19
   

Can you ever really know another person?

 
 
HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 06:20 am
I would like to correct myself.

One can't possible know another person fully, that would mean one could easily mimic another both in thoughts, apperance, behaviour and motorskills which isn't possible, specially considering one self has trouble reasoning how self are.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 08:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

Yes. It has become a "Dear Abby" column.


You know that a2k isn't strictly a philosophy forum (thank goodness for that)
and people come here for all kinds of advice and different perspectives on a subject or personal matter. Not everyone agrees - no need to, however, to pound continuously on another person for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with their opinion is quite rude.

For 7 pages you've made yourself understood - loud and clear, now give it a
rest and move on. I am sure it is not really your intent to hit someone when
they're down, unfortunately that's exactly how you come across.
Gosh, you're more tenacious than a pit bull.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:38 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Yes. It has become a "Dear Abby" column.


You know that a2k isn't strictly a philosophy forum (thank goodness for that)
and people come here for all kinds of advice and different perspectives on a subject or personal matter. Not everyone agrees - no need to, however, to pound continuously on another person for no apparent reason other than disagreeing with their opinion is quite rude.

For 7 pages you've made yourself understood - loud and clear, now give it a
rest and move on. I am sure it is not really your intent to hit someone when
they're down, unfortunately that's exactly how you come across.
Gosh, you're more tenacious than a pit bull.


What opinion of his am I disagreeing with? Not that there are times when we believe we know people and we are wrong. What I don't understand is what he was asking when he was asking whether we really know other people. It seemed to me (as I mentioned) that it was what the French call a, "cri de coeur" (literally. a cry from the heart). And not really a question at all, since he already knew the answer. The answer is, not if "really know" means that we can always predict perfectly what others will do so that we will never be wrong, and be disappointed (or, to look at the other side of it, pleasantly surprised).

Maybe this is not purely a philosophy forum, but I hope it does not turn into an advice column for those who have to undergo life's ordinary disappointments.
Dosed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 10:51 am
@kennethamy,
I'm a she.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 10:56 am
@Dosed,
Dosed wrote:

I'm a she.


Sorry.
Dosed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 11:31 am
@kennethamy,
to set the record straight, I was posing a question for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of an answer.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 11:44 am
@Dosed,
Dosed wrote:

to set the record straight, I was posing a question for the sake of discussion, not for the sake of an answer.


All right, but I am not much of a fan of aimless discussion. I don't see the point. But some do find it therapeutic, I suppose.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 11:48 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
I am not much of a fan of aimless discussion.


In the words of Setanta "Hehehehehehehe........"
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 11:51 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
I am not much of a fan of aimless discussion.


In the words of Setanta "Hehehehehehehe........"


Very clever! (You don't by any chance mean "Santa" and "Ho Ho Ho" do you?) By the way, presenting arguments in understandable English is not aimless discussion in case you don't know that. Talking rubbish in philosophese is, however.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:05 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
All right, but I am not much of a fan of aimless discussion. I don't see the point. But some do find it therapeutic, I suppose.


You don't know how many aimless discussions I have to endure in the corporate world - regardless, if you're not a fan of this type of discussion,
why not butt out and let the ones who don't see it as aimless discuss it
anyway? Who died and made you the chief here?
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:10 pm
I am however a fan of huge typeface!
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:26 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
All right, but I am not much of a fan of aimless discussion. I don't see the point. But some do find it therapeutic, I suppose.


You don't know how many aimless discussions I have to endure in the corporate world - regardless, if you're not a fan of this type of discussion,
why not butt out and let the ones who don't see it as aimless discuss it
anyway? Who died and made you the chief here?


You think that because you have had to endure nonsense, it is only fair to spread it around so others have to endure it too? As Freud said, "The world is neither a hospital nor a nursery".
0 Replies
 
Dosed
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:46 pm
@kennethamy,
Then don't participate in it if you find it so pointless? Your comments were unwanted and unnecessary to begin with.
0 Replies
 
Dosed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:50 pm
My thread is now derailed, and I'd rather it not turn into an even larger argument about kennethamy's rude behavior, so I'm out. Thanks for the thoughts on the matter to those who gave them.

0 Replies
 
irina321
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:54 pm
@aidan,
Aidan,
I don't think you quite got my point here. First and foremost, you have to define what "knowing" is. It clearly means somethng else to you than what it means to me. For me, to "know" someone means to fully understand how their mind functions and how they will act in all circumstances/situations. And to me that is knowing someone fully. It is predictability. In that regard, I do not know anyone fully and unless you have some sort of magical powers, you probably do not either.

I completely understand your arguement where you mentioned that for your friend, knowing to him was preciely what he opened up for you within your friendship. However I have to disagree as to why he was offended when you said that 'You know everything about me, and I barely know anything about you.' You see, he has shown a part of him to you, obviously, but even he knows that it's not all of him because there are thoughts within his mind that have not even occured yet. He will not be exactly the way he is now 20 years or even 2 minutes from now so you cannot know him. If you did, than you would already know the future on top of what you know now Smile
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 02:39 pm
@irina321,
irina321 wrote:

It clearly means somethng else to you than what it means to me. For me, to "know" someone means to fully understand how their mind functions and how they will act in all circumstances/situations. And to me that is knowing someone fully. It is predictability. In that regard, I do not know anyone fully and unless you have some sort of magical powers, you probably do not either.




Why would you want to mean by "knowing" something you know in advance cannot be achieved? I suppose I could define the word, "tall" as meaning, 10,000 feet hight, and then I could inform you that there are no tall trees (in my sense of the word, "tall") but what would be the point of doing such a thing? Why not simply stick to the ordinary meaning of the word, "tall" with the result that some trees are tall, some are short, and most are in between. Isn't the same kind of thing true of knowing people? We know some people well, we don't know some at all, and if we are acquainted with the person at all, our knowledge of them is somewhere in between. Or is this not exciting enough for you (even it that is what is true)?
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 02:41 pm
@irina321,
Quote:
I don't think you quite got my point here. First and foremost, you have to define what "knowing" is. It clearly means somethng else to you than what it means to me. For me, to "know" someone means to fully understand how their mind functions and how they will act in all circumstances/situations. And to me that is knowing someone fully. It is predictability. In that regard, I do not know anyone fully and unless you have some sort of magical powers, you probably do not either.

I do get your point. I guess what I'm saying is that I indeed am defining 'knowing' differently from you, and I'm wondering if that is not also valid.
And maybe I do understand how someone's mind functions to such an extent that I know I can't ever know what they will do next.

And in terms of anticipating change - that can also be a part of really knowing someone. You can know someone enough to know that every three months they will have another address and phone number that you don't know - while someone else you know will have the same address and phone number for thirty years. But just because you know where someone is and what they're doing, does that mean that you know that person better than someone you know inside and out but have no idea where they are?

I think I do understand what you're saying and I think it's probably valid for you, just as I think what I'm saying is valid for me.


kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 02:56 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:

I think I do understand what you're saying and I think it's probably valid for you, just as I think what I'm saying is valid for me.





Yes, most people who assert something believe it is true ("valid for you" "valid for me"). But whether or not it is true (valid) is, of course, a different question. And that is the issue, after all. The issue is not whether people believe that what they say is true. I think we can take that for granted.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 03:05 pm
@kennethamy,
Okay - here's where we get to the philosophical crux of the matter. Can something be true for me that's not true for you and/or everyone else?
Dosed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 03:10 pm
depends on whether or not you're a relativist, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 10:16:09