The Pathos of Distance

The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -

    Create a Dialogue

    Zoot Allures

    Posts : 525
    Join date : 2018-02-07
    Age : 501

    Create a Dialogue Empty Create a Dialogue

    Post by Zoot Allures on Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:46 pm

    when i was asked, i answered 'i would not want that, for it is against my will.' the fellow then asked me if it was my will which gave cause for me not wanting it, or, if it was just not wanting it that was an expression of my will.

    i scratched my head and thought about the question. 'what do you mean', i asked increduously, 'aren't these the same thing?'

    the fellow smiled and said 'if the first were not the case, would you or i know the difference?'

    'i don't suppose whatever caused me to not want it can be known, no, so i guess not', i replied.

    he went on, 'but we can know without a doubt that you didn't accidentally not want it, and that this must mean you meant to not want it, yes?'

    'of course, but i see where you're going and there's still a problem here,' i added quickly. 'you're trying to simplify the meaning of the word 'will', but to say my action was an expression of my will still leaves the question; what is my will. why not just say 'i would not want that, because i don't like it?'

    'because we could ask the same thing about your not liking it. wouldn't that be an expression of your will as well', he answered.

    'i see what you mean. well then, i don't see what the problem is here, or why you are asking the question.'

    'i'm asking', he said 'because i want to show you how the word 'will' means anything at all. we can't look inside for an answer, nor behind the word. we can only look at what you do, not why you do it.'

    'ah, but wouldn't i have to explain with words that i don't want it... and that my behavior, what i do, isn't enough?'

    'what came first, do you think? the feeling of aversion or the word to express it?'

    'the feeling, of course. human beings behaved this way before they had language.'

    'so we understood the behavior before we knew how to explain it, yes?'

    'i suppose so.'

    'then what is added to the meaning of the behavior when we call it 'will'?'

    'oh... i see now what you mean.'

    'and has anything changed about the feeling of aversion... has anything changed in our experience of aversion other than the addition of the word to now describe it; to say 'it is my will to not want this? what if, instead, we were to say 'i do not want this, for it is against my elu?'

    'nothing would be different except the word, yes.'

    'and whatever the word, it signifies the same thing.'

    'I agree.'

    'and what if we went on to ask if the elu was the cause of you not wanting it, or if not wanting it was an expression of your elu? our situation would be no different. we would deny the first because it couldn't be known, and we would affirm the second because we would assume you couldn't not want it by accident.'

    'nothing's changed then. the word is really irrelevent... or relevent only to signify the meaning of a behavior.'

    'that's right. words accrue around our behavior, but do nothing to change it or give it any more meaning. if they did give our behavior meaning, our behavior would change if the word changed. an act of will and an act of elu would be two different things.'

    'but those words mean the same thing.'

    'precisely! so it doesn't matter what you call it or how you describe it- the behavior would be the same! if the behavior is the same, we can only know that you don't want it, and never the reason why. we can distinguish between the two behaviors- what is intended and what is not- by whether or not you mean to do it. that is all.'

    'then what is the purpose of philosophy... of all the great thinkers who have wondered at why we do what we do? are you saying all the theories of the 'will' are meaningless?'

    'i can't say that, because whether or not a proposition is meaningless depends on its relation to other propositions, not necessarily on the world. what i'm saying is that philosophy exists in its own environment, something disconnected from our world, from how we understand our activity. philosophy is not nonsense so long as we understand that what it is doing is not explaining anything, but helping us clarify and correct the problems that arise in our peculiar uses of language... which, incidentally, is what we have just done.'

    Posts : 89
    Join date : 2018-02-13

    Create a Dialogue Empty Re: Create a Dialogue

    Post by witchdoctor on Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:34 pm

    Joe: "The speed of light is constant."
    Bill: "Prove it."
    Joe: *presents long series of readings of the speed of light over time, all of which demonstrate that the speed of light remained constant throughout the examination*
    Bill: "But you haven't examined light during the entire history of the universe..."
    Joe: "Are you saying that the speed of light is not constant?"
    Bill: "Whoa there, I did not say that. Just think that you're being a little too aggressive with your affirmations of fact."
    Joe: "If you have a problem with me saying that the speed of light is constant, Bill, why don't you make the jump and say 'not so'?"
    Bill: "Because I wouldn't want that burden of proof upon me!"
    Joe: "Ah, I see. You'd rather sit on the side and cast doubt while I do all the work?"
    Bill: "No Joe, I'm just here to remind you that science is not a religion."
    Joe: "You know what, I appreciate what you're doing Bill. Questioning a theory creates the pressure it needs to grow stronger."
    Bill: "Uh huh..."
    Joe: "What if I write it down like this: 'There is no data to suggest that anything can travel faster than light'."
    Bill: "I think that it sounds much better. I am more comfortable with that, as that is an actual observable fact. Anyone can go in the records and see for themselves."
    Joe: "I can use the constant speed of light to calculate tons of things though. You know, rocket science... These things do fly and end up in Mars, even if based on affirmations that can't be 100% proved true."
    Bill: "I'd say that these uses of your theory provide further evidence of their truth, but not a complete proof."
    Joe: "That remind me... there's a crazy dude in Portugal with a theory that the speed of light was not constant during the moments right after the Big Bang... I think he called it VS theory, for Variable Speed. It was great that he did so, because we got to call it the Very Silly Theory lol"
    Bill: "lol omg wtf bbq and then you high-fived your other science buddies and gave the guy a wedgie?
    Joe: "ah, cmon..."
    Joe: "GET OUT OF MY LAB, BILL, you're late for your philosophy group."

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 353

    Create a Dialogue Empty Re: Create a Dialogue

    Post by Barracuda on Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:04 pm

    Socrates: Isn't it true that the good is that which we find good and that that which we find good is that which proves to us to be truly good and isn't it true that you...

    Pete: No.

    Socrates: ... What? Do you mean?

    Pete: Its not true.

    Socrates: You mean, what precisely isn't true?

    Pete: What you said.

    Socrates: And what, esteemed sir, is it that I said?

    Pete: Since you already forgot, it is no wonder it wasnt true.

    Socrates: Thats not what I meant.

    Pete: Too bad, man. You ought to have been expressing yourself with more clarity, then.

    Socrates: But havent you just proven to me that I am right, for isn't it the case that...

    ** Pete walks out***

    ** Socrates runs after him **

    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Sponsored content

    Create a Dialogue Empty Re: Create a Dialogue

    Post by Sponsored content

      Current date/time is Sun May 26, 2019 7:47 pm