Mikseri on musiikkiyhteisö,
jossa voit kuunnella, ladata ja arvostella suomalaista musiikkia,
lisätä rajattomasti biisejä, luoda oman artistisivun, kerätä arvosteluja ja faneja

Ladataan

Vastaa Aloita uusi keskustelu

 

1 2 Seuraava >

Kirjoittaja How does Religion, Philosophy, or Belief relate to Music?

JozenBo
JozenBo

#1 kirjoitettu 04.08.2008 20:31

I have often wondered how one's belief system effects their Music, if they make music, that is. I ask, because I have seen that it can have an affect, not always, but there are some clear cases. For example, I've seen devout American Jesus preaching Christians condemn Marylin Mansion for his music, or any kind of metal for that matter, I've personally heard them refer to it the Devil's music.

And in some cases if we swing the opposite direction, visiting with Satan worshipers or the likes (I've met and known almost anyone you can think of, rich & poor, sane and mad, yuppie and hippie, etc.) I find that they avoid gospel music like it's the plague.

In some cases faith or belief (the total structure by which one views Truth) has no affect, and the person listens to whatever they want. In some cases they seem almost self-programmed to listen to only certain things, and in some cases, the best cases, the music transcends their limits and they begin to listen to something they might not of according to their own belief structures.

In general, I view music as a way to overcome limiting differences between people, that it always has the potential to connect into the core emotional center given the right feeling is performed at the right time. Personally, if music can make me laugh or feel alive and help me to process emotional blocks, I could care less what it is or who made it, I have no particular preference other then sensations I can relate to.



One other thought in mind, how we believe is not separate from how we conduct; which brings on the consequences of our actions, be them thought, word, or deed. Since these consequences can affect our state of mind, this too, can affect how we express ourselves, either in word or in musical composition.

I'll give an example to help this second inquiry became clearer, supposing I meditate for 8 hours in the Zazen posture, getting into a deep trance-like state of mind, and then hop up and begin to play an instrument, I am certain the sounds will come out differently then if I went out to a night club, even though not drinking, and then came home to make music (regarding the act of creating something new, not performing something we already know).

Not only can our beliefs affect how our sounds come together into music, but these beliefs alter as time changes us (or as we change time). Short term habits of behavior remain one factor of consideration, then there are the long term habits; saying that if I meditate 4 hours a day for 30 years, the entire process itself will add up differently then if I go out to clubs only for 30 years. We are building our minds and emotions one measure at a time; the entire track accumulates into a pattern of its own.


I am wondering what other people's thoughts are, and if those thoughts can expand my own limited perceptions...

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#2 kirjoitettu 06.08.2008 13:15

I personally don't think it has anything to do with the music.
It's the tradition.


If satan worshippers had always listened to christmas songs they'd still be doing that and no we wouldn't laugh at them for it.


If Ray Charles would have busted through church doors and managed to spread his music to the traditional gospel crowd gospel would be a damn lot different, if even considered gospel anymore.
Hell, there could be rock, jazz or even metal playig in the churches.

It's not the music, it's the tradition.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#3 kirjoitettu 06.08.2008 14:12

Culture started all these thing (Religion,Philosophy,Music) except I think Belief has always been. It's when the human race began to harvest and cultivate.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#4 kirjoitettu 07.08.2008 15:03

quafka kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoittit's when the human race began to harvest and cultivate.
That also counts as culture. There isn't really a reasonable way to draw a line, we pretty much have to count all human activity as "culture".


No, culture refers to the word cultivation. You can say that it depends on how you define it but that's just not true.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#5 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 13:32

Sunt1o kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
...You can say that it depends on how you define it but that's just not true.


The meaning of the word doesn't depend on the definition or... what...? eh? Me do not understand?


I mean the word 'culture' has one meaning: it means civilization after the cultivation of anything started. I don't count (the assumed) hunter-gatherer era of man as culture. So, in my eyes culture started when agriculture started. Is that hard to understand?

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#6 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 14:09

Sunt1o kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:
It's not the music, it's the tradition.

They kinda seem to go together on this one.

You call it religion, I call it any tradition whatsoever.

You said some music comes with values attached. I say values tend to come with the music attached.

Values also can conflict without music conflicting.

Ever heard of Necro ?

I thought rap and metal didn't go well together 'cause of the conflicting values'...?

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#7 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 14:11

odkid kirjoitti:
Sunt1o kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
...You can say that it depends on how you define it but that's just not true.


The meaning of the word doesn't depend on the definition or... what...? eh? Me do not understand?


I mean the word 'culture' has one meaning: it means civilization after the cultivation of anything started. I don't count (the assumed) hunter-gatherer era of man as culture. So, in my eyes culture started when agriculture started. Is that hard to understand?

Hunting, gathering berries and plants, living in caves and drawing elephants on the walls isn't culture? I'd like you to define culture for me then...
There's bound to be something simpler before those hunter-gatherers.

After-Ego muokkasi viestiä 14:12 08.08.2008

My apologies... Of course they aren't elephants on the walls, they're mammoths. Excuse me..

