Sep 21 2012: **... No, it is obvious it exist - we are humans... Just because our theory isn't efficient right now only means we need better ones and not that something is impossible that is just ill-minded thinking.**
The use of ignorance to prove a point is a fallacy of argument. I will restate your argument for you
I posit that X exists.
I have no access to X and no way of knowing that X exists
Therefore X exists.
**My last statement - Although I know we can measure our human psyche, it will take a great deal of effort... But at the same time I also think the ideal of suggesting there is no nature is far better to challenge people philosophically. But, we do have a real nature, what is the pattern to that nature is being illuminated more and more each day. You should do real research.**
Ok, tell me in general terms how you propose we might measure our psyche. By the way, can you tell me what a psyche is as well? Seems like you are assessing the situation (it will take a great deal of effort) before you even know the nature of the situation.
I think the best way to challenge a person philosophically is not to use sophist tactics but to appeal to reason and truth. After all, philosophy means love of wisdom…
Sep 21 2012: "Truth is not a yes or no entity... Truth is variable, has degrees, and is overall relative. Therefore there could be good, bad, partial, sometimes – truth"
Well, you’re lumping a whole lot together. Bad truth? I know maybe what you mean…like it is a bad truth that someone murders someone else. But that is only our way of speaking. In fact, truth is simply truth. We are infinitely more accurate if we were to characterize the act as good or evil and not the truth.
Can you give me a strict degree of truth. Or can you give me a relative truth?
Sep 21 2012: “While you may strive to be rational, you must anticipate that our instinctual natures are irrational. Cognitive bias theory has craft a variety of dispositions suggesting just that, a long with Eastern thought traditions. What may be rational, is not necessarily apart of our decision making.”
If you do not mind, can you describe for me our “instinctual nature.” I do not believe we do much by way of instinct. I am hard pressed to think of something. I won’t get into “cognitive bias” and “eastern thought” because I think I need to know what you mean by instinctual nature.
Its funny, I notice that when people come up against a difficulty in arguing, they turn to “eastern thought” or something like it…like Buddhism. I think it is an underlying use of syncretism… that everything is the same thing.
Sep 21 2012: *Metaphysical* does not mean - not physical ... It means beyond what we understand -or- what is beyond our understanding in/of the physical... Everything besides thought constructions have a physical nature
No, I believe you are a bit off. Metaphysical can mean either " behind or under"as in the truth behind an object or the truth that is under (supports) an object. Either way is compatible with the other. metaphsyical is not physical as you imply. However, it IS understandable in universal terms. As a matter of fact it is understanding in terms of the universal. No appeal to the universal, no comprehension and no abilty to reason. Period. A simple example of metaphysical reasoning is "exists vs does not exist."Truth also is a metaphysical concept.
Sep 21 2012: Before you jump into the idea that this is ideal, test it out. Try to find one thing that does not have four causes. If you think you can find one, which you can't, send it my way. And if you cannot, there is nothing ideal about it. So I will concede to you if you can.
By the way, can you use another word besides ideal? Ideal can mean something that functions as it is supposed to. I know you mean something that does not exist. Maybe you want to use the word fictional or nonexistent or errant. Or if you maintain ideal can you tell me exactly how you mean it?
Sep 21 2012: How can a cause be a meaning? It is not idealistic in any sense of the word. It is a logical reality. And you are using the word meaning not I. And, you are using the word cause in only the 'efficient'sense of the word. What I mean is that you are considering cause as what immiediatly and directly precedes it. This is only one type of cause. However, it is considered the only type of cause by modern mind. It is called Efficient cause. so the efficient cause of the letter I am typing is, me! No one goes beyond this cause because we are steeped in nominalism..simplest answer is always the best. Not!
But, there is another cause, isn't there. Yes, I am the efficent cause. I am doing it. But was there not an electrical circuit that was connected when I pressed the key. That caused it too. So, that is the material cause.
Yet there is another cause. There is an act I wish to perform. What is that act? It is to convey something to you by means of typing. That is the formal cause....it is the motivation for the act.
And, last there is even something else that is causing me to type. Yes, I desire to type and yes I am thusly pressing typing keys and yes the circuit is causing the typewritten text. But there is an ultimate reason that I wish to type and that is to communicate. This is the final cause.
Now, here is the answer to your question. the final cause both directs an action towards it as its true end. And, it causes all of the other causes as the purpose. So, considered as the ultimate purpose for the act to begin, it is first in intention. Yet after it causes the start of the act, it is also the goal and to what all the other causes exist for. The Final cause it is before as the motivator and it is also at the end as the outcome. Before I type I want to communicate. Once I do the typing and all of the causes occur then I am oriented towards the thing that got me started. Thus final cause is both beginner and end (goal) of an act.
Sep 21 2012: No, I believe animals have non -rational thoughts and emotions (desire for eaxample) . Such as they see a lobster dripping in butter and simply recognize it as edible but have no idea what it is in itself.
Humans have rational thoughts (what is it?) and the same emotions as animals. So, I know it is a lobster, I want it but rationally speaking I should not eat it bc i am fat and it is not healthy to be fat which this calorie laden lobster will create more of..
Sep 21 2012: . And it can remember to…hence maybe an obstacle of having to remember where a seed was planted. Animals have memory. But solutions whereby an understanding of something occurs is purely human.
