All these smart people, and no one knows the quintessential thing to say while sitting on a bench?
0 Replies
neologist
2
Reply
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 11:42 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
What I actually said was something along the lines of: “I treat the word “know” differently in everyday life…than I do when in a discussion in a philosophy forum.”
I think most people do.
Olivier has been indicating in the other thread where this arose that my thinking on this is very strange…and he is having trouble understanding it.
I have no problem in a everyday context saying, for instance, that I know I am sitting in my den typing on a keyboard.
In a philosophy context, I probably would make some concessions to the notion that what we call “the real world” may be nothing more than an illusion…and/or to the notions of the non-dualists here, who would question whether there actually is an “I” or a “den.”
But as I said, Olivier seems to be having trouble with this. I suspect most people use the word with less “rigor” when using it in everyday conversations…than they would when discussing the esoteric things we discuss in the philosophy threads.
I am reminded at this point of something Richard Feynman said to Bill Moyers or Charlie Rose (don’t remember which one) in a PBS interview before his death. He said a variation of: “We have to be careful when using the word “know”…because to truly “know” something requires a great deal more than most people will bring to the issue supposedly known. Knowing something is a very, very difficult thing to do.”
Now…in everyday conversations, I will seldom take any of that into consideration when saying, “I know I am sitting here in my den and I know I am alive at this moment.” But in a philosophy discussion…I might very well use something more akin to, “It certainly appears that I am sitting here in my den…and it certainly seems to me that I am alive.”
So YES…I do treat the word “know” differently in everyday life than I do when I use it here in a thread with the “philosophy” tag.
I would be interested if others do that also…or if I am the only one who does…as apparently, Olivier seems to think.
Sheesh! Frank!. How long did you have to sit on that bench?
You can understand his frustration, Frank, when the premise of a discussion is "You can't know anything, you can guess, but that's all.", it kind of removes any reason to discuss anything.
Joe(Not that I know anything)Nation
Seems to me that you don't, Joe. And I thought you were not going to join in.
What I actually said was something along the lines of: “I treat the word “know” differently in everyday life…than I do when in a discussion in a philosophy forum.”
I think most people do.
Olivier has been indicating in the other thread where this arose that my thinking on this is very strange…and he is having trouble understanding it.
I have no problem in a everyday context saying, for instance, that I know I am sitting in my den typing on a keyboard.
In a philosophy context, I probably would make some concessions to the notion that what we call “the real world” may be nothing more than an illusion…and/or to the notions of the non-dualists here, who would question whether there actually is an “I” or a “den.”
But as I said, Olivier seems to be having trouble with this. I suspect most people use the word with less “rigor” when using it in everyday conversations…than they would when discussing the esoteric things we discuss in the philosophy threads.
I am reminded at this point of something Richard Feynman said to Bill Moyers or Charlie Rose (don’t remember which one) in a PBS interview before his death. He said a variation of: “We have to be careful when using the word “know”…because to truly “know” something requires a great deal more than most people will bring to the issue supposedly known. Knowing something is a very, very difficult thing to do.”
Now…in everyday conversations, I will seldom take any of that into consideration when saying, “I know I am sitting here in my den and I know I am alive at this moment.” But in a philosophy discussion…I might very well use something more akin to, “It certainly appears that I am sitting here in my den…and it certainly seems to me that I am alive.”
So YES…I do treat the word “know” differently in everyday life than I do when I use it here in a thread with the “philosophy” tag.
I would be interested if others do that also…or if I am the only one who does…as apparently, Olivier seems to think.
Sheesh! Frank!. How long did you have to sit on that bench?
I seldom sit on any benches when in a park...especially in Central Park, Neo.
But I would be interested in whether or not YOU treat the word "know" differently when using it in everyday situations as opposed to a discussion in a philosophy forum.
Anyway, my answer is 'No'. I do not shift the meaning of 'know' to some other meaning depending on the depth of the conversation; to do so brings to mind Lewis Carroll :
Quote:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Doing so stifles conversation in my most humble opinion.
Did God design our ass so that we can sit on benches?
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
-1
Reply
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 02:54 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
I did join in, Frank, didn't you get my point?
Oh, you have a point? I hesitate to ask where. It certainly doesn't show up in the photo.
Quote:
Anyway, my answer is 'No'. I do not shift the meaning of 'know' to some other meaning depending on the depth of the conversation; to do so brings to mind Lewis Carroll :
Quote:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Ahhh...so now we are using "shift the meaning"...as opposed to “treating it differently”…which was the way it was presented.