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#8 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 14:36

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
Sunt1o kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
...You can say that it depends on how you define it but that's just not true.


The meaning of the word doesn't depend on the definition or... what...? eh? Me do not understand?


I mean the word 'culture' has one meaning: it means civilization after the cultivation of anything started. I don't count (the assumed) hunter-gatherer era of man as culture. So, in my eyes culture started when agriculture started. Is that hard to understand?

Hunting, gathering berries and plants, living in caves and drawing elephants on the walls isn't culture? I'd like you to define culture for me then...
There's bound to be something simpler before those hunter-gatherers.

After-Ego muokkasi viestiä 14:12 08.08.2008

My apologies... Of course they aren't elephants on the walls, they're mammoths. Excuse me..


Oh damn. Surely there is a difference between culture of hunting and culture of cultivation, the first it's like being an animal in the wild and the latter is being a member of a village/town/community/etc. When the agriculture started people started to control bigger areas of land. That led to the idea of human owning the whole world and that some particular people own different parts of it. That led to wars and conflicts over imaginarily owned (no one really owns anything except for in their mind) areas. That is just plain stupid and still most of the people support wars. Human controlling the enviroment pays back because it just happens to be that the enviroment controls the human.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#9 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 17:16

quafka kirjoitti:

Note, that people don't need to word "culture", to have culture.


yes they do, and you just proved it. When you think about it, it exists and you use the word to make it real in that way that you communicate about it. If there were no talk about culture, the thought would not exist because then such phenomena wouldn't be real.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#10 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 17:18

quafka kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
I mean the word 'culture' has one meaning: it means civilization after the cultivation of anything started. I don't count (the assumed) hunter-gatherer era of man as culture. So, in my eyes culture started when agriculture started. Is that hard to understand?

Not that it's hard to understand - it's just hard to accept, since you didn't offer many arguments to support it. I find that view strange.


Okay, you still think for yourself. I just believe that's the way it is, and what more proof do you need than actual events?

odkid muokkasi viestiä 17:19 08.08.2008

It's easier to leave the thinking and argue about definitions than face the facts. You could argue about every words definition forever but you'd only find the truth: what words mean is where they came from.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#11 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 21:20

odkid kirjoitti:

Oh damn. Surely there is a difference between culture of hunting and culture of cultivation, the first it's like being an animal in the wild and the latter is being a member of a village/town/community/etc. When the agriculture started people started to control bigger areas of land. That led to the idea of human owning the whole world and that some particular people own different parts of it. That led to wars and conflicts over imaginarily owned (no one really owns anything except for in their mind) areas. That is just plain stupid and still most of the people support wars. Human controlling the enviroment pays back because it just happens to be that the enviroment controls the human.

Does the word culture refer to actual cultivation of plants or the ever-changing end product of the cultivation of human race?

I think that's where we separated our ways there...

Wikipedia also says

Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art.

Nothing about agriculture there... Actually, if you look at the word agriculture you see it's culture (to cultivate) with the definition of agri (ager = a field).

I think I could quite safely assume that people were growing stuff even before they started doing it on fields. Tho that one is way out of my point... Just saying..

After-Ego muokkasi viestiä 21:21 08.08.2008

All in all the definition I pulled out of my wiki-hat describes cultivation. Cultivation of humans...

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#12 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 21:28

After reading all the other posts too I realize my previous post was probably in vain...

Culture as we know it is a word defining something.

Odkid, do you think they invented the word first and only after that started to do things to create content for the word?
Or could it be that the word has been invented later for the purpose of defining something someone had realized existed?

There are many many things in the world that have no name. That doesn't make those things exist any less.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

JozenBo
JozenBo

#13 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 22:33

After-Ego kirjoitti:
After reading all the other posts too I realize my previous post was probably in vain...

Culture as we know it is a word defining something.

Odkid, do you think they invented the word first and only after that started to do things to create content for the word?


It seems likely that both occurred, that is, that many words where suddenly made up when our ancestors at one point realized they could define, while others where more primitively embedded by animal behavior. As the generations passed on what they had, slowly new words where used to describe new things recognized. As these then associated themselves with a matrix of the total combined over a vast sequence for expressing and communicating ideas, new words still appeared though at this point they began to go different ways as different groups tend to have different ideas, and while this was happening, content was being further developed.

If you look at the different associated value of a similar word, the differences in content become fairly obvious.


After-Ego kirjoitti:
Or could it be that the word has been invented later for the purpose of defining something someone had realized existed?

There are many many things in the world that have no name. That doesn't make those things exist any less.


Good question. Since the possibility for the meaning already existing was already there, then every language had always existed whether in a state of potential or manifestation. Then language is the act of us manifesting potentials, so it would tend to get refined as we seek to manifest more potential.


I have noted so many things I can find no words for, it has never been so much as after I experimented with the Mind Portal, I suppose I could make some up...but how could anyone follow?


