is always there..... ever present......

to create categories for our understanding is to miss the entire
point of childhood where we learn from birth, such things space/time/ matter
events/causal relationships and we learn such things from experience
and from people's explanation of what happened and why..........


Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6610
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users