Philosophy Now Forum

Ansiktsburk wrote: That it is the clever guys who construct the cultures?

Culture is that part of all human activity which is not predicted by genetics.
The word has been used for two functions. Culture can be "high culture", and is restricted to the arts and literature, but that is not the meaning usually taken on in philosphical and academic discussions. We tend to employ the anthropological and archaeological "culture" such as a component of Kulturgeschichte.

Culture of one type distinguishes people of different groups without regard to genetics and can cross national boundaries. i.e. "Western Culture", and is also found as sub-categories such as "youth culture", "Rap culture"

But we all absorb, reproduce and modify culture.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ansiktsburk wrote: That it is the clever guys who construct the cultures?

Culture is that part of all human activity which is not predicted by genetics.
The word has been used for two functions. Culture can be "high culture", and is restricted to the arts and literature, but that is not the meaning usually taken on in philosphical and academic discussions. We tend to employ the anthropological and archaeological "culture" such as a component of Kulturgeschichte.

Culture of one type distinguishes people of different groups without regard to genetics and can cross national boundaries. i.e. "Western Culture", and is also found as sub-categories such as "youth culture", "Rap culture"

But we all absorb, reproduce and modify culture.

That's kind of what I mean. If you also say that culture is something that evolves seemingly rather at random, as OL pointed out, since the world is a messy place and has always been. And when guys like Hegel tries to "explain" development it get's kind of, well, not right. As eg Popper also pointed out. But yeah, It's good to read about the history of ideas.

I'm never crazy about the use of the word random as a substitute for unpredictable but I'm sure you didn't intend to be taken literally, Ansik. We tend to think of our culture as some sort of static backdrop for the course of events in the world but it doesn't take a very close analysis to see that this is far from being the case. We literally don't know what's around the corner. Even in the most speculative of the science fiction stories which were so much the 20th century vogue nobody ever foresaw the internet. Now that we're actually a generation into this astonishing technology I reckon the world is beginning to realise exactly how unpredictable the future really is. A seemingly trivial knick-knack like a mobile phone is changing the world we live in.

Ansiktsburk wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ansiktsburk wrote: That it is the clever guys who construct the cultures?

Culture is that part of all human activity which is not predicted by genetics.
The word has been used for two functions. Culture can be "high culture", and is restricted to the arts and literature, but that is not the meaning usually taken on in philosphical and academic discussions. We tend to employ the anthropological and archaeological "culture" such as a component of Kulturgeschichte.

Culture of one type distinguishes people of different groups without regard to genetics and can cross national boundaries. i.e. "Western Culture", and is also found as sub-categories such as "youth culture", "Rap culture"

But we all absorb, reproduce and modify culture.

That's kind of what I mean. If you also say that culture is something that evolves seemingly rather at random, as OL pointed out, since the world is a messy place and has always been. And when guys like Hegel tries to "explain" development it get's kind of, well, not right. As eg Popper also pointed out. But yeah, It's good to read about the history of ideas.

It's not random, but intentional and purposive. But the reason Hegel and Marx get things wrong is due to the mistaken opinion that it can be taken as a whole and that there is a whole direction to it.
Each of us has micro-power to change and direct culture, but seldom do we agree and follow the same course. I would suggest that, even were we individually to seek the same course the sum of all that activity would still lead to unintended consequences.
Popper was right on their case with The Paucity of Historicism.

Arising_uk wrote:A study of Philosophy might be a good start as then at least you'll understand some of the history of your voguish ideas.

That is totally what I'm saying. Thank you.

duszek wrote:An Italian journalist once mentioned her interview with Dalai Lama.
His sanctity showed up wearing a t-shirt with Mickey Mouse and when asked about it explained that he wanted to give her pleasure or to make her smile (I read a translation of her book, I don´t know what he said exactly). He had bought the garment on a market in India.

She appreciated his kindness and his sense of humour.

That isn't exactly what I meant, but actually, I suppose exercises like that could actually be conducive to results.

Ansiktsburk wrote:I don't know about that vogue thing, but do you have to make it that complicated?

To simply read about and communicate with people from other cultures, studying the history of those cultures, why is that so bad?

Because that isn't what I mean. To see other cultures and to see outside your own culture are two very different things. Altho I suppose the former helps with the latter.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I think maybe we can think from no point of view. Better?

Haha. I presume you're taking the piss.

Does that mean making a joke? You're british, huh? Nope. I'm not. I'm open-minded.

JS. Kindly explain how you can think from no point of view. Do you imagine that thoughts pop into your head from out of a conceptual vacuum and then formulate themselves into a coherent structure without any input from the vast suite of information which your head already holds? What is it that you think cognition is?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps what I mean to focus on is the topic of my question about Absoluteness, Objectiveness & Noumena.

Jaded Sage wrote:To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps what I mean to focus on is the topic of my question about Absoluteness, Objectiveness & Noumena.

A bias is a point of view.

A person with no point of view, not only fails to have a bias, but fails to have and idea, a position, and any kind of existence.

Speaking from no point of view is not speaking at all.

Try this as the most gruesome of thought experiments. A child is born and is in every sense "normal" as we commonly understand the term. The child is immediately placed into the most extreme of sensory deprivation environments and simply hooked up to life-sustaining equipment and raised to adulthood. He can't hear anything, see anything, move or feel anything etc.