Culture can be viewed many different ways, I find that it generates more meaning if I look at all you views as being valid in some way, that together they function better then alone. Its something of a hobby of mine to explore matrices, they appear all over the place, in word combinations, to patterns of nature, to mixtures of meaning (transmitted ideas) or even possibilities and their manifestations.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#14 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 23:36

JozenBo kirjoitti:
It seems likely that both occurred, that is, that many words where suddenly made up when our ancestors at one point realized they could define, while others where more primitively embedded by animal behavior. As the generations passed on what they had, slowly new words where used to describe new things recognized. As these then associated themselves with a matrix of the total combined over a vast sequence for expressing and communicating ideas, new words still appeared though at this point they began to go different ways as different groups tend to have different ideas, and while this was happening, content was being further developed.

If you look at the different associated value of a similar word, the differences in content become fairly obvious.


Yes, that's all true.

The questions I asked, however, were meant only for the word culture since defining it seems to be harder than one would think.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

JozenBo
JozenBo

#15 kirjoitettu 08.08.2008 23:51

After-Ego kirjoitti:

Yes, that's all true.

The questions I asked, however, were meant only for the word culture since defining it seems to be harder than one would think.


What does culture mean? I guess in its general usage, such as, the American culture, the Chinese culture, the Spanish culture...and so on; that in this sense it recognizes a large sum of people who share a common ancestry of ideas and inherent a tradition of values that pass on while changing as the individuals that compose the culture change.

Then there is the term, she has culture...which seems to make it into a thing you can acquire as it is used in this context. Thats rather sticky though, because it can be said that though two people are from the same culture, one has absorbed the culture more so then another, as if there is some essence to it?


Based on how my brain works, I am unable to break it down into a single definition, and find it to be a bit fuzzy and ambiguous, as I recall through my life so many people giving long explanations, as if the succinct short answer just isn't enough...



Are we cultivated by our culture or do we cultivate it?

I'd say both.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#16 kirjoitettu 09.08.2008 02:22

JozenBo kirjoitti:
Based on how my brain works, I am unable to break it down into a single definition, and find it to be a bit fuzzy and ambiguous, as I recall through my life so many people giving long explanations, as if the succinct short answer just isn't enough...

Yes, indeed. I don't think it needs to be just one single definition.

The arguing was about whether the definition of culture should be drawn from etymology (that's where the cultivation came from) or such generally accepted definitions you already named.

I just wanted to ask Odkid does he truly want to go as far as to claim culture doesn't mean the whole culture but only agriculture and everything chronologically after that...

Are we cultivated by our culture or do we cultivate it?

I'd say both.

Absolutely agreed.

Still, cultivating plants has very little to do with it all...

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#17 kirjoitettu 14.08.2008 00:05

quafka kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
yes they do, and you just proved it. When you think about it, it exists and you use the word to make it real in that way that you communicate about it. If there were no talk about culture, the thought would not exist because then such phenomena wouldn't be real.

There's a misunderstanding here.

Talking about culture and doing something, that we would count as culture, are two separate things.

Talking and thinking about culture most certainly requires the word "culture".

But doing something that we would put under the word "culture", doesn't require that word. Culture is doing things, and doing things don't require one particular word.

You could teach a kid to play football, without ever mentioning the word "football". Our issue here is similar.

Imagine an isolated tribe, living in a jungle. It might just be, that they don't have a word translateable as "culture", but they might still do things we would happily call culture. This seems obvious.

odkid kirjoitti:
Okay, you still think for yourself. I just believe that's the way it is, and what more proof do you need than actual events?

What actual events you are talking about, that would prove you correct?

what words mean is where they came from.
I can't agree. For me, words meaning = words current usage in a language. The etymology might be part of that usage, or it might not. This also, is a widely accepted view - in philosophy of language and linguistics.

But I'm curious: why do you insist that words meaning is its etymology? I'd like to hear an argument for it.


There is no simpler thing than that: a word is like a being or a rock or a hammer or anything. It (the word in some language) changes in life the way everything else changes. A rock gets crack, a being dies etc.

So, etymology just happens to be the thing that links the concept of the word to where it came from. It's like your childhood memories define who you are a lot. I don't care if my theory isn't "widely accepted", because that thing is certainly real. You could say that Bon Jovi is "widely accepted" but do you like it?

odkid muokkasi viestiä 00:06 14.08.2008

And naming "culture" makes the phenomenon exist, i think that's clear. If you give things names you cause more things to arise. Like if you don't know anything about mechanics and then more detailed information about some certain special part of it, i guess in your world that detailed part doesn't exist in a machine. You just call it "machine".

This time, read more carefully.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Heijala
Heijala
4760 viestiä

#18 kirjoitettu 14.08.2008 01:33

Answer to your question:

Very much.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#19 kirjoitettu 14.08.2008 02:21

odkid kirjoitti:
There is no simpler thing than that: a word is like a being or a rock or a hammer or anything. It (the word in some language) changes in life the way everything else changes. A rock gets crack, a being dies etc.

You make sculptures out of rocks. They become something more than the rock. Something else.
A simple rock doesn't have a face. A sculpture does even if it used to be that simple rock.

