/lit/ - Literature

That man beard is looking like pubes XD

>>1531273
>uses a semi-colon

How about we rationalize why we should have you shot in the back of the head?

>>1531285
Leave Fabulous alone.

>>1531285
it was obviously a typo because i didn't feel like shifting


fuck off elitist cunt

>>1531278
that man is Chekhov

whether or not his beard looks like pubes i am not in the position to say

>>1531287
It makes me warm inside when i think about how i'll always have your support

>>1531291
>cognitivism is a theoretical approach in understanding the mind using quantitative, positivist and scientific methods

I don't know how that's romanticized. Please to be explaining why it is.

>>1531294
but really no circle jerking i would like to know if there are any even casual cognitivists on this board and would enjoy hearing their opinions on the matter at hand, that being the problems which we are addressing in these silly arguments

>>1531305
ethical cognitivism

different variety you have there

sorry for being so vague

>>1531309
Nah it's okay. Sorry for saying you should be shot for using a semi-colon. It's been a rough day. I found out I won't be able to play the drums for a while, and if I can't have my drums, what's the point of even getting up in the morning?

>>1531314
To make shitty pointless posts on /lit/?

>>1531315
Hey, pointless? Yes. Shitty? I've had better.

the cognitivist vs noncognitivist thing is really downstream from the discussion on the nature of folk psychology.

>>1531314
I'm sorry that you lost your drums

i used to play snare for my school a few years ago

I never did perfect my rolls

>>1531320
>downstream
clarify

>If statements about game rules can be true or false, why not ethical statements?

Sorry for being a wikipediafag, but are they basically arguing that life has objective rules? Like the statement, "Homosexuality is immoral." Are they saying that this is a true/false statement?

>>1531334
yes

cognitivists propose that ethical statements can be proven true or false

non-cognitivists the opposite

it's really just objective or subjective

>>1531342
It's not quite subjective and objective. Only within certain bounds.

>>1531332
with some easy modifications, ie abandoning metaphysical claims to rationality/objectivity, cognitivism about ethical rules can be seen as a useful illusion that is not separable from the practice of using it. this is just a specific case of the general problem about how to handle folk psychology.

another thing is that cognitivism vs noncognitivism got defined in an era of immature understanding about cognition vs emotion, so that the terms themselves are charged with prejudices of the rationalist kind.

>>1531344
it almost boils down to such

there's some confusion regarding what constitutes a statement itself but it comes up not often

read ethics wtihout ontology

>>1531348
An illusion, very useful, it indeed is

that is why i thought it would be fun to have this thread

can one rationalize an illusion?

and the terms work nicely when casually organizing principles of ethical philosophies, regardless of their history

>>1531358
wrong

>>1531321
>I never did perfect my rolls

Takes a lifetime, and even then, it doesn't have any soul if it sounds too perfect.

>>1531359
right
>>1531355

While ethical proscriptive statements cannot have truth values, descriptive ethical statements can. If I say, for example, if you want to open my door then the necessary sufficient condition for doing that are turning the door knob and applying force to the door, it does not entail an ought statement or virtue. Instead, if formulated correctly, conditional value descriptions such as these are even testable. This is a simple modus ponens. You could go to my house and experiment turning the doorknob at different angles and so on. You could record the results and look for correlations, research etc.

Individual value descriptions can have a truth value: I value life or I do not value life. In such instances either it is the case that you value something or it is not.

>>1531357
funny thing is i almost got to a point where i could perform quite average with my right hand and i couldn't do a thing with my left

so my rolls often sounded like a horse clopping along

>>1531360
>Individual value descriptions can have a truth value: I value life or I do not value life. In such instances either it is the case that you value something or it is not.
forgive me for being cliche

but even descriptive truths are maltranscribed by their conduits

>>1531354
problem is you or i or anyone is not free to design the terms and habits of our thoughts.

the question is much more than whether noncognitivism as it was defined (pretty retardedly) is right, it is about figuring out the consequences when the physical nature of mind including morality is made apparent.

one fallout is the suspicion of foundationalist approaches to morality and increased awareness of empirical contingencies in the development fo moral sentiments. this means more importance paid to history of moral sentiments and evolutionary stuff etc. basically less armchair hurfing
>>1531342
thsi is a vast simplification

>>1531364
Just like how someone doesn't know or can be unsure of whether they're in pain or not.

