• Coben
    832
    I can agree with that. But perhaps you would agree that only works by using experience to qualify what you know to be the case presently. If you are met with a completely new event, all experience will tell you is what the new event isn’t, but cannot tell you what it is.Mww
    Ah, I think we are using experience in two different ways - and perhaps I am also. By experience, or experiencing, I mean 'the living through it'. The toaster does not experience the toast - if you are pantheist, just grant me this for now - but I experience the toast, when I touch it, look at it.

    So in the new event, yes, I have no prior experience of the gremlin, let's say. But right then I am having an experience of what I don't know is a gremlin. I have no memory to experience it via. But I do have memories of colors and shapes. And in this case, it would have facial features, so I will place it in the category living thing. I might also go for hallucination.

    Now let's say it shared nearly nothing with anything I had experienced before. I am still experiencing it. That is concrete. That's as concrete as it gets, just as a baby's experiences are really concrete never having seen thigns before.

    So their is experience 1 as the history I have of experiencing different things - memory and a kind of template to take in new experiences.
    2 - And Experience meaning 2 - as the process of being a subject experiencing things now.

    I am saying that the process of experiencing is concrete. So this would include experiences fo new things also. Even if I don't know what the thing is I am experiencing. Even if I have no prior experience of it.

    When I use the word experience, I am thinking of lived experiencing. And then there are records of this, so to speak,in the mind, that we can pull up and experience again. Not thatt his is quite the same, but it is also concrete.
    And yeah......the “ding an sich” has no bearing or import with respect to the common understandings of Everydayman.Mww
    I just meant that often we think of concrete as the object. But I think the experience is concrete and the object is for us more of an abstraction. for us. Not for it, especially it if is a sentient being.
  • Mww
    994


    All good; nothing in there I would argue against, even if there are a plethora of finer points I might quibble over. And even if I did, nothing I would say would necessarily contradict what you’re saying. Just the perils of cognitive reductionism run amok, to be sure.
  • Coben
    832
    nothing in there I would argue againstMww
    Oh poop.
    :joke:
  • Mww
    994


    Careful what you wish for. I’m retired and pretty lazy to boot, so I got all kinds of time to occupy myself with this stuff.
189101112Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.