Philosophy Now Forum

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:29 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:10 pm

How so?

(Thanks for the answer, by the way)

Joe can be a fan of Scream while workin' in the grocery, while sittin' on the toilet, while drivin' on the highway, or while bangin' the fat chick he picked in the bar.

His activities of the moment don't negate his likes.

But what if his activities of the moment are about negating his likes?

It doesn't seem to me workin' in a grocery would do that (at least when it comes to movies).

Anecdote time...

Many years back, as a kid, I worked in a pizzeria. I liked pizza before that (and I like it now), but, as I was workin' there, I couldn't stand pizza. Makin' pizza, deliverin' pizza, turned me off to pizza.

I can see how someone workin' in a video store (do any still exist?) might get jaded about movies.

Or: a reviewer of flicks. He might get no pleasure watchin' movies after a time.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:28 pm If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

If a person is a Scream fan they cannot get a job at a grocery store, therefore a person cannot be both a fan and a supermarket employee.

A fan is someone who cheers for their hero or their team. A supermarket is not a cheerful place, but rather a place where sustenance can be purchased for a price.

The skills necessary to mop the floor or restock the shelves are not compatible with vocal skills that are produced by unfettered diaphragms.

[If someone is a bagger, that would be the only exception.]

A fan subsists on junk food, which can be found on a few aisles at the supermarket or at a gas station. Employees can afford regular food.

TAFN

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:32 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:29 pm

Joe can be a fan of Scream while workin' in the grocery, while sittin' on the toilet, while drivin' on the highway, or while bangin' the fat chick he picked in the bar.

His activities of the moment don't negate his likes.

But what if his activities of the moment are about negating his likes?

It doesn't seem to me workin' in a grocery would do that (at least when it comes to movies).

Anecdote time...

Many years back, as a kid, I worked in a pizzeria. I liked pizza before that (and I like it now), but, as I was workin' there, I couldn't stand pizza. Makin' pizza, deliverin' pizza, turned me off to pizza.

I can see how someone workin' in a video store (do any still exist?) might get jaded about movies.

Or: a reviewer of flicks. He might get no pleasure watchin' movies after a time.

Would you mind elaborating a bit, on why you think that someone working in a video store might get jaded about movies?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:05 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:32 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:09 pm

But what if his activities of the moment are about negating his likes?

It doesn't seem to me workin' in a grocery would do that (at least when it comes to movies).

Anecdote time...

Many years back, as a kid, I worked in a pizzeria. I liked pizza before that (and I like it now), but, as I was workin' there, I couldn't stand pizza. Makin' pizza, deliverin' pizza, turned me off to pizza.

I can see how someone workin' in a video store (do any still exist?) might get jaded about movies.

Or: a reviewer of flicks. He might get no pleasure watchin' movies after a time.

Would you mind elaborating a bit, on why you think that someone working in a video store might get jaded about movies?

I can see how eight hours a day of talkin' about movies, sellin' and rentin' movies, may dull one's interest in movies. After all, we're talkin' about some minimum wage worker. He mighta took the job thinkin' it was a cool thing to be in place that gives him access to all these flicks (while puttin' a lil jingle-jangle in his pocket), but, after a time, movies could move from bein' fun to bein' drudgery.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:30 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:05 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:32 pm

It doesn't seem to me workin' in a grocery would do that (at least when it comes to movies).

Anecdote time...

Many years back, as a kid, I worked in a pizzeria. I liked pizza before that (and I like it now), but, as I was workin' there, I couldn't stand pizza. Makin' pizza, deliverin' pizza, turned me off to pizza.

I can see how someone workin' in a video store (do any still exist?) might get jaded about movies.

Or: a reviewer of flicks. He might get no pleasure watchin' movies after a time.

Would you mind elaborating a bit, on why you think that someone working in a video store might get jaded about movies?

I can see how eight hours a day of talkin' about movies, sellin' and rentin' movies, may dull one's interest in movies. After all, we're talkin' about some minimum wage worker. He mighta took the job thinkin' it was a cool thing to be in place that gives him access to all these flicks (while puttin' a lil jingle-jangle in his pocket), but, after a time, movies could move from bein' fun to bein' drudgery.

Do you think then that people should re-arrange society, and eliminate money, so that they can enjoy movies universally?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:35 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:30 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:05 pm

Would you mind elaborating a bit, on why you think that someone working in a video store might get jaded about movies?