>>1531365
well yes but of course i wanted not to focus on non cognitivism

i was more interested in the cognitivists tenets than the non cognitivists curiosities in making this thread

and simplicity is almost always required in almost all things, well as required as a thing can be that is

Not really participating in this debate, but curious:

What gives art majors the right to opinion on nature of.. uh.. 'reality'?

>>1531370
I don't know if you were being sarcastic

yet i will agree

>>1531375
I'm not an art major if that's what you are somehow implying

and i don't like how you think something as paltry as a college major really matters when meditating on the world

>>1531380
what age are you?

>>1531377
I was doing into sarcasm, fagulout. Either you're in pain or you're not. You either value something or you don't.

>>1531375
>What gives art majors the right to opinion on nature of.. uh.. 'reality'?
Because 'reality' represents nothing more than a word in our language

Why are you so mean D&E?

>>1531387
>you either value something or you don't
often times we know not when we truly value something

even more frequently we think we truly value that which has no place in our hearts

>>1531387
>Because 'reality' represents nothing more than a word in our language
That was a meaningful point in small circles and a handful of arguments 50 or so years ago. Spamming it now is idiotic.

>>1531380
>I don't like

Its nothing to do with what we like or don't.

>>1531387
DO you think that there are more languages than one? And I am sure you know what I am talking about: Models, statues, portraits and pictures are representations of reality capturing it on some or other level.

Language is our means of describing ideas and objects.

We approve of those descriptions which appeal to us as the best ones, capturing most of perceived reality.

Similarly, we have other means to model reality. Let me be frank. They are beyond the capacity of the uneducated.

>>1531400
>Its nothing to do with what we like or don't.
Why is it not?

>>1531401
Do you like Twilight of the sparkling vampires?

>>1531400
>Its nothing to do with what we like or don't
this is simply untrue

our preferences shape our worlds

they mean everything

>>1531404
I am out of this thread.

>>1531403
If you're only going to ask irrelevant questions...

>>1531400
>Similarly, we have other means to model reality. Let me be frank. They are beyond the capacity of the uneducated

>>1531408
to be blunt

good

you yourself hold very romanticized views

fix that and we'll speak on the subject another time

you have a strange fixation with reality

>>1531397
>often times we know not when we truly value something
You either experience the internal state or you do not; You can come to experience that state (you "truly" X something) sure, but that does not change the fact that you either experience that X or you don't.

>>1531400
>DO you think that there are more languages than one?
I think there are language games and ways of life

>Language is our means of describing ideas and objects.
What a removed conception of language; it's not that straightforward, it's caught up in use.

>We approve of those descriptions which appeal to us as the best ones, capturing most of perceived reality.
All good and well but nowhere near as straightforward as we'd like to think; what appeals to us is caught up in, loosely speaking, ideology, as is perceived 'reality'; this is no more obvious than in our day and age.

>>1531422
>You either experience the internal state or you do not; You can come to experience that state (you "truly" X something) sure, but that does not change the fact that you either experience that X or you don't.
the question is whether or not you truly know you are in that state at the time it affects you

>>1531430
>the question is whether or not you truly know you are in that state at the time it affects you
Knowing has nothing to do with it. If I knocked your teeth out with a shovel for being such a blockhead right now it wouldn't be a case of you 'knowing' pain, you wouldn't need to think to yourself "do I KNOW I'm in pain? Am I TRULY in pain?" because either you would be in pain or you wouldn't (in which case you would be getting another blow of the shovel let me tell you)

>>1531422
> think there are language games and ways of life
I think language games in just a portion of the whole. How did ways of life come about? Through experience and inheritance. How did we interprete either? Through some or other language.

>What a removed conception of language; it's not that straightforward, it's caught up in use.
Its dispassionate and not removed.

>All good and well but nowhere near as straightforward as we'd like to think; what appeals to us is caught up in, loosely speaking, ideology, as is perceived 'reality'; this is no more obvious than in our day and age.
I think the answer is in the first statement. Ideology, or way of life is a product as well as a inheritance of language.

>>1531444
> think language games in just a portion of the whole
*are just a

>>1531444
Fine. I am wrong in saying that ideology is inheritance of language. I take that back.

>>1531442
what a stoic man you are

let me tell you that knowledge is not something one must acquire

rather knowledge acquires a mind to take residence in

knowing your shovel had knocked out all of my teeth would certainly in almost all cases cause me to know that i was in pain

the knowledge was brought to me by your shovel

the pain arrived with the knowledge

like a watered down form of constructivism

>>1531442
And before you argue that a value like 'love' is much more complex than pain, I'll clear that up too.

Love, like annnnny other emotion or feeling or whatever, is necessarily some firing of neurons in the body or what have you. Now, you can either experience that or not, just like pain; so there is really no difference. The only difference stems from the idiot 'subject' who fails to interpret properly, much like, say when we think a 'mirage' is 'tricking' our senses: nothing tricks our senses, our senses always convey raw sense data. It is our 'subjectivity', for lack of a better word, that does the tricking or makes miscalculated judgments.

>>1531444
Yeah okay Jim, is there like a major point we are disagreeing on here?

>Its dispassionate and not removed.
lovely way alternative way to say removed bro

>>1531459
>rather knowledge acquires a mind to take residence in
The Selfish Meme

Nice post

>>1531459
stick to the rapier wit fab

>>1531468
excuse me?

>>1531469
he looks like a retired porn actor

>>1531466
>talks about neurons etc. firing in the brain
>doesn't understand the inability to separate interpretation from sensation

>>1531469
actually i will try to in the future

all of this thought i feel is distracting from my beauty

doesn't mean you are not very romantic yourself in your rationalist fervor

>>1531472
Oh jesus here we go, are you that fucking asshole from the other thread

What did I say about there being absolutely no issue in having a conceptual cut-off point between interpretation and sensation

>>1531477
you seem to see no difference in the two

if one is to be judged by their musings passed

>>1531477
I must defend D&E here. We are not talking about the actual physical nature of the process.

>>1531487
oh good

how easy you have made it to conclude that the anon was right

>>1531477
d&e is juust wired differently guys it's ok he's from mars

>>1531477
Am I "that fucking asshole"?
Anyway, since I'm making some notes on it, have an introductory paragraph on perception:
>In a rudimentary sense, the eye can be considered analogous to a camera. Both focus the world on a light-sensitive element. This analogy falls apart when we scrutinize the respective roles of a camera’s photosensitive element and the retina. The former acts as a passive receiver of light: it records a point-by-point representation of the light falling upon it. In comparison, the retina is an elaborate neural structure that actively analyzes the image that is focused on it. The signal that is sent to the brain is not merely a point-by-point representation of the retinal image—certain information is highlighted, while other information is disregarded.

There is no such thing as "fails to interpret properly", and you don't understand the nature of "raw sense data" if you think there is.

>>1531480
>>1531472
>doesn't understand the inability to separate interpretation from sensation

>doesn't understand that one of the functions of language is to provide useful arbitrary separating concepts such as interpretation and sensation
Outside of language there IS NO difference between interpretation or sensation, it would even be useless to talk of sensation because there would be no such distinction between sensation or non-sensation either. But that is not what we use these terms, terms such as 'sensation' and 'interpretation' to convey; these terms are used in order to provide distinctions crucial to the possibility of life, and they can be arbitrarily defined, broadened, or sharpened or retracted in whatever way is necessary to be conducive to life or whatever purpose we need them for.

>>1531497
If you want to wank off to language games, stick your cock in some Derrida. Theories of perception have very well defined terms like "interpretation" or "sensation".

>>1531498
That doesn't address anything I've said in the least.