That's one of the beauties of humanity. We sometimes manage to change ordinary into extraordinary.
In some cases that process does indeed manage to make the ordinary disappear...
We still remember it being there but it's meaningless because it doesn't really exist anymore.

Now put that into context with etymologies and meanings of words.

So, etymology just happens to be the thing that links the concept of the word to where it came from. It's like your childhood memories define who you are a lot. I don't care if my theory isn't "widely accepted", because that thing is certainly real. You could say that Bon Jovi is "widely accepted" but do you like it?

This is what I was trying to say.

A sculpture doesn't represent a rock even if it once was a rock.

However, people with absolute memory loss still are people. They're not nobodies even if no one knew their past.

And naming "culture" makes the phenomenon exist, i think that's clear. If you give things names you cause more things to arise. Like if you don't know anything about mechanics and then more detailed information about some certain special part of it, i guess in your world that detailed part doesn't exist in a machine. You just call it "machine".

This I have to disagree altogether. Everything that exists exists. It doesn't matter if we make names for everything or not.
A name is merely a tag. Something common to help communicate.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#20 kirjoitettu 14.08.2008 22:37

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
There is no simpler thing than that: a word is like a being or a rock or a hammer or anything. It (the word in some language) changes in life the way everything else changes. A rock gets crack, a being dies etc.

You make sculptures out of rocks. They become something more than the rock. Something else.
A simple rock doesn't have a face. A sculpture does even if it used to be that simple rock.

That's one of the beauties of humanity. We sometimes manage to change ordinary into extraordinary.
In some cases that process does indeed manage to make the ordinary disappear...
We still remember it being there but it's meaningless because it doesn't really exist anymore.

Now put that into context with etymologies and meanings of words.

So, etymology just happens to be the thing that links the concept of the word to where it came from. It's like your childhood memories define who you are a lot. I don't care if my theory isn't "widely accepted", because that thing is certainly real. You could say that Bon Jovi is "widely accepted" but do you like it?

This is what I was trying to say.

A sculpture doesn't represent a rock even if it once was a rock.

However, people with absolute memory loss still are people. They're not nobodies even if no one knew their past.

And naming "culture" makes the phenomenon exist, i think that's clear. If you give things names you cause more things to arise. Like if you don't know anything about mechanics and then more detailed information about some certain special part of it, i guess in your world that detailed part doesn't exist in a machine. You just call it "machine".

This I have to disagree altogether. Everything that exists exists. It doesn't matter if we make names for everything or not.
A name is merely a tag. Something common to help communicate.


I just don't get your point. People with memory loss and "no-past" have a memory of their past: they know they don't know their past and have a memory of that knowing!

"A sculpture" is not "a rock", they are different things you see. That's why "a sculpture" doesn't represent "a rock". "a rock" may have been part of "the rock" which is in the end "a planet" which is part of "the universe" and that is what we know. The final shape came from there. And communicative words change just like the rock changed into the sculpture. That's why etymology applies. Personally I'm not sure even if it's beautiful at all that we humans turn things into "other" things the "original" things are/were not. You are too proud of us humans in my opinion.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#21 kirjoitettu 14.08.2008 23:35

odkid kirjoitti:
I just don't get your point. People with memory loss and "no-past" have a memory of their past: they know they don't know their past and have a memory of that knowing!

Yeah.. Right.

How about a serial killer who suddenly gets all amnesiac?
His past is wiped away from his own head but it still exists. He is still a serial killer to those who know him as one but in present he might not even have such desires.
Anyway, that wasn't my point with the memory loss.
Your point about it wasn't my point about it either.

"A sculpture" is not "a rock", they are different things you see.

YES! That's what I said!
Tho a sculpture WAS a rock. That's where etymology comes into play. Etymology of a word is where it came from, what it WAS. The word is what it IS.
They are different things you see...

That's why "a sculpture" doesn't represent "a rock". "a rock" may have been part of "the rock" which is in the end "a planet" which is part of "the universe" and that is what we know. The final shape came from there.

Your point being that your etymology actually is the universe which has nothing to do with the meaning of a word which would represent a sculpture or a rock here...?

I don't know, maybe you're changing my metaphor to suit your own opinion or maybe you just didn't get it at all.

I'll have to start charging for using mine if you mutilate them all like that

And communicative words change just like the rock changed into the sculpture. That's why etymology applies.

Etymology actually doesn't apply as the meaning of words. Like you said, words change just like the rock changed into the sculpture. With words it doesn't mean the rock disappears tho. The rock is still there and human mind creates the sculpture from the same material only to represent something else. Rock is still needed, sculpture is a whole new thing.

If etymology applied as meanings, there would be no word "cultivation". There'd be only culture, the sculpture sculpted from the rock that was cultivation.
Think about it.

Personally I'm not sure even if it's beautiful at all that we humans turn things into "other" things the "original" things are/were not. You are too proud of us humans in my opinion.

No?

You don't like arts at all? No instruments? Computers?

No fire?

Just eating berries wild fruits and vegetables?

No books cause there's no paper?

