[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 61 KB, 850x400, quote-the-map-is-not-the-territory-the-only-usefulness-of-a-map-depends-on-similarity-of-structure-alfred-korzybski-244678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574607 No.3574607 [Reply] [Original]

What branch of philosophy does Alfred Korzybski fit into?

>> No.3574623

Like most philosophers, he discussed many different 'branches'.

>> No.3574635

Mainly Epistemology:

"Korzybski thought that people do not have access to direct knowledge of reality; rather they have access to perceptions and to a set of beliefs which human society has confused with direct knowledge of reality. Korzybski is remembered as the author of the dictum: "The map is not the territory"."

>> No.3574676

>>3574635
>Korzybski thought that people do not have access to direct knowledge of reality
Don't fall for that continental hackery. Empirical knowledge is objective. Sometimes we misinterpret it, but we still have direct knowledge of it. The trend in bored 'philosophers' is to say that 'nothing is verifiable to 100%', but just look around your bedroom now. Go up and knock on your wooden desk, and try to convince yourself that you don't have objective knowledge. It's all well and good playing sophist with words, but you can't delude yourself in reality. You fully believe that the desk is there and you can detect it with your senses, fully verify that it is there, and have some objective knowledge of it's properties. That's because you do.

This bullshit is like solipsism, but applied to the material. Don't fall for it.

>> No.3574687

>>3574676

How can you be 100% sure that you can trust your senses, and what you're detecting is real? You can't be.

>> No.3574709
File: 13 KB, 400x261, 9MW8l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574709

>>3574607

This dude and his acolytes are drowning in a small glass half full with semantics.

Epistemology is quite clear about it and mental masturbation is nothing more than a pastime to gain some funding and a lecture chair.

>> No.3574710

>>3574687
>>>/x/

>> No.3574715

>>3574709
Yeah, except that he is completely correct.

>> No.3574717

>>3574676
>>3574709
>>3574710
>>>/sci/

>> No.3574719

>>3574710

I'll take that lack of response as you agreeing with me, which is good because after all: I'm right.

>> No.3574738

>>3574719
No, no you are not right. And what's even more delicious is that you don't even believe your bullshit in reality. You don't ever step into your car thinking it might not really be there. Deep down you believe that you have objective knowledge of reality...because you do.

>> No.3574755

>>3574738

No, deep down I believe in it because I go on faith. Others believe in it because they've mistaken logical probability for pure objective fact, like you. Still others understand that they only work on "probablies" rather than "certainlies" and accept it.

Your lack of ability to come up with any substance against the argument says to me once again that I'm right. Care to try again?

>> No.3574764
File: 66 KB, 670x870, 1363465315532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574764

>>3574715

Your nose is getting browner.

>> No.3574767

>>3574764

Do you any argument at all?

>> No.3574770

>>3574767
>have

>> No.3574769

>>3574767

Do you?

>> No.3574777

>>3574769

Yes, I'm arguing that you can't be completely certain about anything besides the fact that in some capacity, you exist. That's my argument. Your argument seems to consist of a whole lot of nothing.

>> No.3574781

>>3574676
>Don't fall for that continental hackery. Empirical knowledge is objective.
Oh god babby's first convictions

>> No.3574803

Alright well, my statement has gone completely unchallenged. Glad that everyone agrees with me, I'll go ahead and leave now.
>inb4 ad hominem

>> No.3574810

>>3574781
Oh god babby's first convictions.
Read everyone from Parmenides to the clown in OP's pic, then come back.

It's natural when you first start reading philosophy to get stuck in the 'rejection of knowledge' phase, but it will pass.

>> No.3574822

>>3574810
>Read everyone from Parmenides to the clown in OP's pic, then come back.
And so we see the mere act of reading won't change an ass into anything else.

That was empirical btw, take that how you will.

>> No.3574836
File: 36 KB, 648x488, Adderall_XR_20mg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574836

>>3574777

I am glad you grasped the metaphor.

>> No.3574870

>>3574676
You observe the reality of the desk through your senses, through your brain. You don't directly experience the desk, you experience your body perceiving the desk. That's all these people are saying. We can introduce chemicals into the brain, you could have a dream, or your brain could be malfunctioning all causing you to perceive something that's not in reality. The very possibility of this is what gives grounds to these people arguing empiricism as a foundation for objective knowledge. Now, if you're pretty sure you aren't dreaming, you're not on drugs, or not crazy and you perceive a desk are you permitted to assume the desk is real? Sure, of course. But you still only observed your perceiving of the desk not the direct experience of the desk.

>> No.3574876

>>3574676
>Don't fall for that continental hackery.
Korzybski isn't a continental philosopher. He's pretty much Wittgenstein with the corrections made.

>Go up and knock on your wooden desk, and try to convince yourself that you don't have objective knowledge.
Korzibski isn't saying that the existence of the table and the non-existence of the table are equal. He's saying 'the map is not the territory'. Imagine your mental map. You think you know exactly what that table looks like. Now you go to an optician and they tell you that you're colour-blind. The table is supposed to have a hint of yellow that your eyes are swapping for green. Now you go to a physicist who tells you that your eyes are only capable of detecting a very tiny portion of light. Is your objective knowledge of the table really objective? Is that actually what the table looks like, or how your mind is interpreting reality? He is saying we can have variable structural similarity between 'maps' and 'reality, and that empirical analysis can PROBABLY get us closer to understanding reality, but not to put complete faith in any 'map'.

For practical purposes, yes, accept the table and write upon it, but don't be completely convinced that reality is exactly as you perceive it to be.

>> No.3574877

>>3574870
Arguing AGAINST empiricism as a foundation for objective reality*

>> No.3574886

>>3574810
>'rejection of knowledge' phase
how does one shed this phase then? if it can be overcome, i'm all ears.