And as regards science, the tenet of usefulness should not be a tenet. That is a reduction of science and a modern development. All science first began in wonder with the world. To divorce the scientist from the idea of what something is, is to cause his work to be exactly what you suggest it is…an object of use which prejudices the observational motives of a scientist. Pure use is unreasonable. It is a dogmatic, predefined position by people who hold a nominalistic idea of reality. this is where the “usefulness” of human nature arrives. To know how to interact with it and what to expect from it. I will give you an example. A misunderstanding of the nature of irrational animals has led to the current craziness where if some people could, they would make it an imprisonable offense to kill an animal or its young. And, they would be all for extending rights to animals which are useless to that animal. However, they would have no problem in allowing the destruction of an unborn human.
Another example is the reduction of something to how it may be used. An understanding of human nature prevents humans from being used because of the ramifications of what it means to be rational…which is, because of that rationality, immortal.
TEDCred score: +0.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
so humans do not have human nature but lions do?
A nature is an ultimate definition that goes towards the essence of something.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
The use of ignorance to prove a point is a fallacy of argument. I will restate your argument for you
I posit that X exists.
I have no access to X and no way of knowing that X exists
Therefore X exists.
**My last statement - Although I know we can measure our human psyche, it will take a great deal of effort... But at the same time I also think the ideal of suggesting there is no nature is far better to challenge people philosophically. But, we do have a real nature, what is the pattern to that nature is being illuminated more and more each day. You should do real research.**
Ok, tell me in general terms how you propose we might measure our psyche. By the way, can you tell me what a psyche is as well? Seems like you are assessing the situation (it will take a great deal of effort) before you even know the nature of the situation.
I think the best way to challenge a person philosophically is not to use sophist tactics but to appeal to reason and truth. After all, philosophy means love of wisdom…
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
Well, you’re lumping a whole lot together. Bad truth? I know maybe what you mean…like it is a bad truth that someone murders someone else. But that is only our way of speaking. In fact, truth is simply truth. We are infinitely more accurate if we were to characterize the act as good or evil and not the truth.
Can you give me a strict degree of truth. Or can you give me a relative truth?
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
If you do not mind, can you describe for me our “instinctual nature.” I do not believe we do much by way of instinct. I am hard pressed to think of something. I won’t get into “cognitive bias” and “eastern thought” because I think I need to know what you mean by instinctual nature.
Its funny, I notice that when people come up against a difficulty in arguing, they turn to “eastern thought” or something like it…like Buddhism. I think it is an underlying use of syncretism… that everything is the same thing.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
No, I believe you are a bit off. Metaphysical can mean either " behind or under"as in the truth behind an object or the truth that is under (supports) an object. Either way is compatible with the other. metaphsyical is not physical as you imply. However, it IS understandable in universal terms. As a matter of fact it is understanding in terms of the universal. No appeal to the universal, no comprehension and no abilty to reason. Period. A simple example of metaphysical reasoning is "exists vs does not exist."Truth also is a metaphysical concept.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
By the way, can you use another word besides ideal? Ideal can mean something that functions as it is supposed to. I know you mean something that does not exist. Maybe you want to use the word fictional or nonexistent or errant. Or if you maintain ideal can you tell me exactly how you mean it?
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
But, there is another cause, isn't there. Yes, I am the efficent cause. I am doing it. But was there not an electrical circuit that was connected when I pressed the key. That caused it too. So, that is the material cause.
Yet there is another cause. There is an act I wish to perform. What is that act? It is to convey something to you by means of typing. That is the formal cause....it is the motivation for the act.
And, last there is even something else that is causing me to type. Yes, I desire to type and yes I am thusly pressing typing keys and yes the circuit is causing the typewritten text. But there is an ultimate reason that I wish to type and that is to communicate. This is the final cause.
Now, here is the answer to your question. the final cause both directs an action towards it as its true end. And, it causes all of the other causes as the purpose. So, considered as the ultimate purpose for the act to begin, it is first in intention. Yet after it causes the start of the act, it is also the goal and to what all the other causes exist for. The Final cause it is before as the motivator and it is also at the end as the outcome. Before I type I want to communicate. Once I do the typing and all of the causes occur then I am oriented towards the thing that got me started. Thus final cause is both beginner and end (goal) of an act.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
Humans have rational thoughts (what is it?) and the same emotions as animals. So, I know it is a lobster, I want it but rationally speaking I should not eat it bc i am fat and it is not healthy to be fat which this calorie laden lobster will create more of..
Hence our nature...rational animals.
A reply on Conversation: Does human nature exist?
And as regards science, the tenet of usefulness should not be a tenet. That is a reduction of science and a modern development. All science first began in wonder with the world. To divorce the scientist from the idea of what something is, is to cause his work to be exactly what you suggest it is…an object of use which prejudices the observational motives of a scientist. Pure use is unreasonable. It is a dogmatic, predefined position by people who hold a nominalistic idea of reality. this is where the “usefulness” of human nature arrives. To know how to interact with it and what to expect from it. I will give you an example. A misunderstanding of the nature of irrational animals has led to the current craziness where if some people could, they would make it an imprisonable offense to kill an animal or its young. And, they would be all for extending rights to animals which are useless to that animal. However, they would have no problem in allowing the destruction of an unborn human.
Another example is the reduction of something to how it may be used. An understanding of human nature prevents humans from being used because of the ramifications of what it means to be rational…which is, because of that rationality, immortal.