Think again or go live in the mountains

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#22 kirjoitettu 15.08.2008 00:26

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
I just don't get your point. People with memory loss and "no-past" have a memory of their past: they know they don't know their past and have a memory of that knowing!

Yeah.. Right.

How about a serial killer who suddenly gets all amnesiac?
His past is wiped away from his own head but it still exists. He is still a serial killer to those who know him as one but in present he might not even have such desires.
Anyway, that wasn't my point with the memory loss.
Your point about it wasn't my point about it either.

"A sculpture" is not "a rock", they are different things you see.

YES! That's what I said!
Tho a sculpture WAS a rock. That's where etymology comes into play. Etymology of a word is where it came from, what it WAS. The word is what it IS.
They are different things you see...

That's why "a sculpture" doesn't represent "a rock". "a rock" may have been part of "the rock" which is in the end "a planet" which is part of "the universe" and that is what we know. The final shape came from there.

Your point being that your etymology actually is the universe which has nothing to do with the meaning of a word which would represent a sculpture or a rock here...?

I don't know, maybe you're changing my metaphor to suit your own opinion or maybe you just didn't get it at all.

I'll have to start charging for using mine if you mutilate them all like that

And communicative words change just like the rock changed into the sculpture. That's why etymology applies.

Etymology actually doesn't apply as the meaning of words. Like you said, words change just like the rock changed into the sculpture. With words it doesn't mean the rock disappears tho. The rock is still there and human mind creates the sculpture from the same material only to represent something else. Rock is still needed, sculpture is a whole new thing.

If etymology applied as meanings, there would be no word "cultivation". There'd be only culture, the sculpture sculpted from the rock that was cultivation.
Think about it.

Personally I'm not sure even if it's beautiful at all that we humans turn things into "other" things the "original" things are/were not. You are too proud of us humans in my opinion.

No?

You don't like arts at all? No instruments? Computers?

No fire?

Just eating berries wild fruits and vegetables?

No books cause there's no paper?

Think again or go live in the mountains


First of all: I said I'm not sure in the last chapter. Read more carefully, don't assume like I do.

"How about a serial killer who suddenly gets all amnesiac?
His past is wiped away from his own head but it still exists. He is still a serial killer to those who know him as one but in present he might not even have such desires."
is etymological, or at least historical. You just proved the serial killers past is what he is/means to others, and it takes time for it to change. Some will never believe s/he's amnesiac, some will realize it, some will always doubt. The serial killer has changed into an amnesiac serial killer, who is a human to him/herself with only a short past and the knowledge of having a longer past (which s/he doesn't remember) later on when he learns to read, speak and communicate again if the amnesia is complete to her/him.

But yes, you have a point: the word means what it means right now when you use it. Still etymology applies a lot more than right now. I'm saying to you: "haklsfalb". And when I say "haklsfalb" it surely must not mean anything to you or at least communicate anything specific. Not until people start to use it and it becomes a word which means some thing.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#23 kirjoitettu 15.08.2008 01:50

odkid kirjoitti:
First of all: I said I'm not sure in the last chapter. Read more carefully, don't assume like I do.

Excuse me but it's pretty tough to read more careful than I did when you insult me of being too proud.

Where'd all the anger come from if you're not so sure yourself?

"How about a serial killer who suddenly gets all amnesiac?
His past is wiped away from his own head but it still exists. He is still a serial killer to those who know him as one but in present he might not even have such desires."
is etymological, or at least historical. You just proved the serial killers past is what he is/means to others, and it takes time for it to change. Some will never believe s/he's amnesiac, some will realize it, some will always doubt. The serial killer has changed into an amnesiac serial killer, who is a human to him/herself with only a short past and the knowledge of having a longer past (which s/he doesn't remember) later on when he learns to read, speak and communicate again if the amnesia is complete to her/him.

Ok, I admit I proved that.

But it doesn't really tell a damn thing about language or communication, save one thing. It proves our previous attitude towards things that could have been changed don't change with them.
By which I could mean that either the serial killer gets judged by his unknown past or you stick to what you believe in no matter what I compare words and etymology with.
I believe Quafka put that one into much more straight forward sentences in his last post.

But yes, you have a point: the word means what it means right now when you use it. Still etymology applies a lot more than right now. I'm saying to you: "haklsfalb". And when I say "haklsfalb" it surely must not mean anything to you or at least communicate anything specific. Not until people start to use it and it becomes a word which means some thing.

So you're saying we should actually start consciously associating the word culture with growing and breeding plants?

Cause that's what you've been saying all the time and I must have missed every valid argument you had in it...
Again like Quafka said.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#24 kirjoitettu 15.08.2008 18:18

One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

odkid muokkasi viestiä 18:18 15.08.2008

And sorry if I'm insulting anyone in philosophy.

odkid muokkasi viestiä 18:30 15.08.2008

odkid muokkasi viestiä 18:31 15.08.2008

and to quafka: I'm meaning that people speaking without the word "culture" don't think "culture" exists and so it doesn't exist to them. Words are thinking, all the things are as they are. I'm not saying things don't exist without someone thinking. Quite on the contrary: some things are and some things are creations of thinking and don't really exist anywhere.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#25 kirjoitettu 16.08.2008 12:51

odkid kirjoitti:
One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..

