Page 6 of 7

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:23 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:21 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:16 pm
If categorization is correct, should any person be known as the universe?
By what standards of 'correctness'?

Every person is a (small) part of the universe.
Correct as in logical. You made the argument about categorization being necessary, therefore since categorization stems from the universe and so does humanity, is it rational to call any person the universe?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:29 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:23 pm
Correct as in logical. You made the argument about categorization being necessary, therefore since categorization stems from the universe and so does humanity, is it rational to call any person the universe?
Depends on your standards for rationality.

Both the universe and people are made of exactly the same stuff. Quarks, electrons and leptopns.

So in some aspects humans are the same as the universe. In other aspects we aren't. Size and lifespan being just some ways in which we are different from the universe.

And no. Categorization doesn't stem from the universe. It stems from human minds.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. --Richard Feynman

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:43 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:29 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:23 pm
Correct as in logical. You made the argument about categorization being necessary, therefore since categorization stems from the universe and so does humanity, is it rational to call any person the universe?
Depends on your standards for rationality.

Both the universe and people are made of exactly the same stuff. Quarks, electrons and leptopns.

So in some aspects humans are the same as the universe. In other aspects we aren't. Size and lifespan being just some ways in which we are different from the universe.

And no. Categorization doesn't stem from the universe. It stems from human minds.
If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. --Richard Feynman
Human minds stem from the universe, therefore categorization stems from the universe.

If people are different to the universe, should the UN call all Russians and Mexicans different to the universe?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:46 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:43 pm
Human minds stem from the universe, therefore categorization stems from the universe.
No. Human minds are PART OF the universe. By saying "stem from" you have already drawn a distinction and categorized minds separate from universes.

Therefore categorization is PART OF the universe. Because categories exist in minds.
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:43 pm
If people are different to the universe, should the UN call all Russians and Mexicans different to the universe?
You are cherry-picking and shifting the goalposts.

We are the same as the universe in some aspects and different in others.
Russians and Mexicans are the same in some aspects and different in others.

And you are yet to make a point.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:50 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:46 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:43 pm
Human minds stem from the universe, therefore categorization stems from the universe.
No. Human minds are PART OF the universe. By saying "stem from" you have already drawn a distinction and categorized minds separate from universes.

Therefore categorization is PART OF the universe. Because categories exist in minds.
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:43 pm
If people are different to the universe, should the UN call all Russians and Mexicans different to the universe?
You are cherry-picking and shifting the goalposts.

We are the same as the universe in some aspects and different in others.
Russians and Mexicans are the same in some aspects and different in others.

And you are yet to make a point.
How are Russians and Mexicans similar and different?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:53 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:50 pm
How are Russians and Mexicans similar and different?
Similarities: Genetics
Differences: Genetics, Place of birth, Language, Culture

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:58 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:53 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:50 pm
How are Russians and Mexicans similar and different?
Similarities: Genetics
Differences: Genetics, Place of birth, Language, Culture
If Russians and Mexicans are connected by genetics, should all Russians and Mexicans be categorized by the UN as genetics?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:59 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:58 pm
If Russians and Mexicans are connected by genetics, should all Russians and Mexicans be categorized by the UN as genetics?
And you are cherry-picking again. They are also separated by genetics.

And still not getting to a point.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:01 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:59 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:58 pm
If Russians and Mexicans are connected by genetics, should all Russians and Mexicans be categorized by the UN as genetics?
And you are cherry-picking again. They are also separated by genetics.

And still not getting to a point.
Why does there need to be a point?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:02 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:01 pm
Why does there need to be a point?
Because you keep shifting the goalposts and drawing distinctions. And so I imagine you are trying to make a point...

If you aren't then I'll just stop responding now :)

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:03 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:02 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:01 pm
Why does there need to be a point?
Because you keep shifting the goalposts and drawing distinctions. And so I imagine you are trying to make a point...

If you aren't then I'll just stop responding now :)
Okay

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:07 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:01 pm
Why does there need to be a point?
If there needs be no point - then there needs be nothing said.
If there needs be noting said - then there needs be no language; or linguistic categories.

And yet you speak.

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:12 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:07 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:01 pm
Why does there need to be a point?
If there needs be no point - then there needs be nothing said.
If there needs be noting said - then there needs be no language; or linguistic categories.

And yet you speak.
And so do you

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:12 pm
by TimeSeeker
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:12 pm
And so do you
Yes. That is why I need categories.

You are the one objecting to them, remember?

Re: Why does the public look at philosophy with disdain?

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:15 pm
by trokanmariel
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:12 pm
trokanmariel wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:12 pm
And so do you
Yes. That is why I need categories.

You are the one objecting to them, remember?
I said that people should be called planets and galaxies, which is my opinion. If you disagree, then disagree