In any case, if you don’t treat it differently…you don’t.
Me…I do. When discussing “know” in forum devoted to philosophy, I treat the word differently than I do when just gabbing in everyday life. I am willing to accept all sorts of things that people claim to “know” in everyday life…that in a discussion here in the forum, I might challenge…and that many others are almost certain to challenge.
Maybe there are very few of us who do…and maybe we are all wet in doing so…but I do.
Quote:
Doing so stifles conversation in my most humble opinion.
Joe(but feel free to disparage)Nation
Okay…frankly, I think your opinions are about as humble as Rush Limbaugh’s…or Donald Trump’s.
But that is just my humble opinion.
And accepting “I know” in idle conversations rather than challenging them the way one might in a discussion dealing with philosophy…does not stifle anything. In fact, often it energizes the conversation.
Once again…thanks for the open mind. I KNOW I can always count on you.
0 Replies
Ding an Sich
2
Reply
Thu 30 Jan, 2014 04:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Recently Frank argued that philosophical discussions on A2K use common words like "to know" in a different manner than your average dude sitting on a bench...
He didn't say HOW different, nor did he give examples of what A2K philosophers would say while sitting on a bench... So let's try and fill in the blanks.
Eg stuff like:
"This bench is only a bench because you and I agree it's a bench. In some other culture, it could be a boat. Though it's so damn heavy it probably won't float but... but a bed maybe, or or... in a gallery it would be a conceptual sculpture... whatever works by agreement!"
"I'm not sitting on this bench right now, it is just another part of the big whole which I am part of, that just happens to be located UNDER my ass."
I am sitting on a bench. A bench has a precise definition, which is conveniently found in a dictionary, that refer to qualities, often with the greatest generality, that can be found in my dealings with said objects. Additionally, I have integrated benches into a conceptual schema that subsumes them under what we call furniture. I can break down a bench into its component parts and further examine them (materials, legs, etc), thereby adding more and more concepts which add more and more wealth to what we know about the world. All these concepts can be integrated, differentiated, and intersected to create a plenum of new categories and further concepts.
But I cannot say that a bench could be otherwise without given evidence to the contrary. To do so is to deal with floating abstractions and fantasy. A bench is what it is. My knowledge of it stems from my dealings with the object, along with the way it affects my senses and brain. Additionally, my knowledge of a bench is also part of a historical process of my dealings with the bench, along with any consequent knowledge that I may further add to the concept bench, which may include knowledge from physics, carpentry, math, etc.
But I would be interested in whether or not YOU treat the word "know" differently when using it in everyday situations as opposed to a discussion in a philosophy forum.
Do you?
In everyday situations, I am comfortable with my naive realism. In a philosophical discussion, I recognize the difference between my world view and epistemological certainty.
But I would be interested in whether or not YOU treat the word "know" differently when using it in everyday situations as opposed to a discussion in a philosophy forum.
Do you?
In everyday situations, I am comfortable with my naive realism. In a philosophical discussion, I recognize the difference between my world view and epistemological certainty.
Les Amoureux des Bancs Publics --- The Lovers on Public Benches
Georges Brassens
Les gens qui voient de travers --- People who don't see things right
Pensent que les bancs verts --- Think that those green benches
Qu'on voit sur les trottoirs --- You see on sidewalks
Sont faits pour les impotents ou les ventripotents. --- Are made for the helpless or the potbellied.
Mais c'est une absurdité, --- But this is nonsense,
Car, à la vérité, --- For, in truth,
Ils sont là, c'est notoire, --- They are there, as is well known
Pour accueillir quelque temps les amours débutants. --- To welcome, for a time, the love of beginners.
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se foutant pas mal du regard oblique --- Don't give a damn for the slanted looks
Des passants honnêtes, --- Of honest passerbys
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se disant des "Je t'aime" pathétiques, --- Saying heartbreaking I-love-you's
Ont des petites gueules bien sympathiques! --- Have such cute little faces!
Ils se tiennent par la main, --- They hold hands,
Parlent du lendemain, --- Talk about the future,
Du papier bleu d'azur --- Of the azurean blue paper
Que revêtiront les murs de leur chambre à coucher... --- That will decorate their bedroom...
Ils se voient déjà, douc'ment, --- They already see themselves, dimly,
Ell' cousant, lui fumant, --- She sewing , he smoking,
Dans un bien-être sûr, --- In absolute comfort
Et choisissent les prénoms de leur premier bébé... --- And they choose the names of their first born...
