M
Of course Kierkegaards position, as you describe it, is a complete load of Jackson. We are totally interdependent as opposed to being independent. How could the food have appeared on these plates without dependence on the other human beings in Waitrose, Texaco, vineyards, breweries etc. How could they have been assembled without the influences of parents, compatriots and ideas of self/identity discovered through food columns in newspapers and visits to restaurants? Existentialism is so 1970's!
Ed
We're not talking about the physical world, where there's obvious dependencies. Its our internal psychological, "inner space" which is effectively isolated. Also, I don't think Philosophy is particularly decade sensitive, or is that too Aristotlean, too 3rd century BC?
M
Of course I would refute this too. Notions of mind, self and identity are highly interdependent and rely heavily on inputs from the 'outside'.
Ed
There is no "outside" - all worlds, literally everything, exists ONLY in the consciousness of us as individuals (where else is there?), and my key point is that there may be processes where information, notions, ideas etc are transferred from one individual to another, but our conscious minds are still effectively 'islands' with their own unique take on the universe. This leads me (and many others) to logically conclude that the notion of an external universe is irrelevant. The only POSSIBLE universe for each individual, is the one which is created in that individual's consciousness, literally in their head, and, what's more, that universe is unique to them BECAUSE they have created it. That is why when a tree falls in a forest with no conscious beings present, there is no sound and that is why, more practically, the way YOU see the world is vastly different to the way I see it; even the people we think we mutually know, are actually quite different, because what is in our heads, our universe, is simply a representation which we have created. Even Descartes wrestled with this, without resolution. That is why he concluded that the only certain thing was his existence, based on the fact that he must exist because the act of thinking that he existed could ONLY be executed by someone who actually existed. Thankfully, I have progressed beyond Descartes, and I will be issuing the results in the next few weeks.
M
To conclude this little spat, I offer a Berkeley inspired quote from one of the directors of the Blue Raincoat Theatre Company in Sligo..'If a man does something and there is no woman there to observe, would he still be wrong?'
I await the answers to the bigger questions in the forthcoming essay.
M Of course Kierkegaards position, as you describe it, is a complete load of Jackson. We are totally interdependent as opposed to being independent. How could the food have appeared on these plates without dependence on the other human beings in Waitrose, Texaco, vineyards, breweries etc. How could they have been assembled without the influences of parents, compatriots and ideas of self/identity discovered through food columns in newspapers and visits to restaurants? Existentialism is so 1970's!
Ed We're not talking about the physical world, where there's obvious dependencies. Its our internal psychological, "inner space" which is effectively isolated. Also, I don't think Philosophy is particularly decade sensitive, or is that too Aristotlean, too 3rd century BC?
M Of course I would refute this too. Notions of mind, self and identity are highly interdependent and rely heavily on inputs from the 'outside'.
Ed There is no "outside" - all worlds, literally everything, exists ONLY in the consciousness of us as individuals (where else is there?), and my key point is that there may be processes where information, notions, ideas etc are transferred from one individual to another, but our conscious minds are still effectively 'islands' with their own unique take on the universe. This leads me (and many others) to logically conclude that the notion of an external universe is irrelevant. The only POSSIBLE universe for each individual, is the one which is created in that individual's consciousness, literally in their head, and, what's more, that universe is unique to them BECAUSE they have created it. That is why when a tree falls in a forest with no conscious beings present, there is no sound and that is why, more practically, the way YOU see the world is vastly different to the way I see it; even the people we think we mutually know, are actually quite different, because what is in our heads, our universe, is simply a representation which we have created. Even Descartes wrestled with this, without resolution. That is why he concluded that the only certain thing was his existence, based on the fact that he must exist because the act of thinking that he existed could ONLY be executed by someone who actually existed. Thankfully, I have progressed beyond Descartes, and I will be issuing the results in the next few weeks.
M To conclude this little spat, I offer a Berkeley inspired quote from one of the directors of the Blue Raincoat Theatre Company in Sligo..'If a man does something and there is no woman there to observe, would he still be wrong?' I await the answers to the bigger questions in the forthcoming essay.