Does this human being have a mind? My answer would be no, because a mind can only be defined in terms of a suite of interactive relationships between an individual and its external environment. I suspect that such a being would still have an internal bodily environment which it would be able to sense but it seems unlikely that in the absence of an external referential frame this would in any sense constitute an awareness of self. Agree or disagree?

Obvious Leo wrote:Try this as the most gruesome of thought experiments. A child is born and is in every sense "normal" as we commonly understand the term. The child is immediately placed into the most extreme of sensory deprivation environments and simply hooked up to life-sustaining equipment and raised to adulthood. He can't hear anything, see anything, move or feel anything etc.

Does this human being have a mind? My answer would be no, because a mind can only be defined in terms of a suite of interactive relationships between an individual and its external environment. I suspect that such a being would still have an internal bodily environment which it would be able to sense but it seems unlikely that in the absence of an external referential frame this would in any sense constitute an awareness of self. Agree or disagree?

Agree. To start there's no language, nor any need for it. What level of sentience can be achieved when only internal processes can be perceived?

There's a somewhat related case, where an autistic girl finally cracked the language barrier in her teens, communicating with one finger typing. Until then, everyone including her parents assumed that she had no mind. It turned out that she was every bit as aware as any other child. Shockingly so. She was actually bright, perceptive and wise beyond her years. Her father tearfully remembered all the times he'd spoken about her in front of her as though she wasn't aware. A touching understanding between them followed.

When the girl had strange spams, it was actually a completely normal response for a person afflicted with terrible physical sensations, one that she said felt like being stung all over her arms (that weird arm slapping of autistic people finally has a reason). It seems so much of their inappropriate reactions are due to sudden overwhelming bursts of pain. It makes the sudden shouts understandable.

Imagine that - stuck in a body while thinking normally and experiencing frequent intense pains that make you behave in embarrassing and incomprehensible ways. As a result people treat you like you as though you are mindless and there's nothing you can say or do to make yourself understood.

Greta wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Try this as the most gruesome of thought experiments. A child is born and is in every sense "normal" as we commonly understand the term. The child is immediately placed into the most extreme of sensory deprivation environments and simply hooked up to life-sustaining equipment and raised to adulthood. He can't hear anything, see anything, move or feel anything etc.

Does this human being have a mind? My answer would be no, because a mind can only be defined in terms of a suite of interactive relationships between an individual and its external environment. I suspect that such a being would still have an internal bodily environment which it would be able to sense but it seems unlikely that in the absence of an external referential frame this would in any sense constitute an awareness of self. Agree or disagree?

Agree. To start there's no language, nor any need for it. What level of sentience can be achieved when only internal processes can be perceived?

There's a somewhat related case, where an autistic girl finally cracked the language barrier in her teens, communicating with one finger typing. Until then, everyone including her parents assumed that she had no mind. It turned out that she was every bit as aware as any other child. Shockingly so. She was actually bright, perceptive and wise beyond her years. Her father tearfully remembered all the times he'd spoken about her in front of her as though she wasn't aware. A touching understanding between them followed.

When the girl had strange spams, it was actually a completely normal response for a person afflicted with terrible physical sensations, one that she said felt like being stung all over her arms (that weird arm slapping of autistic people finally has a reason). It seems so much of their inappropriate reactions are due to sudden overwhelming bursts of pain. It makes the sudden shouts understandable.

Imagine that - stuck in a body while thinking normally and experiencing frequent intense pains that make you behave in embarrassing and incomprehensible ways. As a result people treat you like you as though you are mindless and there's nothing you can say or do to make yourself understood.

Greta - I'm really interested in this case - is it documented anywhere. I'd like to read more about it. There are so many questions: How did she 'crack the language barrier' ? Why would anyone assume that an autistic person has no mind or awareness? If there was such an underlying intelligence and perception that would have shown in her eyes, would it not?

Just because there is no vocalisation, there would have been an understanding. Clearly, there are other senses involved. Why don't people understand that yet? It's about time that we all knew to respect any living being and not talk over them as if they are not there. For Goodness Sake, we even talk to dogs. More education is required, especially to parents and relatives of those affected.

I'm glad that there is increased understanding of autism. I can imagine this scenario only too well. I hope that we continue to expand our knowledge of the brain and other body systems - e.g. related to hormones. Imagine the breakthrough...

Obvious Leo wrote:Try this as the most gruesome of thought experiments. A child is born and is in every sense "normal" as we commonly understand the term. The child is immediately placed into the most extreme of sensory deprivation environments and simply hooked up to life-sustaining equipment and raised to adulthood. He can't hear anything, see anything, move or feel anything etc.

Does this human being have a mind? My answer would be no, because a mind can only be defined in terms of a suite of interactive relationships between an individual and its external environment. I suspect that such a being would still have an internal bodily environment which it would be able to sense but it seems unlikely that in the absence of an external referential frame this would in any sense constitute an awareness of self. Agree or disagree?

Aside from being completely impossible I still disagree. He would still hear his own heart, and he'd have to eat, shit, and piss. All these basic functions would give him a dialogue with his environment.
It is certainly true that the life of the mind would not be 'normally' developed. But your idea is tantamount to saying he'd not have skin because he could never feel it.

This thought experiment is as old as the hills. I think it is even in Herodotus.