>the retina is an elaborate neural structure that actively analyzes the image that is focused on it
Of course, so long as it's not made out of fucking machine parts it makes sense to say it analyzes anything. good god

>analyzed
>certain information is highlighted, while other information is disregarded.

All words that are being completely inappropriately used

>>1531497
You bastard. You are right.

What is your actual education.

>>1531510
I think he's right because he hasn't really said that much.

>>1531510
why would you tell him that?

the last thing you tell a person is that they're correct

it is the first thing you tell to a man

>>1531518
In a perfect world I wouldn't have to say anything, I'd just club people with shovels.

>>1531510
I pray to God and he gives me answers

So this thread is basically Kant 101?

>>1531536
ding an sichs have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread

>>1531522
Now be damned in peace and tell me.

>>1531508
>Love, like annnnny other emotion or feeling or whatever, is necessarily some firing of neurons in the body or what have you. Now, you can either experience that or not, just like pain; so there is really no difference. The only difference stems from the idiot 'subject' who fails to interpret properly, much like, say when we think a 'mirage' is 'tricking' our senses: nothing tricks our senses, our senses always convey raw sense data. It is our 'subjectivity', for lack of a better word, that does the tricking or makes miscalculated judgments.

Your whole argument here rests on there being something to interpret properly, and that the subject somehow has control over this interpretation. Both of these points are wrong: "proper" interpretation is at best some form of consensus; interpretation doesn't even begin at the eye, let alone before it gets to any neurons, and, even then, the interpretation is automatic (which in turn creates the "raw sense data").

Certainly, and as I have posted before, you do not talk about pain or love being some neurons firing, but that they have a neural correlate (see work from Koch and Crick). To claim all emotion and consciousness is just "neurons or similar" is naive, and even staunch physicalists tend to avoid it.

>>1531549
So Kant never discussed the transference of raw data into understanding?
(genuine question)

>>1531569
It does it through imagination.

>>1531558
I have already addressed all of this;

>>1531497

I will say that I could have phrased proper interpretation better.

>"proper" interpretation is at best some form of consensus
Sure, to put it better; conducive to some relative end. But the key point is that you can no longer say that your senses trick you of anything.

>>1531556
2nd/3rd year english/philosophy major at a non-top20 university in ireland

>>1531569
>ding an sichs have absolutely nothing to do with anything in this thread
>So Kant never discussed the transference of raw data into understanding?

I like how you ignored what I said in order to say something else that was relevant to the thread

>>1531573
You went on about how the words are at fault, not about how your argument is at fault. The real point is that, if I feel love, who are you to tell me that I am not feeling love? How is my feeling of love any more or less valid than anybody else's? If I happen to perceive something differently, how might I be "right" or "wrong" or "smart" or "stupid".

Way to blunder about the topic.

>>1531587
you're looking at things in such a perverted light

stop trying to validate love

knowledge is pieced together

not all of the pieces are born in an objective, or even external environment

>>1531587
>You went on about how the words are at fault, not about how your argument is at fault
If my argument in the very first place was at fault it would be words anyway, but that has nothing to do with what I said. WORDS ARE AT FAULT, THAT IS ALL THAT COULD EVER BE AT FAULT, JESUS CHRIST.

>The real point is that, if I feel love, who are you to tell me that I am not feeling love? How is my feeling of love any more or less valid than anybody else's? If I happen to perceive something differently, how might I be "right" or "wrong" or "smart" or "stupid".
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID YOU FUCKING MORON, I'M NOT TELLING YOU ANYTHING. YOU EITHER FEEL SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T, YOU EITHER PERCEIVE SOMETHING OR YOU DON'T, WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD, YOU FUCKING SHALLOW-PATE IDIOT.

>>1531593
This is kinda what I'm saying. Though frankly, talking about emotions changes things. Emotions need not have anything to do with externalities, but then they may have everything to do with them.

And I'm not trying to validate, merely saying it is ridiculous to invalidate it.

