Wood and Chair question

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Melchior wrote:
Petals wrote:Hi all,

This is my first post :)

I have been wondering this for some time. My question may be badly formuated, so apologies! Is there a word to differenciate two objects, one which is 'natural' and the other which has been constructed. i.e wood and chair?
Although wood has intrinsic existence, a chair does not (chairs are constructs). I am looking for a word or theory that converys this.

Any ideas??

Many thanks!

Petals
Natural vs artificial or man-made. What is so hard about this?
Please go back and reread the thread, specifically, my posts. -_-
Ginkgo
Posts: 2652
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
IYou're starting to get it. You're the very first.
Thanks, but it wasn't really that difficult. You do explain your ideas quite well. There you go cladking... language is not as confused as you first thought.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
Not all knowledge is necessarily science. That's the point I am making. As you say, metaphysical knowledge can be gained through observation and the application of logic.
cladking wrote: I agree. All knowledge is visceral and visceral knowledge can come from many sources including the mere "muscle memory" that underlies some great skill. Visceral knowledge is as much an "art" as a science.
If you are agreeing that all knowledge isn't necessarily science then you are actually disagreeing with my response.
I guess I don't understand your statement then. A lot of knowledge really has nothing to do with science or the scientific process. Most peoples' understanding of science is simply wrong yet they can still use technology, machines, and thinks developed through science. People don't need to understand earth's orbit to know warm weather comes in the spring.
Animals don't have a language, they don't do science and they don't do metaphysics because no animal has ever asked a question. In other to do science or metaphysics one has to start with a question. Do you know of any animal that has ever asked a question?
Science isn't based on asking questions. Science is based on observation. Ancient science and animals process observation with the logic of language and modern science employs experiment which is directed by reality; the logic of nature.

Even the simplest logic is sufficient to make great inventions as shown by bee's hexagonal hives and their ability to home and find food. Animals lack complex language but observation and logic are very powerful tools to understanding. Observation and experiment are very powerful tools to the production of technology. Bees may understand nature better than many humans. They certainlty all understand the nature of being a bee and things associated with bee concerns far better than the vast majority of people.
I am of course assuming that you believe your response to be intelligible.
Most people put far too little effort into understanding and are busily composing a response instead. It's not overly unusual to hear two people engaging in different conversations without realizing it. We all get pretty lax when the conversation isn't interesting.

A lot of the concepts I'm trying to relay aren't so much difficult to grasp or difficult to state or understand as they are difficult to accept and it's difficult to see a point. People tune out very easily. My objective really is to state these things from enough angles that people begin to see some veracity in them. I believe this is of critical importance so I've attacked it from many angles and using many tactics. By getting feedback I can learn others' opinions but also see where they miss my point. I believe all this is easily falsifiable and while perhaps, much of it is no more true than currrent understandings, that the perspective can lead us out of the mess we've been in for decades and the bigger mess for which we may be headed. Philosophy still seems to me mired in semantics and science is stuck in the 1920's. Humans are gaining power but no wisdom and no new knowledge or at least no new theory. Even hypotheses seem to be a trainwreck.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:It's better to be unsure than shitsure.
It certainly seems this is the natural state of modern man. We agree about nothing but everyone is certain of his positions and opinions. We each see the world in our own unique ways and for most people it is at odds with natural law and known theory.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Wood and Chair question

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:
Thanks, but it wasn't really that difficult. You do explain your ideas quite well. There you go cladking... language is not as confused as you first thought.

Mebbe it's time I start my own thread about ancient language and scientific animals.

Perhaps this time I won't dwell too much on how I rediscovered it. I can probably count on one person reading it anyway.

I'll probably appreciate modern language even more once I can better understand the grammar and phraseology of ancient language. From my perspective it was exceedingly complex but I don't know how much is real and how much is perceived and lack of experience.
Post Reply