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se foutant pas mal du regard oblique --- Don't give a damn for the slanted looks
Des passants honnêtes, --- Of honest passerbys
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se disant des "Je t'aime" pathétiques, --- Saying heartbreaking I-love-you's
Ont des petites gueules bien sympathiques! --- Have such cute little faces!
Quand la saint' famille Machin --- When the holy Thingamajig family
Croise sur son chemin --- Crosses on its path
Deux de ces malappris, --- Two of these uncouth ones,
Ell' décoch' hardiment des propos venimeux... --- They boldly shoot out their most venomous words...
N'empêch' que tout' la famille --- Yet the entire family
(Le pèr', la mèr', la fill', le fils, le Saint-Esprit...) --- (father, mother, daughter, son and the holy spirit...)
Voudrait bien, de temps en temps, --- Dreams that they could, occasionally,
Pouvoir s'conduir' comme eux. --- Behave as those lovers do.
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se foutant pas mal du regard oblique --- Don't give a damn for the slanted looks
Des passants honnêtes, --- Of honest passerbys
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se disant des "Je t'aime" pathétiques, --- Saying heartbreaking I-love-you's
Ont des petites gueules bien sympathiques! --- Have such cute little faces!
Quand les mois auront passé, --- When the months would have passed,
Quand seront apaisés --- When will be appeased
Leurs beaux rêves flambants, --- Their beautiful flaming dreams
Quand leur ciel se couvrira de gros nuages lourds, --- When their sky will gather large, heavy clouds,
Ils s'apercevront, émus, --- They will sadly find out,
Qu'c'est au hasard des ru's, --- That it's here, in a random street
Sur un d'ces fameux bancs, --- On one of those famous benches,
Qu'ils ont vécu le meilleur morceau de leur amour... --- That they lived the best part of their love...
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se foutant pas mal du regard oblique --- Don't give a damn for the slanted looks
Des passants honnêtes, --- Of honest passerbys
Les amoureux qui s'bécotent sur les bancs publics, --- Lovers who kiss on park benches,
Bancs publics, bancs publics, --- Park benches, park benches,
En se disant des "Je t'aime" pathétiques, --- Saying heartbreaking I-love-you's
Ont des petites gueules bien sympathiques! --- Have such cute little faces!
Me either, I am not good with cuteness, and it rang a little odd.
I've labored to translate Fabrizio de Andre, given the miserable translations online. I'm no italian whiz, more like major slow poke, but I remember feeling I got a little further than those.
So long as its understood I don't live my life in a philosophy forum
Neither do I...and most of the time, I am treating the word "know" the way most people who never participate in an Internet philosophy forum treat it.
That was the point I was making...that when we are here discussing philosophy, we have to put a finer edge on it.
Out in the "real world"...we are not thinking about whether or not it is the real world or a illusion...we are trying to get past the next semi without getting edged off the road. ..we are counting our dollars to be sure we have food next week.
Neither do I...and most of the time, I am treating the word "know" the way most people who never participate in an Internet philosophy forum treat it.
That was the point I was making...that when we are here discussing philosophy, we have to put a finer edge on it.
Out in the "real world"...we are not thinking about whether or not it is the real world or a illusion...we are trying to get past the next semi without getting edged off the road. ..we are counting our dollars to be sure we have food next week.
I have to disagree with you, philosophically speaking, Frank, sometimes the finest edge is only fit to split hairs. "Know" v. "know" v. "KNOW" --- if these are merely abstract distinctions, then who cares? To each their own. Despite all of the intellectual pretensions of those involved, philosophy is driven by passion, not indifferent "objectivity". Only passion could explain the futile pursuance of truth, beauty, and the rest of it. Objectivity, even if it has only surfaced in the sciences, is a product of the irrational forces of will, determination, and passion -- three terms for the same thing.
The debates held in this forum, as absurd as they often are, are part of the "real world" -- it's the only world that "is", i mean...is. While i appreciate the elect status that you lend to philosoph-speak, i would be much more interested in the views that you share with the people you actually care about.
You're right, "we are [all] trying to get past the next semi without getting edged off the road. ..we are [all] counting our dollars to be sure we have food next week." -- and we're all trying to figure out how those concerns fit into the "big picture". There isn't a neat distinction between getting past the next semi and the contemplation of our own mortality, and there needn't be sharp distinction within the person considering both. Philosophy isn't comprised of esoteric terms, it's composed of attempts to share experience.