Of course the fork exists. If a child asks what something is you don't answer "no".
...right?


And sorry if I'm insulting anyone in philosophy.

Not me. I'm just pissed that you can't even explain how the world just lost the odkid vs world battle..


and to quafka: I'm meaning that people speaking without the word "culture" don't think "culture" exists and so it doesn't exist to them. Words are thinking, all the things are as they are. I'm not saying things don't exist without someone thinking. Quite on the contrary: some things are and some things are creations of thinking and don't really exist anywhere.

Whoa..

Do you really mean it like that..?

People who haven't heard of gods don't necessarily think they don't exist. They might just not have thought about it.

Not knowing about something makes you pretty much uncapable of forming opinions about it's existence, right?

I get what you meant but I don't see how it would work.

What if someone went and explained to the people who don't know what culture is what culture is?
I'm sure they'd have culture right at that moment. They could name things considered culture they had before the word.
In which case they actually had culture even if they didn't know a word for it.

Culture is a word, yes, and it has no concrete counterpart in the physical world, but still it defines something that can be seen, heard, felt and tasted. Something very real.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#26 kirjoitettu 17.08.2008 23:16

quafka kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

The child isn't crazy. What is happening here, is teaching child into a language game, that isn't common among us. That is, teaching him/her to use "existence" in a way that we don't usually use it. The fork does exist in either case. Its existence isn't dependable on the kids concept of "existence".

odkid kirjoitti:
and to quafka: I'm meaning that people speaking without the word "culture" don't think "culture" exists and so it doesn't exist to them.

Well, here we might agree.... in a way. I still think that better way to express this situation is to say: "Those people have culture, they just don't know it." I mean, in our western, science-infulenced language game.

Words are thinking, all the things are as they are. I'm not saying things don't exist without someone thinking. Quite on the contrary: some things are and some things are creations of thinking and don't really exist anywhere.

If you mean things like "words", then we agree. If you mean things like "chairs" or "cats", then we don't agree.


Well now I see much better that you've just taken one theory of the language and believed it as it is (in that case Wittgensteins language theory). I prefer thinking on my own. Well maybe you just like that theory because it gives you some kind of answer.

Those people without the concept of "culture" don't necessarily need you to say they have "a culture". That is just what we like to call "civilization" or "knowing" here. I don't see the point making up some words and ideas without them actually having a reality basis. I agree that I do that a lot just like everybody else, and the other thing is that what the ideas (=words) meant in history are what they've become here.

And about the fork: do you see my point here that what you've learned in the past makes what you think today. Like you are a young dude using the internet because you have the concept of internet, a forum etc.
It's just stuff you've read, heard or made to think by others.

I just don't categorize things to physical or non-physical (although I did it here just now writing it) that easily, and I like the theory but don't think like that. I'm not saying it's easy to think like this, but I believe in what I believe.

And I guess I've just realizing the meaning and influence of history and how it relates to the present in general and I haven't thought of that before, and it now influences the way I think about all things.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#27 kirjoitettu 17.08.2008 23:20

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..

Of course the fork exists. If a child asks what something is you don't answer "no".
...right?



No, I mean what if nobody told about the fork. The child could make it up on his mind, but surely nobody wouldn't believe him if everybody told him the fork didn't exist.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#28 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 01:41

odkid kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..

Of course the fork exists. If a child asks what something is you don't answer "no".
...right?



No, I mean what if nobody told about the fork. The child could make it up on his mind, but surely nobody wouldn't believe him if everybody told him the fork didn't exist.


So you're saying everyone believes the fork doesn't exist except the child?

If that's the case it could well be the fork doesn't exist and the child is hallucinating.

On the other hand you said I have the fork. Now that's just plain old fool-the-child trick. Works everytime.

And oh how we laughed...

I still don't see what the point is. The fork obviously exists. Just because you convince someone he's hallucinating doesn't mean he is.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

nykäne
nykäne
156 viestiä

#29 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 10:26

All I can say about religion is that grown-ups with imaginary friends are insane.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#30 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 10:37

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and you tell the child that it doesn't exist. Does the fork exist or not? What will the child think if everybody said it did not exist? Is the child crazy or thinking the wrong way?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about..

Of course the fork exists. If a child asks what something is you don't answer "no".
...right?



No, I mean what if nobody told about the fork. The child could make it up on his mind, but surely nobody wouldn't believe him if everybody told him the fork didn't exist.


So you're saying everyone believes the fork doesn't exist except the child?

If that's the case it could well be the fork doesn't exist and the child is hallucinating.

On the other hand you said I have the fork. Now that's just plain old fool-the-child trick. Works everytime.

And oh how we laughed...

I still don't see what the point is. The fork obviously exists. Just because you convince someone he's hallucinating doesn't mean he is.


So, you're saying "the fork" is "a hallucination" if everybody says so, even though it really exists? The child is quite on her/his own then, thinking he/she is the one who is crazy while actually everyone else is crazy claiming that the fork isn't "real".

