Philosophy Now Forum

Psychonaut wrote:Is a Principle of Tipping that we should always dump our waste?

Depends what waste you are dumping I suppose? Or what Principle of Tipping are you upholding?

Arising_uk wrote:

nameless wrote:That which you 'perceive'. Everything in your reality, your world, your life is perceived.

Is it? By what?

By you.
You are Conscious Perspective, Soul, that is what you are, what you 'do' is 'perceive'.
"Know thyself!"

Hey Arising you wonderful chowder monkey.

My point was that 'tipping' can mean either the dumping of waste or the provision of extra money as reward for exceptional service and that in a similar manner 'charity' can mean the donation of funds for those in need or alternatively "leniency in judging others; forbearance e.g. She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity"[1]

The phrase 'Principle of Charity' used as in the context above is not my own invention and, should you wish it, I will happily refer to it by another name when talking with you.

Psychonaut wrote:The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage.

Even if you think them to be insufferable toads with nothing more to say than a load of nonsense, assume that they are well-meaning rational operators whose differing conclusions come from alternative interpretations and experience, and that their arguments, insofar as is possible, are valid.

I am a lifelong adherent to this Principle, which helps me in being certain that someone really is an insufferable toad when their words are still spurious hateful nonsense and wholly invalid in the best possible interpretation.

Speaking of which, as an aside, I will mention another practice I engage in. Whenever I end up in a dispute, especially heated ones, I seek clarification from others that I am in the right and not in the wrong. Everyone does this, ofcourse, it is natural. Most people, though, go to their friends and so achieve simple reassurance (unless the friends are particularly good friends). Those who get most heated in these issues are also most likely to force their friends into having to console them with empty words.

My preference is to go online and find some willing strangers who I then explain the scenario to in as unbiased a manner as I can achieve, without telling them which of the people involved is me. It is by this means that I always know I am in the right

_________________________________________

Here is a clarification to benefit this thread- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Psychonaut wrote:The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage. [...] I am a lifelong adherent to this Principle

I don't think you are as good at adhering to this principle as you think you are.

And how good do you think I think I am at it?

The Principle of Charity says that where someone's words can be interpreted as being meaningful, coherent and valid then they should be. It shouldn't be forgotten that there are times when they cannot be so interpreted

nameless wrote:By you.

Sorry? How can I perceive myself?

You are Conscious Perspective, Soul, that is what you are, what you 'do' is 'perceive'.

I am an animal, as such I perceive, but I also have Language and as such I think this is mainly why I'm this 'conscious perspective'. Not sure what this 'soul' is?

"Know thyself!"

I prefer, "What is called thinking?", as pretty much everyone knows themselves I'd guess.

Psychonaut wrote:Hey Arising you wonderful chowder monkey.

My point was that 'tipping' can mean either the dumping of waste or the provision of extra money as reward for exceptional service and that in a similar manner 'charity' can mean the donation of funds for those in need or alternatively "leniency in judging others; forbearance e.g. She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity"[1]

The phrase 'Principle of Charity' used as in the context above is not my own invention and, should you wish it, I will happily refer to it by another name when talking with you.

Phew! Hope I get this right.

No idea what a "chowder monkey" is?

With respect to a 'tip' and 'forbearance', you've never shown much of the latter in your posts with Mr Toad?

Are you saying you 'tip' me, when you talk to me? How gauche.

Arising_uk wrote:

nameless wrote:By you.

Sorry? How can I perceive myself?

No 'how', you simply do. Look at 'your' hand, smell it, imagine it, think about it, listen to it; all of these are 'perceptions'. There is no "How can I perceive myself?", that is all that you can do, that is what you do, observe/perceive. Look up the definition, perception is an awareness of.

You are Conscious Perspective, Soul, that is what you are, what you 'do' is 'perceive'.

I am an animal, as such I perceive, but I also have Language and as such I think this is mainly why I'm this 'conscious perspective'. Not sure what this 'soul' is?

Language has nothing to do with it, other species have their languages also, some have none, all are Conscious Perspectives, whether you or bacteria...
Conscious Perspective = Soul = us.
Now you 'know'.

"Know thyself!"

I prefer, "What is called thinking?", as pretty much everyone knows themselves I'd guess.

Erroneous guess. If it were so obvious, the millennial phrase "Know thyself!" would be relatively meaningless. You have the same 'knowledge' of 'self' all your life? It never changes? If that is the case, you simply haven't been paying attention! If you think and accept that the 'self' that you perceive in the mirror is 'thyself', and thats it and thats all, I don't know what you are doing here...

I suspect the principle of charity is one of the reasons the West is so muddled up right now. We find it so hard to believe that we have enemies, that people think differently from us and do not value what we value because we ascribe our values to their words.

Did he really say "death to America" or did he say "I need economic help with a decent job and prospects to raise my family and work to building a better future for my family."

Or take Nameless, sorry nameless (yes there is a difference in his mind although the irony of formalising no capitalisation is lost on him), he actually thinks that he has no beliefs. I accept that he thinks that, I attack him on that and I show him no charity. But I think it is for his benefit ....

The principle of charity is our eras cultural blinders, I will use this principle to assume that you are showing us how silly it is to operate via this principle. Thank you for the reminder.

Nameless here is some actual charity towards you, the kind where one helps another.

If you are saying the same thing in 3 or more different threads but in your case 5 or more threads (even more charity) then you are not really participating in any of the threads.

Wootah wrote:Nameless here is some actual charity towards you, the kind where one helps another.

If you are saying the same thing in 3 or more different threads but in your case 5 or more threads (even more charity) then you are not really participating in any of the threads.

You demonstrate no rational logic here but make an unsupported assertion that is bogus on the face!
Perhaps it is your limited perceptions that cannot recognize that all is true and that I tie it all together, especially as all is a 'unity', one, from many different directions (very consistent).
If my contributions do not meet with your personal rule system, the problem, the lack of vision, is yours, not mine.
That is one 'reason' that I seem to repeat and approach from different directions, that others, 'wherever' they might be, can find some meaning somewhere, some food for thought with some familiar spices.
If you do not, it's no problem, just let it go, but suggesting that what I write is meaningless in itself, or non contributory is indicative of your limitations, not mine. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
I suggest that if what I write disturbs you, please, simply ignore it. If you cannot, perhaps the little lightbulb over your head will, eventually, illuminate and all that I say will make sense to you.
Or not...
Feel free to distribute your 'charity' more wisely.
If you don't like what I write, refute it if you can. Show me how it is irrelevent to the discussion, this is, after all, a philosophy site, that is what we do here, not simply complain. If you cannot 'refute' then just indicating a 'displeasure' with that which is posted is meaningless and a waste of time and space.
Feel free to keep reading my posts, though, who knows when a seed might sprout!
later

Hey A_uk, chowder monkey was a term of endearment, tipping has absolutely bollock all to do with it but was used as an example of how a word can have multiple meanings.

You said you thought a 'Principle of Charity' had to do with the donation of resources to the needy, but in this context Charity is used to mean an attitude that is extended to people.

I miss the company of Psychonaut.

I don't. He is a very belligerent second-rate thinker.