I can see how eight hours a day of talkin' about movies, sellin' and rentin' movies, may dull one's interest in movies. After all, we're talkin' about some minimum wage worker. He mighta took the job thinkin' it was a cool thing to be in place that gives him access to all these flicks (while puttin' a lil jingle-jangle in his pocket), but, after a time, movies could move from bein' fun to bein' drudgery.

Do you think then that people should re-arrange society, and eliminate money, so that they can enjoy movies universally?

Nope. They should lynch the legislators and executives, minimize the judicial, embrace natural rights and the free enterprise that extends out of natural rights, dump scrip and the federal reserve and stick with gold and actual commodities...and that ain't got nuthin' to do with movies.

When it comes to movies: for most, that's a leisure activity. People can sort out that as they like.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:06 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:41 pm I'm fairly meh on the question of whether personal identitiy should be described as some collection of mere physical facts about a blob of flesh sitting in a prticular chair, or should be a matter of some woo-woo investigation of all the things we dream, say and eat. For me it's a set of language games with the rules being relevant only according to a context.

So for instance when we say "TK is the guy who writes nonsense of forums because he's toying with B" not much is needed for us to meaningfully identify TK and B. TKs wife, husband or fleshlight would have a different descriptive context when saying "TK is the most overwhelmingly average lover I have ever encountered" and the language game in action there would imply more about the nature of what counts as a personal identity for the purpose of such a proposition.

Stuff about whether to use a descriptive context suitable for one sort of language game within the rules of another, or to aggregate all such contexts into some unworkable and meaningless whole doesn't put a breeze up my skirt personally.

Your take on personal identity is objective; mine was subjective. I mean that to objectively identify I might note circumstantial evidence such as works in Walmart or writes nonsence on the forum, or "The most average lover". The most conclusive way to identify someone is DNA profile, or perhaps dentition records.

My take on personal identity which is closer to the supermarket scenario is subjective personal identity i.e. "who do I think I am?"or "

I identify myself as a Scream fan as do the others who work here."

You are still organising a subject and a predicate into a proposition, that's just another of the available language games to which I was referring, it just happens to be one of the inumerable ones from the internal perspective.

But a proposition is a subject and predicate. Do you mean that subjective identity is better expressed by non linguistic voicing such as singing with meaningless or no lyrics? Or speaking in tongues gibberish? Or natural dance? You tell me if you please. How does a punk express subjective identity ?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:50 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:35 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:30 pm

I can see how eight hours a day of talkin' about movies, sellin' and rentin' movies, may dull one's interest in movies. After all, we're talkin' about some minimum wage worker. He mighta took the job thinkin' it was a cool thing to be in place that gives him access to all these flicks (while puttin' a lil jingle-jangle in his pocket), but, after a time, movies could move from bein' fun to bein' drudgery.

Do you think then that people should re-arrange society, and eliminate money, so that they can enjoy movies universally?

Nope. They should lynch the legislators and executives, minimize the judicial, embrace natural rights and the free enterprise that extends out of natural rights, dump scrip and the federal reserve and stick with gold and actual commodities...and that ain't got nuthin' to do with movies.

When it comes to movies: for most, that's a leisure activity. People can sort out that as they like.

What if they can't lynch the legislators, because the legislators are all of the threads on Philosophy Now.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:08 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:41 am

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:28 pm If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

NO.

EVERY human being is a human being, which does and thinks things.

There is NO such actual 'thing' as a "scream fan". There are, however, some human beings who enjoy some movies, like for example, the "scream" movies. And, some of these human beings work in supermarkets, some times.

If there can't be such a thing as a Scream fan, it stands to reason that there can't be any such thing as a capitalist or socialist

VERY, VERY True.

What there REALLY IS is just human beings, thinking differently, or with different thoughts.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:38 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:50 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:35 pm

Do you think then that people should re-arrange society, and eliminate money, so that they can enjoy movies universally?

Nope. They should lynch the legislators and executives, minimize the judicial, embrace natural rights and the free enterprise that extends out of natural rights, dump scrip and the federal reserve and stick with gold and actual commodities...and that ain't got nuthin' to do with movies.

When it comes to movies: for most, that's a leisure activity. People can sort out that as they like.

What if they can't lynch the legislators, because the legislators are all of the threads on Philosophy Now.

When you say of the threads you mean thread-posters, yeah?

if the membership here were in any position to legislate then lynchin' would be imperative.

that's a joke you thin-skinned lot

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:41 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:38 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:50 pm

Nope. They should lynch the legislators and executives, minimize the judicial, embrace natural rights and the free enterprise that extends out of natural rights, dump scrip and the federal reserve and stick with gold and actual commodities...and that ain't got nuthin' to do with movies.