I just don't get you, did I really say you have the fork?

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#31 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 10:55

quafka kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
Well now I see much better that you've just taken one theory of the language and believed it as it is (in that case Wittgensteins language theory). I prefer thinking on my own. Well maybe you just like that theory because it gives you some kind of answer.

Are you saying that I don't think on my own?

Well, I do. Reading & understanding philosophy requires it. I trust Wittgenstein's theory of language because it makes sense in many ways, not because he's a famous philosopher and all.

I don't even get your point here: why some idea is better in philosophy, if it's my own idea? I'm interested in grasping the world correctly, not in creating my own original views.

Those people without the concept of "culture" don't necessarily need you to say they have "a culture".

Yes, of course not. However, we might still say that "they have culture", because we have that concept. In other words: they have something we call culture. They might not call it that, but that's hardly the point, as we are the ones talking here.

I don't see the point making up some words and ideas without them actually having a reality basis.

Then you just might not understand some basic princicples of language.

Words like "should" or "hello" or "maybe" have no reality basis. They just gain their meaning in our usage. They are, however, essential to our communication.

About the "culture" word, what can you possibly mean by saying that it doesn't have reality basis? It's one of those spontaniously born words (not a "made up word").

And about the fork: do you see my point here that what you've learned in the past makes what you think today. Like you are a young dude using the internet because you have the concept of internet, a forum etc.
It's just stuff you've read, heard or made to think by others.

Everything I've learned makes me think the way I think now - yes. The internet would still exist, even if I never learned about it (why wouldn't it?).

Or did you mean something else?

I just don't categorize things to physical or non-physical (although I did it here just now writing it) that easily, and I like the theory but don't think like that. I'm not saying it's easy to think like this, but I believe in what I believe.
*sigh* .. fine.


Yes, I don't understand. I give more value to original ideas made up by someone and not read, but hey that's just me. In my belief system: subjective, original and the subject's own thinking brings the subject closer to the truth than reading someone elses view or idea about it.
I just don't get it why you get all so upset (that's the feeling I get from your lines) because of "wrong views" which are outside the paradigm of philosophy. Maybe it's that you study philosophy and don't want your studies to go to waste. If this is the case, then I understand.

You make a lot of assumptions, here's one of them: the word "culture" isn't made up, it's spontaneously born. Is this actually true? And another one: you assume some words are essential for our communication.

Well I still claim words are as they are because they came from some situations which happened in the past and gave these words their form and usage in the present. I'm not saying it doesn't matter what they mean now, I'm saying it matters a lot more what they have meant. This is not the case every single time, but I just figure the present is so short that there is a lot more time in the past than in the present. And I value time very much so time defines things.

odkid muokkasi viestiä 10:55 18.08.2008

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#32 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 12:03

odkid kirjoitti:
So, you're saying "the fork" is "a hallucination" if everybody says so, even though it really exists?

No.

If the child has the fork and everyone else thinks there is no fork, it's possible that there is no fork.
If the child has the fork and everyone else tells him there is no fork, it's a bit more likely there is a fork.

There's a difference in saying and thinking since we know how to lie.

The child is quite on her/his own then, thinking he/she is the one who is crazy while actually everyone else is crazy claiming that the fork isn't "real".

How are they crazy if they know the fork is there?
That's what I meant with the fool-the-child trick.

I just don't get you, did I really say you have the fork?

You said "One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and......" so yes you did really say I have the fork.

If I have the fork I must know there's a fork. That makes it a lie, not a crazy child.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#33 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 12:46

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
So, you're saying "the fork" is "a hallucination" if everybody says so, even though it really exists?

No.

If the child has the fork and everyone else thinks there is no fork, it's possible that there is no fork.
If the child has the fork and everyone else tells him there is no fork, it's a bit more likely there is a fork.

There's a difference in saying and thinking since we know how to lie.

The child is quite on her/his own then, thinking he/she is the one who is crazy while actually everyone else is crazy claiming that the fork isn't "real".

How are they crazy if they know the fork is there?
That's what I meant with the fool-the-child trick.

I just don't get you, did I really say you have the fork?

You said "One example: if you have a fork, and a child doesn't "know" what a fork is and asks what it is and......" so yes you did really say I have the fork.

If I have the fork I must know there's a fork. That makes it a lie, not a crazy child.


Ok, so I used the english expression: "if you have..." which is common in the english grammar. You should know that it has been used in the past like that and that is why I used it there. It isn't literal, it's "an expression". It means almost the same as "if there was a fork..." I can surely admit it is not useful and so it's just unnecessary and that it was written without thought.

But to the point: How can you tell the difference between these two a) when people are telling about "a fork" and b) in people thinking about "a fork". And think about the child's point of view. And this time take more time to write, because I see you've not read almost anything I've written here.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#34 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 13:22

odkid kirjoitti:

Ok, so I used the english expression: "if you have..." which is common in the english grammar. You should know that it has been used in the past like that and that is why I used it there. It isn't literal, it's "an expression". It means almost the same as "if there was a fork..." I can surely admit it is not useful and so it's just unnecessary and that it was written without thought.

