truth
Vonderjohn, as a humanist I certainly agree. Man is the measure of all things. But let me try to explain. I agree because I am also a constructivist, believing that our World (that is to say our "understandings" of our experienced world) is our on-going cultural construction. This also implies that knowing and the known are functions of the knower. I also believe that not only is the "known world" an aspect of the knower, but he is, in turn, no more than an aspect of the World (Cosmos). So, in effect man is in the center and throughout his world; he is also the measure of all things because he makes up the questions for which he seeks answers and these questions rest on presuppositions which rest on presuppositions descending so far into his unconscious that he no longer sees himself as the source (the measure) of his inquiry.
Sorry, I can't at this moment be less obscure.
0 Replies
Cyracuz
1
Reply
Sun 11 Apr, 2004 03:53 am
So we build tomorrow on the ruins of yesterday and call it our hope's triumph over fear. I do agree that man is in the center of his own world. But what of the world then. Is it how I chose to percieve it, or how the mightiest of men would make it. I do not believe we are the rulers of our world. I believe that we are but another species scratching on the surface.
So man is the measure of everything until he finds courage and starts measuring himself...
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Sun 11 Apr, 2004 11:31 am
truth
Man is a mere aspect of the environment of the virus.
0 Replies
vonderjohn
1
Reply
Sun 11 Apr, 2004 02:48 pm
I didn't get your explanation, both of you. Especially this "knower" part, and the "cultural construction".
So you mean if man says something is good, then it's good? But man is not perfect, and you've got God who knows much more than man does. You've got science which can prove man wrong..and so on...so I wonder how you guys can strengthen your point, because I see it very weak
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Sun 11 Apr, 2004 06:18 pm
truth
It may be weak by the unrealistic standards you set, but it is more realistic.
If man constructs a value system which deems something to be good, then it is good in his thinking. "God" is not a necessary variable in this, or any realistic, discussion.
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Mon 12 Apr, 2004 12:39 pm
I seem to have said this before ( ) but the thesis is possibly a truism since all "measurement" proceeds from the "nominal level" i.e. "naming".
So once "thingness" has been defined by man the rest follows.
The question becomes therefore can there be "thingness" other than that which is "perceived" by man. Since other terrestrial species are unlikely to be indulging in "naming" or "thinging" the answer seems to lie in the evocation of either a deity, or an extraterrestrial intelligence.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Mon 12 Apr, 2004 09:01 pm
truth
Fresco,
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 02:01 am
The average measure of the "thingness" of man is around 6 inches.
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 08:26 am
cavfancier
On the basis that perception/measurement is "active" not "passive" I concur. :wink:
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 03:35 pm
truth
Cav. are you talking about length or width?
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 03:59 pm
JL, that would depend on whether the theoretical model were a breadstick or a sub sandwich. Once we settle that, we can investigate the question.
0 Replies
vonderjohn
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 04:20 pm
I'm not understanding a word being said
IS MAN THE MEASURE OF EVERYTHING YES OR NO AND WHY?! lol
0 Replies
cavfancier
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 04:40 pm
vonderjohn, personally, I think deeds are the measure of everything, not man.
0 Replies
soserene
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 04:43 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Vonderjohn, as a humanist I certainly agree. Man is the measure of all things. But let me try to explain. I agree because I am also a constructivist, believing that our World (that is to say our "understandings" of our experienced world) is our on-going cultural construction. This also implies that knowing and the known are functions of the knower. I also believe that not only is the "known world" an aspect of the knower, but he is, in turn, no more than an aspect of the World (Cosmos). So, in effect man is in the center and throughout his world; he is also the measure of all things because he makes up the questions for which he seeks answers and these questions rest on presuppositions which rest on presuppositions descending so far into his unconscious that he no longer sees himself as the source (the measure) of his inquiry.
Sorry, I can't at this moment be less obscure.
*scratches her head*
*gives up and goes back to tippin cows*
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:07 pm
truth
Soserene, I am sorry for the obscurity of that statement. It can only be understood by someone who already shares the view. It is a bad example of non-dualism (Hinduism's advaita).
0 Replies
soserene
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:28 pm
No need to apologize... That's just the first post I've seen that I couldn't absorb (and had to look up the words). Kudos!
*Atleast I'm smart enough to stay away from the ones with horns*
0 Replies
soserene
1
Reply
Tue 13 Apr, 2004 06:28 pm
vonderjohn wrote:
I'm not understanding a word being said
IS MAN THE MEASURE OF EVERYTHING YES OR NO AND WHY?! lol
Yep.. THAT is what I was trying to say
0 Replies
Tiaha
1
Reply
Wed 14 Apr, 2004 01:30 pm
I disagree. nothing is inherently good or bad, it depends on our personal perceptions and opinions. in that respect, what we say is good is good, and bad is bad, but that doesn't mean the thing is ACTUALLY good or bad.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Wed 14 Apr, 2004 11:16 pm
truth
Tiaha, I agree. We make it all up. That's why humans have so many disagreements about what's good and what's bad, what's true and what's false, etc.
) but the thesis is possibly a truism since all "measurement" proceeds from the "nominal level" i.e. "naming".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace