Vitalism vs. mechanism

@Fil Albuquerque,

In my opinion, in this context "ownership" is not a benefit to anyone, particularly not the "owner".

@Cyracuz,

Ownership or belonging...bottom line they are at a non primary level pretty much the same...and in that sense one can have the impression you almost contradict yourself...of course, you meant something else I supose, but one can never be to carefull with words...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am sure that can be the case to those who don't appreciate the nuances of language, along with the inherent ambiguity of words.

And if you think that ownership and belonging mean the same, you might be in that group. No offense intended.
I feel a sense of belonging to the world, but I do not think I own it at all, nor do I feel myself owned by it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

In the case the misconception is yours...given "ownership" only appeals to a genuine relation...the preconception is to believe otherwise... Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I am afraid I didn't quite understand that.
Would you mind rephrasing it?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I thought "ownership" meant something like taking responsibility for one's description of something as an interpretive account (as opposed to an "objective description" of it, i.e., as in positivism)

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

In that case I misunderstood Fil. I'll have to scroll up and take another look.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I mean think of it, address the true image in the word...ownership...
...You only own what it is truly yours inside...your living genuine experience !

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

the tricky part is to be sure that your subjective experience is not in itself an objective experience for what it is JL... Wink

...what other "objective" could it be ?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I cannot distinguish that from everything else...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

How come ???
What other belonging but what you own (in yourself) as you live it ? Rolling Eyes

(...for Christ sake Cyr...not the cars or the house...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

"I" am merely an idea, and it is by no means separated from anything percieved to be outside it. In many cases the sense of identity that could be called "me" is even projected by others in a social negotiation.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I know that, and so what ? still is the "I" in there truly living the world as you get it...(although at a first glance it seams so, one thing does n´t oppose the other...that´s the final step your missing, no offence...)

...what other Truth could be true ? What other in there can be asked of Truth as a necessarily personal epistemic goal, which is n´t what you get of it ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The "I" can be changed at will. I know this from experience, so this all seems arbitrary...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

And just where does the change in the "I" makes any of the "I´s" less truthful ?
What measure of Truth is ever beyond your judgement ?

Your judgement is true even when targeting the "wrong number"...it did happen ! (The judgement that is)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I do not understand your use of "truth" in this context.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Think !...(not to be arrogant)
What other measure for the word Truth and what it asks and addresses is ever beyond your act of questioning it ? What you make of the question is always the measure of what you can get for an answer that "fits" and "suits" you...the "happening" is just that...that, is all the PHENOMENOLOGY in the world...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You know what is fun and ironic ? I quite well get fresco...he stands for :
all the ontological is phenomenological, as his motto...yet he misses that the opposite is precisely the same ! All the phenomenological is the only Ontological we speak of...it is TRUE !!! The entire damn debate is outdated !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I do not get how you can say that these "I" are truthful. They just are, and whatever constitutes "I" at any given moment of perception is determined by what "I" relates to. It's a bit like saying that the branches of a tree move by their own volition, and are not moved by the wind...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Not a matter of who pulls the strings...you said it...they are !
Do you still remember my hard determinism engagement ? Certainly not about volition...the experience of the "I" is not true because you want it to be true, but because its "there" !
(The relational its true...its an entirety thing if you will...)

1 Reply

Vitalism vs. mechanism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know