When it comes to movies: for most, that's a leisure activity. People can sort out that as they like.

What if they can't lynch the legislators, because the legislators are all of the threads on Philosophy Now.

When you say of the threads you mean thread-posters, yeah?

if the membership here were in any position to legislate then lynchin' would be imperative.

that's a joke you thin-skinned lot

I mean the threads, not the thread-posters.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:03 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:41 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:38 pm

What if they can't lynch the legislators, because the legislators are all of the threads on Philosophy Now.

When you say of the threads you mean thread-posters, yeah?

if the membership here were in any position to legislate then lynchin' would be imperative.

that's a joke you thin-skinned lot

I mean the threads, not the thread-posters.

How can threads legislate?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:23 am

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:03 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:41 pm

When you say of the threads you mean thread-posters, yeah?

if the membership here were in any position to legislate then lynchin' would be imperative.

that's a joke you thin-skinned lot

I mean the threads, not the thread-posters.

How can threads legislate?

I don't mean that the threads legislate, I just mean that within the legislators is the content of the threads

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:37 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:06 pm
Your take on personal identity is objective; mine was subjective. I mean that to objectively identify I might note circumstantial evidence such as works in Walmart or writes nonsence on the forum, or "The most average lover". The most conclusive way to identify someone is DNA profile, or perhaps dentition records.

My take on personal identity which is closer to the supermarket scenario is subjective personal identity i.e. "who do I think I am?"or "

You are still organising a subject and a predicate into a proposition, that's just another of the available language games to which I was referring, it just happens to be one of the inumerable ones from the internal perspective.

But a proposition is a subject and predicate. Do you mean that subjective identity is better expressed by non linguistic voicing such as singing with meaningless or no lyrics? Or speaking in tongues gibberish? Or natural dance? You tell me if you please. How does a punk express subjective identity ?

No, I'm just saying that there is no particular single truth to this sort of thing. You cannot condense a human identity into some perfect shiny little object. The supposition that a single word must describe a single and specific obect, with a specific mental construct behind the whole thing is the picture theory of language. The tool theory of language doesn't get caught up in any of that stuff. It's ok for 'person' or 'identity', or 'me' to not mean exactly the same thing when used in dissimilar conversations if we aren't beholden to a picture theory of what a concept references.

Seriously, look at the logic of what trokanmariel did in the OP. It's not complicated. He or she simply took the least important possible piece of information about any person you could ever imagine (whether they do or do not like some trivial movie franchise), and supposed it to be a critical portion of personal identity. I don't understand why this trick is confusing people. It requires an absurdly brittle set of assumptions about how words mean things. Seriously, how can somebody who finds this shit meaningful account for the idea that chess, poker, and just running around shouting "bang bang" are all legit examples of a game?

It's stupid to try and make a list of things that are and are not a human identity. The relevant information is dependent on the context. That really does mean that unless you know what sort of conversation you are having, which invokes the refernce to a person, you have no basis to determine which properties of personhood are meangingful in this matter.

To put it more bluntly; it's pretentious to suggest that it's somehow more meaningful to define such personhood according to how it feels to be the person than to observe the person without consideration of the context.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:28 pm If a person works in a supermarket and is a Scream fan, are they a Scream fan as they work in a supermarket? (Scream as in the Scream movies)

There are two main points here;

• Fan: someone who admires and supports a person, sport, sports team, etc.:
  
  Fanaticism (from the Latin adverb fānāticē [fren-fānāticus; enthusiastic, ecstatic; raging, fanatical, furious][1]) is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or an obsessive enthusiasm.

Once a person is a fan of something or someone, that state is embedded in a neural algorithm in the brain 24 hours per day until it wears off. If it is a fuzzy state, that person would not be call a 'fan.'
So a scream-fan is a scream-fan as he work in a supermarket and wherever he is 24/7.

Note the following;
1. We have to take into account which element he is a fan of re the Scream-movie, e.g. a good horror movie or the psychology and killings within the movie, etc.
2. The next question is the degree of fanaticism a person is being a fan of whatever.
3. What is critical is also the psychological state [degree of sanity] of the fan with his fanaticism.

Typically, the fan will find every opportunity to talk about his fanaticism in the supermarket [perhaps to the annoyance of his colleagues].
At the extreme the scream-fan might be so fanatically influenced by the movie that [when triggered] he could kill someone while working in the supermarket.