3
   

The next enlightenment will be the ultimate concept.

Forums: Religion, Philosophy, Enlightenment, Pretentious Crap, Corrupting Minds Of The Youth
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 06:22 am
What do you think? Will the next enlightenment be the the ultimate concept?
I have a lot on my mind so I will only share small portions at this time, to avoid those run on sentences. Wink
If the next enlightenment is going to be the ultimate social concept then I would think it would be fair to say, "We all need to know what a concept is "if we are going to peer review it.
What properties do all concepts have?
How can they be different at times?
Do they have to have logical consistency to them? Question
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 5,202 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
Gwutzi
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2015 08:06 pm
no reasoning there , is that logic?
state the destiny of your post perhaps someone might reason with you
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2015 12:04 pm
@reasoning logic,
Left undefined, 'Enlightenment' means too many things to different people.

What's yours?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2015 07:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Left undefined, 'Enlightenment' means too many things to different people.

I would think that an 'Enlightenment' is a new or improved social concept. What does it mean to you?
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Nov, 2015 07:43 pm
6000 +/- years of recorded human failure and we come here for the next enlightenment.

I believe what we have here is a reason to hallucinate.

OK, I suppose we could try.

'Scuse me while I likker up. Drunk
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Nov, 2015 08:01 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I would think that an 'Enlightenment' is a new or improved social concept. What does it mean to you?
Kind of the opposite of what you thought. To see new and improved social concepts (and everything else) in the context of reality.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 05:03 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
in the context of reality.


What does reality mean to you? I think that by expanding on old concepts that add utility is a good place to start. When we are able to come together as a group and able to see logical consistencies or patterns of consistency then we are able to expand on neglected concepts.

Not everyone but rather a large percent of people can see these consistencies in some concepts. One example would be a colorblind person may not be a good candidate at naming shades of colors. We do not all see reality the same but many of us can agree on many things when our perceptions are close.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Nov, 2015 09:10 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
I think that by expanding on old concepts that add utility is a good place to start. When we are able to come together as a group and able to see logical consistencies or patterns of consistency then we are able to expand on neglected concepts.
That may be good enough in principle, but to argue the point I'd need to know what old concept you propose to rehabilitate or expand on and how. Reality is too large a concept to talk abstractly about.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2015 08:27 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
but to argue the point I'd need to know what old concept you propose to rehabilitate or expand on and how. Reality is too large a concept to talk abstractly about.


My main interest here is to have a discussion about concepts, "what they are and the many ways in which they are used. I would prefer not to start with what I would consider to be the ultimate social concept but rather one that is not well known.

Example. "Pro-social Psychopathy. Have you ever heard of such a thing?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2015 09:28 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
. . . Pro-social Psychopathy. . .
An oxymoron with the emphasis on "moron". Next they'll open up the wards at Western State and give the folks badges.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 02:43 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Example. "Pro-social Psychopathy. Have you ever heard of such a thing?
That's specific enough.

It's another case where 'science' misses the obvious in favor of measurable phenominon. Here as in many other cases, they mistake the effect for the cause when looking at things like dopamine levels and such.

The 'sufferer' isn't so much psychopathic as he/she is bored shitless with social convention and seeking their 'high' in pursuits that social norms might not recognize as 'healthy'. 'Science' then interprets this as them saying "**** society".
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:05 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
The 'sufferer' isn't so much psychopathic


Sufferer? In what way do you see them suffering? boredom?

Quote:
he/she is bored shitless with social convention and seeking their 'high' in pursuits that social norms might not recognize as 'healthy'.


Just as empathetic people can act out antisocially at times not all psychopaths have cluster b disorders. Some people who have no empathy nor a conscience "psychopath" do not cause harm to others anymore than someone who may have empathy. This is my understanding of the concept Pro-social psychopathy.

There are people who have more traits of antisocial behavior than others and there are some that may be over the border and have an antisocial personality disorder.

Quote:
'Science' then interprets this as them saying "**** society".


I would think that each scientist would interpret it in his or her own way and it may be different from how you or I would interpret it.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 06:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:" 'Science' then interprets this as them saying "**** society"."

I would think that each scientist would interpret it in his or her own way and it may be different from how you or I would interpret it.
What an odd notion you have of science and scientists. They both attempt to establish 'objective' boxes with fixed criteria that they can toss things into. Not your whimsical 'well, I see it this way' sort of thing you seem to believe.

Did you not read anything related to the example you posted? They had a fairly detailed description of what 'pro-social psychopathy' was. It was Bullshit, but it wasn't your arbitrary crap of 'whatever I think it is'.

You need a new on-line handle.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 04:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
You need a new on-line handle.


Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Woooo . . .

You're not the first one to comment on the inappropriateness of his screen name.
0 Replies
 
Tuna
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 05:02 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
What properties do all concepts have?
How can they be different at times?
Do they have to have logical consistency to them?

Fascinating questions.

Concepts are not temporal. A concept has no location. The concept of a cat, for instance, is the essence of cats.

A concept doesn't need logical consistency. Prime example: the concept of a human.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 06:41 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
A concept doesn't need logical consistency. Prime example: the concept of a human.


Can humans be seen in the same way as the illustration of trees?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Generalization_process_using_trees_PNG_version.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:01 pm
@reasoning logic,
Sure.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:07 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Did you not read anything related to the example you posted?


I did.

Quote:
They had a fairly detailed description of what 'pro-social psychopathy' was.


They did? Who was they? Do you think that your source could have some of it wrong? Do you think they may have a misleading bias?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:10 pm
@Tuna,
Quote:
Sure.


Are you suggesting that the words "human" and "cat" are are man made concepts?
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:15 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the words "human" and "cat" are are man made concepts?

Of course not. A word is not a concept.
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The next enlightenment will be the ultimate concept.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:48:59
▲ ▼