:-O I notice you said some blasphemy towards the Great One there...Hypothesis: pragmatic solutions do not work, because no matter how much time people like Rorty spend asserting that we should just ignore the idea of ultimate goals or transcendence or what have you, there is simply no way to stop humans from constantly asking "Why?". A lot of people are apathetic on this front, but should they be? More importantly, there are always people who aren't apathetic. Wittgensteinians go on and on about how philosophy ought to be therapeutic and there are no philosophical problems, but here we are nearly a century later and philosophers are still doing what they've always done, so that hasn't worked. — Pneumenon
Of course so? My reality and your reality are not the same, for the simple reason that we live in different communities, we have different backgrounds, desires, and so forth. We cannot have the same purpose for these reasons.And that requires that my purposes reference something outside of me. — Pneumenon
No, but nothing will. That's exactly my point. There simply is no cure except that they give up the imagined itch.As to imagining an answer to the question - well, what of it? "I can't imagine it" isn't gonna satisfy any of those transcendental nutbags, now will it? — Pneumenon
Groups are formed by people who share similar purposes. In addition they are formed by those who can "sell" their large purpose unto others.Yeah, but we have to cooperate in groups, and any group that cooperates needs a collective "why" if it's gonna function over the long term — Pneumenon
I'm not saying they should stop - I am not concerned about what they're doing. I'm merely indicating that I think their activity is pointless - "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"You seem to take the attitude that the transcendental nutbags will not be satisfied because there is nothing that can satisfy them, and the only winning move with such questions in not to play. You also appeal to personality and context, saying that such things are personal and different between different people.
Here's the issue, though. You are engaged in a discussion. You say things like this on the internet, where they're meant to be read by many other people. If I make it a point of saying that people who seek some kind of transcendence ought to stop, then, if I am arguing in good faith, I really am trying to get at least some of them to stop. But, as we've seen in philosophy since Wittgenstein, this never actually happens, because the transcendental types keep doing their thing. So shouldn't the Wittgensteinian be the one to halt das maul? — Pneumenon
Because I hope that maybe one of those lunatics will one day reveal some reason for their lunacy to me, which will make sense. I don't expect it, but maybe one day one will. And maybe that will be of use to me in achieving and following my own goals. So I have to challenge them. I would be surprised if they succeed - I don't see how they could go about it. You know @Pneumenon - a hunter never knows where the rabbit will jump from, so he must test and verify in all places.I don't think this response works, though, because if you really thought that, then why bother engaging in the discussion at all? — Pneumenon
SureYou are willing to engage in discussion with the lunatics because you are not 100% certain that they are lunatics. — Pneumenon
Either that, or there could be something useful in their lunatic practices of relating with the transcendent that could be useful to me.That is to say, you are willing to entertain the idea that there could be a transcendental answer, or at least, a good reason to seek one — Pneumenon
Mostly.Have I understood you? — Pneumenon
The problem of goals. Why are you doing this? What, exactly, do you want, and what are your motives? — Pneumenon
The motive is strictly personal - one could want to live in Hawaii because they were born in very poor conditions, where life was very difficult and ardous - living in Hawaii would be a release for them and their family. Someone else could be motivated to become Emperor of China because he feels the destiny of his nation sits on his shoulders - feels he is asked to do something for it. And so on - these are very particular reasons, that are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question. I'll take the guy wanting to live in Hawaii, and the guy wanting to be Emperor of China as nutters from strictly my perspective. These things only make sense to them and for them.Someone's "ultimate goal" is to live in Hawaii or be the Emperor of China, as Augustino says, but what's the motive behind the goal? — Noble Dust
These things only make sense to them and for them. — Agustino
And so on — Agustino
I can imagine being in their situation but I cannot imagine arriving there.But surely by learning about their reasons, you can make sense of it for yourself? — Noble Dust
Because one's motives reveal themselves to them, and to no one else. I do not know how, for example, the guy wanting to become Chinese Emperor, how he started to perceive it as his duty to become the leader of the country, and start feeling it is his responsibility to do so.Why not? — Noble Dust
The popular pragmatic answer to this is just to stick with a reference point until it is falsified, which is more or less how science works. — Pneumenon
The problem of goals .... This, I conjecture, is the big problem with trying to analyze the whole history of science, because the people involved may not have even had the same goals. — Pneumenon