>>1531585
Yes, I suppose I did really. Although my German isn't very good you know - except as some sort of jaded party trick!
So this thread is, basically, a simplified (in a wholy non-perjorative sense) er...summary of Kant? In that, when I finally get round to reading Kant, I'll find the themes of this thread discussed with more erm...complexity(?)
(again, these are all genuine questions - I'm new to this.)

>>1531603
The terms are well defined, so the words are not at fault. Unless you're pissing about in a subject you have no knowledge of, in which case why bother posting shit that you can't even claim makes sense on the level of words?

And you claimed that someone could be an idiot for their interpretation of some "sense data", and that is hopelessly wrong.

>>1531612
This thread is not a summary of Kant.

>>1531622
This thread is about 'other stuff'

>>1531615
>The terms are well defined, so the words are not at fault
Again, nothing to do with what I said. I have never said anywhere in this thread that there is a problem with any terms.

>Unless you're pissing about in a subject you have no knowledge of, in which case why bother posting shit that you can't even claim makes sense on the level of words?
mouthfarting

>And you claimed that someone could be an idiot for their interpretation of some "sense data", and that is hopelessly wrong
mouthfarting

>>1531612
>(i put in brackets so obviously that disqualifies me from sounding like an asshole)
No-one has disputed in this thread the issue of whether we can see things as they are

>>1531638
>No-one has disputed in this thread the issue of whether we can see things as they are
That is all that's being talked about. You've managed to repeatedly stumble into it without realizing.

>>1531645
>That is all that's being talked about.
Okay brah give us an example lol

>>1531645
>>1531649
knowledge can be interpreted as such

things are as we see them

whether or not we see them as they are is irrelevant

>>1531638
>>1531622
So to recap:

This thread has something to do with Kant. But any mention of Kant would be a distraction from the real purpose of this thread - which has nothing to do with Kant.

>>1531655
just drop the shit about Kant already

it's not all that relevant

just an anon trying to sound clever (although he was pretty correct)

>>1531649
Moment feeling emotions and neurons firing was brought up, and you called the interpretation of emotions into question, which in turn was called into question.

>>1531670
Correct insofar far as Kant did look at perception.

Let me capitulate:

Reality is.

We perceive it and interpret.

We communicate it to our capacity of translation through which a lot may be lost/gained/spiced up.

We come to some consensus amongst ourselves to remove the spiced up part.

That is what we colloquially refer to as Knowledge.

>>1531677
That has absolutely nothing to do with transcendental reality. At best that is simply what you yourself have gotten out of this debate, tautologically, and that is simply because you are stupid.

>>1531682
What?

Kant spent a majority of his input on epistemology

perception is certainly a part of that

although i can see your point in a way

>>1531683
>We come to some consensus amongst ourselves to remove the spiced up part.
good luck with that

>knowledge
>implying there is such a thing

>>1531683
no

1. reality is unkown

2. it lends itself out to us

3. to the best of our abilities we interpret its channelings

4. the product we call knowledge

>>1531700
I guess you don't actually use your computer and go about naked in rain-forests.

>>1531689
> transcendental reality
Just throw in some more terms you want to pretend you were talking about. Normal reaction to being out of your depth, as is a little ad hominem.

>>1531706
For a guy doing a PhD you're not the glibbest, Jim, I have to say

>>1531707
mouthfarting

My faculty does not allow ornamentation much,

Knowledge isn't a thing

it's a man

we are like children, watching him trough a foggy shower pane

we all claim to know the man, we all claim to know why he is in our bathroom, in our house

>>1531721
goddamn my metaphors are superb


anyone else get chills?

I was really interested in someone giving me a Kantian perspective on some of the themes of this thread. Oh well. I'm beginning to wonder if you guys haven't read about as much Kant as me.

>>1531726
are you ever going to be good at anything?

>>1531735
I know i haven't

i start a philosophy unit after i'm done with Dickens

i feel pretty rusty right now

don't take that to mean the things i have pronounced in this thread were strained

>>1531743
funny thing ty

i've never actually witness you speak on anything /lit/ related

other than Salinger and that's a dimestore facade