Philosophy Now Forum

I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?

Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?

Dalek Prime wrote:Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?

How could I? I'm not even sure what the word means.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Do you consider yourself a 'distinct' consciousness, JS?

How could I? I'm not even sure what the word means.

Which word? Consciousness, or distinct?

Let me help you out here. Do you share your consciousness? If you don't, it's distinct from other consciousness'. And if you do, what is everyone else jabbering about inside your skull?

I mean Descartes definition of distinct. I heard it means 'readily understandable.' Do you know if that is correct?

You could pick it out from a line-up of western adult male consciousnesses.

Skip wrote:You could pick it out from a line-up of western adult male consciousnesses.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?

Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?

http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Descartes.M3.Truth.htm

It seems relevant to your question, JS, but I admit to not reading much of it because I'm more interested in other areas of philosophy.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?

Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?

Lol, yeah, of course. That's where "separate" came from. But that's incorrect. It means readily understandable and beyond question.

Greta wrote:http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Descartes.M3.Truth.htm

It seems relevant to your question, JS, but I admit to not reading much of it because I'm more interested in other areas of philosophy.

Thanks, Greta. I already got my answer, buy I might check it later.

Jaded Sage wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:I'm fairly certain I have the idea of 'clear' down, but I do not understand 'distinct'. Does it mean separate? In that case, is that what causes me, when I think of a blue horse, despite it being an impossibility, to still be just as much of a horse as any possibly-colored-horse (etc. i.e. number of legs, a tail, hooves)?

Having an idea "down", is a dreadful abuse of language. It's no wonder that you have not grasped "distinct".
Have you tried a dictionary to acknowledge that there are multiple definitions?

Lol, yeah, of course. That's where "separate" came from. But that's incorrect. It means readily understandable and beyond question.

It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him.

This is why I don't care for this side of philosophy - not you Hobbes , but these kinds of fiddly examinations of the obvious, although I appreciate the criticality of definitions. I'm just grateful it's not me who has to do it.

No doubt we have all pondered how we are at once both one and many. Due to the fractal nature of reality, distinctness is naturally relative since we are all in truth at least three things - a collection of communities, the emergent entity that forms from that collection, and a member of our own larger communities/bodies.

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It seems to me that if you preserve the sense of the word distinct as being separate you will not go wrong grasping the meaning of distinct.
Since to understand that thing you need to know how it is different, separate and hence distinct from all other things.
But without the exact context of the use of distinct then you can't really expect others to help out here.
In the example from Greta, Descartes is asserting that he is in fact separate from the world around him.

This is why I don't care for this side of philosophy - not you Hobbes , but these kinds of fiddly examinations of the obvious, although I appreciate the criticality of definitions. I'm just grateful it's not me who has to do it..

To make things worse, Descartes was writing in 17thC French and Latin, there might be lost connotations to his opinion. No matter, I think the thing is clear enough.

I'm not sure seperate is accurate. I think maybe something happened in translation. It isn't quite accurate to call this a "side" of phil. There is much more to it. At most it's like a tenth of phil, and that is generous. Descartes was looking for absolute certainty. It was something somebody needed to do. I assumed people in a phil site would know a little more than the average joe about phil.