This extends beyond science, by the way. The history of modern society is the history of us (ostensibly) trying our hardest to be good little children of the Enlightenment. — Pneumenon
Hypothesis: pragmatic solutions to this problem do not work, because no matter how much time people like Rorty spend asserting that we should just ignore the idea of ultimate goals or transcendence or what have you, there is simply no way to stop humans from constantly asking "Why?" — Pneumenon
I do not know how, for example, the guy wanting to become Chinese Emperor, how he started to perceive it as his duty to become the leader of the country, and start feeling it is his responsibility to do so. — Agustino
Knowing what his motives are is different than understanding why they are his motives. It's part of his freedom, having chosen those motives (or being chosen by them :P ). For example, why was Steve Jobs motivated by the idea of creating ground-breaking and revolutionary products for the world instead of, let's say, go and become a Buddhist monk? Both were viable alternatives, but he chose one of them. Why?Can't you just ask the guy? >:O
Really though, I partially agree, at least in that the motives of another are not always knowable or clear, but I think we can certainly apprehend some amount of another's motives. Actions also reveal motives, for instance. We can make decently accurate assessments, given enough time. We can make an assessment accurate enough, for instance, to make a judgement and then take an action. The results of our action could reveal that our judgement of the other's motives was accurate. — Noble Dust
Knowing what his motives are is different than understanding why they are his motives. It's part of his freedom, having chosen those motives. — Agustino
I disagree because some motives are primary. It's simply what it means to be Noble Dust that you have such a driving motive. Without it, you lose your very own essence. Otherwise we'd have an infinite regress of motives, which is nonsense. Some motive has to be primary and foundational to one's character.I definitely disagree here; understanding why his motives are what they are would just be discovering the further motives underneath those motives. We don't choose our motives, as you say. Steve Jobs chose his career path, but he did so because of underlying motives; he didn't choose those motives. If I had been one of his closest friends or family members, I could probably elaborate further on what some of his motivations probably were.
Do you disagree with what else I've said here about motives? You don't really seem to be responding to my thoughts, just to what I say about your thoughts. — Noble Dust
Some motive has to be primary and foundational to one's character. — Agustino
No I'm not saying it is unknowable. I'm saying that its source is unknowable - it's not known why Steve Jobs has that motive.So you're saying the foundational motive is unknowable? — Noble Dust
We don't share fundamental motives with others. However, them reaching their goal may help me to reach mine and conversely, in which case we'll both work together.I think that two people can share a motive. That's why we can cooperate. And if you're certain that you don't share a motive with someone else, trying to find out what they want, by your lights, is pointless. — Pneumenon
Someone else could be motivated to become Emperor of China because he feels the destiny of his nation sits on his shoulders - feels he is asked to do something for it. And so on - these are very particular reasons, that are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question. — Agustino
I'm saying that its source is unknowable — Agustino
This motive is entirely knowable to the more self-conscious amongst us, at least our own is. It's our own individual purpose for being here, bestowed upon us by the Eternal. Its source is unknowable and unfathomable. — Agustino
Knowing what his motives are is different than understanding why they are his motives. — Agustino
I can imagine being in their situation but I cannot imagine arriving there. — Agustino
The path as to how these persons arrive at having such fundamental motivations is not known. Why? Because their motives emerge from their own particular relationship with reality, which is unknowable. You can know their motivation is X - you can imagine being in their situation and having that motivation - but you cannot imagine ARRIVING there - you cannot imagine their relationship with reality that grounds that motive.The motive is strictly personal - one could want to live in Hawaii because they were born in very poor conditions, where life was very difficult and ardous - living in Hawaii would be a release for them and their family. Someone else could be motivated to become Emperor of China because he feels the destiny of his nation sits on his shoulders - feels he is asked to do something for it. And so on - these are very particular reasons, that are almost nonsense to people who aren't the person in question. — Agustino
Not only our own motive, the motive of others too are knowable.1) our own motive is knowable to us — Noble Dust
The source of our own motive is not knowable because it cannot be put into concepts. The source of others' motives is not known because we have no direct access to their relationship with reality, since we are not them.it's source is not knowable — Noble Dust
It is the same: — Agustino
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.