No. It doesn't.
Check your English

You could either say "Assuming the child thinks you have a fork" or "It appears to the child you have a fork" but not "If you have a fork" when you want to imply I actually don't have a fork in the imagined scene.

If you wanted to say there's no fork but the child thinks there is, why didn't you say so? Why'd you mix it with me having something to do with the fork?

I'm getting the feeling you're reading your own text differently than when you wrote it...

Apparently we also have some issues understanding eachother in English. Maybe we ought to take this in the Finnish forum and discuss it through where we can be sure we understand what the other says.

But to the point: How can you tell the difference between these two a) when people are telling about "a fork" and b) in people thinking about "a fork". And think about the child's point of view. And this time take more time to write, because I see you've not read almost anything I've written here.

I've pretty much read it all. I haven't stopped and thought about anything because you repeat the same things I've already thought through.

This one here is the same thing you said before, just with a different approach.

First of all I don't see why I would have to be able to tell the difference between saying and thinking generally when I'm obviously one of the sayers or thinkers in this scene. I KNOW if I'm lying to the child, the child is the only one not knowing.

From the child's point of view it doesn't make any difference if people actually mean what they say unless it affects the way they're saying it, thus affecting the child's way of receiving the message.
Assuming it doesn't affect the way they say it the child believes it or doesn't believe it whether they lie or not and lying makes no difference in the child's response.

Now, from the child's point of view it's just one more thing learned, not depending on what the child believes about the fork. Exist or not.
From the crowd's point of view the child either believes their lie, seems to be hallucinating, realizes people can lie or stops hallucinating.

Only one of the four options give the possibility that the child actually starts thinking he/she's crazy. That's the case where he stops hallucinating and it only applies if there is no fork. Now, given that you actually said there is a fork (even if you didn't think you said so) that's not a real option.

All in all it goes back to misunderstanding due to use of a foreign language.

After-Ego muokkasi viestiä 13:26 18.08.2008

if we take the crowd's POV:
The child appears crazy in 2 scenes. Both involving hallucinating. Again it comes to the existence of the fork which leads back to the language issue.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Haava
Haava
Jumalan nyrkki
43150 viestiä
Ylläpitäjä

#35 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 13:27

After-Ego kirjoitti:

Maybe we ought to take this in the Finnish forum and discuss it through where we can be sure we understand what the other says.


MAYBE? Hell yeah! Finns trying to misunderstand each other in foreign language... even when you are also perfectly capable to do that in finnish too.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#36 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 13:29

Haava kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:

Maybe we ought to take this in the Finnish forum and discuss it through where we can be sure we understand what the other says.


MAYBE? Hell yeah! Finns trying to misunderstand each other in foreign language... even when you are also perfectly capable to do that in finnish too.


Beautiful, isn't it?

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#37 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 19:20

Haava kirjoitti:
After-Ego kirjoitti:

Maybe we ought to take this in the Finnish forum and discuss it through where we can be sure we understand what the other says.


MAYBE? Hell yeah! Finns trying to misunderstand each other in foreign language... even when you are also perfectly capable to do that in finnish too.


Thank you mr. Sheriff. I'll be happy to lose this debate, because I'm wrong and everybody else is right.

odkid muokkasi viestiä 19:21 18.08.2008

So yeah, have it your way. The child is crazy.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

Tusina Immonen
Tusina Immonen
10508 viestiä

#38 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 20:45

odkid kirjoitti:
Thank you mr. Sheriff. I'll be happy to lose this debate, because I'm wrong and everybody else is right.

odkid muokkasi viestiä 19:21 18.08.2008

So yeah, have it your way. The child is crazy.


Since when was it about winning and losing...?

I just tried to understand what you wanted to say but we got stuck in some metaphor..

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#39 kirjoitettu 18.08.2008 21:04

After-Ego kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
Thank you mr. Sheriff. I'll be happy to lose this debate, because I'm wrong and everybody else is right.

odkid muokkasi viestiä 19:21 18.08.2008

So yeah, have it your way. The child is crazy.


Since when was it about winning and losing...?

I just tried to understand what you wanted to say but we got stuck in some metaphor..


Well okay, i'll say that it's quite beyond my words to transmit what i think. You'd have to be me to realize it in the same way. But that's awfully nice that you tried.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

odkid
odkid
3343 viestiä

#40 kirjoitettu 23.08.2008 16:16

Sunt1o kirjoitti:
odkid kirjoitti:
Well okay, i'll say that it's quite beyond my words to transmit what i think. You'd have to be me to realize it in the same way. But that's awfully nice that you tried.


It's often a good thing to translate your thoughts and ideas into words. Then it's easier to take a look at it in case it contains some logical problems.


Well yeah I surely haven't known that now that you said it! I could honestly say that that is really something new I've never heard before! It's always so easy to translate what you think into words you know!

Bow to the unbreakable logic because you seem to know it all.

^ Vastaa Lainaa

1 2 Seuraava >

Vastaa Aloita uusi keskustelu