2
   

the fish cannot see the water - medium - it is in

 
 
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 08:48 am
There's apparently reference somewhere in Aristotle to the fact that the fish cannot see its aqueous medium unless it is removed from it - at the risk of thus losing its life. I've been trying to hunt this down for ages but as someone far from knowledgeable in the field would be very grateful if better scholars could point me to the source, or correct my misreading if necessary.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 1,548 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 11:26 am
@sallyjane,
Anthropologists sometimes make a similar reference to the taken-for-grantedness of culture: People generally think their own way of life is simply the natural way to understand the world. They do not see it as "artificial" (as in the artifacts-of-culture). Other people are acting-out their cultural conditioning. This is a major reason cultural anthropologists, in order to examine how "culture" works, typically go to other societies with different ways of life and worldviews. So that like fish who presumably see water only when they are separated from it they can see the cultural rules and understandings underlying behavior.
sallyjane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 01:58 pm
@JLNobody,
thanks JLNobody, that's valuable reflection. I'd be HUGELY grateful nonetheless if somebody on this list well versed in Aristotle can actually haul up the fish-in-the-water quote for me, as I'm quite precisely needing to source it... I'm rather like a fish out of water with his writings, though have perused miles of text to no avail so far...
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 02:37 pm
Look at reference (Bekker number) 423ab

PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 02:39 pm
Sounds like Metaphysics 101.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jan, 2013 03:05 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

Look at reference (Bekker number) 423ab


Bekker numbers (see the Wikipedia stuff about Aristotle) are the standard way of referring to his works.

Google Books capture from Acting Out By Bernard Stiegler, David Barison, Daniel Ross, Patrick Crogan

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/Aristotle.jpg

sallyjane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 03:41 am
@contrex,
many thanks. intriguing and very helpful. it was in discussion with Stiegler years ago that this first came up (i.e. well before he published Acting Out) and I've been hunting for it since - had found the diaphane but not the "touch/ tangible" section as this talks about wet bodies rather than fish so my hunting tools weren't sharp enough. most grateful - and given the nature of the question "Contrex" is an excellent "nom de plume" (or "nom d'├ęcaille"?)
sallyjane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 03:42 am
@PUNKEY,
thanks, will check this out alongside the Bekker ref. the water's getting warm!
best
sj
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 11:40 am
@sallyjane,
sallyjane wrote:
"Contrex" is an excellent "nom de plume" (or "nom d'├ęcaille"?)


Nom de clavier I always supposed; I hope there's nothing scaly about me! Maybe flaky though. I am an English francophile and when I had to choose a screen name here I happened to have a bottle of Contrex water on the desk
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 11:43 am
Aristotle was a scientist and a philosopher. So it's not clear whether this is a scientific finding or a commentary on the human condition about ignorance or awareness.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 12:16 pm
@PUNKEY,
PUNKEY wrote:

Aristotle was a scientist and a philosopher. So it's not clear whether this is a scientific finding or a commentary on the human condition about ignorance or awareness.


It is abundantly clear which of those it is.
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Jan, 2013 04:45 pm
@sallyjane,
as usual this is complete evil will from u, runnin to join an objective limited perspective accordin to ur will life, with any invention about objective nature destroyin totally the true reality of facts

there is no water if the fish is not when water is meant from fish perspective, as there is no fish if there is no water either since fish is only bc of water matter

ur reason rely only on the condition that any know being created, so the fish is accordin to water existence as well that define its sense of being moving

so actually u mean that only the creator exist, then how by putin a fish out of water it would see it, when it is seein the water only bc it is its reality too
it is horrible to reply to u evil minds and dirty wills

miss it is wether creation is or not

if creation is then all is blabla is nonsense, any mean only the creator while since the creator exist then only the creator is through everything and anything

or the creator do not exist bc there is only truth, then any is accordin to itself and not to any else perspective but also is related to else by the rule of sameness which define reality shares but which u cant limit nor see, bc it is always then about freedom dimension and free realities

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » the fish cannot see the water - medium - it is in
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 01:52:55