>> No.3574901

>>3574886
It doesn't pass. That guy is just in an intellectual rut. He gave up on trying to constantly assess reality as best we can given our limitations and just said, "Fuck it, I know I'm right let me move on" The outcome is he'll be easily deceived into a certain belief and cry out of frustrated confusion asking himself, "HOW?!?!?"

>> No.3574914
File: 11 KB, 309x163, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3574914

>>3574876
>but don't be completely convinced that reality is exactly as you perceive it to be.
Then why, oh learned Anon, did your precious Korzybski believe that doubting everything was just as bad as believing?

>> No.3574929

>>3574914
Not that anon but by doubt he might mean reject as in the opposite of believing. He doesn't think we should reject the reality we perceive but only not confuse our reasonable beliefs with certainty.

>> No.3574940

>>3574914
>Then why, oh learned Anon, did your precious Korzybski believe that doubting everything was just as bad as believing?

"Korzybski maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems(sensory input and mental processing), and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us. Our understanding of what is happening can lack similarity of structure with what is actually happening.

He believed that we should 'modify' the way we consider the world, e.g., with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see," to better discover or reflect its realities."

Essentially, we can't know for certain, but don't use this as an excuse not to look.

>> No.3574978

>>3574607
Pragmatism, or even better "Anti-foundationalist"

>> No.3574987

This is the first I have heard of this guy. Is he worth checking out or is he a hack?

>> No.3575030

>>3574940
So he's essentially applying 'Mary's room' to reality?
Anon, we have moved past this. We know that form of epistemic analysis doesn't refute physicalism.

He's right that THE map doesn't represent THE territory, but A map can. Subjectively, there is a difference in interpretation of reality, but reality is still objective, and we can have that knowledge because we can know the flaws in our interpretation.

That other anon cited 'color blindness' and 'the spectrum of light is beyond our visible range'. This is invalid as a refutation. The fact that we know that compensates for them as flaws.

>> No.3575237

>>3575030
You're, perhaps, right. Not all subjective interpretations are equal, some are more correct than others, and it may be possible to make an interpretation, a map, that accurately reflects objective reality. But the point is you will always be using a map. You never directly experience reality. I think that is all he's saying.

>> No.3576188

>>3574987
No, he's worth checking out.

>> No.3576225

>>3574676
>Empirical knowledge is objective
AHAHAHHAHAHA

good one mate

>> No.3576235
File: 85 KB, 483x415, donkey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3576235

>>3576225
You cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing you cant know nothing

>> No.3576246
File: 27 KB, 327x344, tears.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3576246

>>3574676
>Empirical knowledge is objective.
>>3574810
>the 'rejection of knowledge' phase
>>3574719
>which is good because after all: I'm right.
>im right :)
>>3574738
>Deep down you believe that you have objective knowledge of reality...because you do.

Holy fucking shit this thread

>> No.3576248

>>3576235
clearly you haven't read nor Hume, nor Kant

>> No.3576249

>>3576246
see:
>>3576235

>> No.3576254

>>3576248
I think the point is that in 2013 there is no excuse to still be using Kantian sophistry.

>> No.3576266
File: 256 KB, 494x359, c2OYc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3576266

>>3576254
you sure gave yourself up that fast.

>> No.3576277

What on the-commonly-interpreted-idea-of bloody Earth is going on here

>> No.3576286

>>3576266
eeer, what? Seriously, despite your love of continental garbage, you have got yourself stuck in semantic rhetoric just because you don't understand reality. There is hope for you, but a true understanding of reality is probably well beyond your grasp, which is why you are latching on to watered-down, easy to swallow ideas like that of Kant.

First, try to imagine reality from a similar perspective Descartes did, but remember that there is no distinction between mind and body and all other subsequent matter. Then read up on people like OP's prophet and to a lesser extend, Wittgenstein, and work out exactly what they are doing with 'maps' and linguistic structures – they are on the right track but haven't got it. Then finally, and most crucial of all, you need to do away with infinity. There is no such thing as infinity apart from within a 'map'. (That's why the 'you can never reach two from one because you have an infinite halfway point between integers' breakdown.) I suggest reading Cantor's later work for that. Once you have these rough pieces, you should, provided you have the intellect, be able to work it out on your own.

>> No.3576300
File: 258 KB, 500x380, TNbdp.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3576300

>>3576286
>continental garbage
that's cute

>because you don't understand reality
nor do you

>remember that there is no distinction between mind and body and all other subsequent matter
haha why is that

>you need to do away with infinity
don't be silly now. why would i throw away such a sound concept as infinity?

>> No.3576313

>>3576300
>don't be silly now. why would i throw away such a sound concept as infinity?
You're the silly one. This is one of the main reasons that you are confused. Infinity doesn't exist except as a 'map' (I'm sticking with Korzybski's terms as we are posting in a Korzybski thread). You can conceive of infinity, and you can use it as a mathematical construct – ∞ – but it is just a secondary map used to interpret your abstractions. You can take something and say 'okay I'll apply a value of ∞ to 100%, therefore 50% gets it too. Infinity cannot be found in reality, only in a semantic model.

You need to grasp this first before you can proceed. Really, this problem sits at the heart of everything. You cannot view the 'accuracy of observing objective reality' until you have a firm grasp of infinity.

>> No.3576338

>>3576313
are you arguing from the position that empirical knowledge is objective?

>> No.3576356

>>3576338
Yes.

>> No.3578695

>>3574940
> with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see," to better discover or reflect its realities."
The consequence of saying I don't know is basically persuit an answer.

>> No.3578736

Is there a philosophy of edginess?

>> No.3578953

I didn't understanded his phrase.