Wormrat on 3/2/2011 at 06:57
Smartest post in this thread. But sometimes it helps to bang your head against these "questions" until you see it.
SubJeff on 3/2/2011 at 07:23
No it isn't. Ffs. Guys, someone help me out here.
Quote Posted by Kolya
it's not like majority makes right, especially when a question is that vague. And nowhere did it say the persons would exist in different times or universes or some such.
Koyla - the equivalent to what you' re doing is going into a thread titled "A calculus question" and saying "aha, but d (in dy/dx) could stand for ducks".
Incidentally, your post about suicide in relation to infinite power is spot on. That's a coincidence it seems, or, if you want to frame in the context of the thread, synchronicity in action.
Sulphur on 3/2/2011 at 07:51
Eh, I'll have to agree with SE's point here. While your take is interesting Kolya, it's a digression from the fundamental point of the (poorly phrased) question, which is given one individual's experiences within a certain timeframe (birth to death perhaps), would your actions/beliefs be the same if you were in that individual's place instead?
Looking at how people influence each other's lives is a factor, but making individuals A) and B) have the same experiences at the same time in more or less the same area focuses on an issue the question isn't asking, the issue being 'how would two similar individuals who have the same set of experiences influence each other?'. It's a needless complication, and the answer to it doesn't do much to inform the answer to the actual question.
My problem with the OP's question is that, obviously, your beliefs and feelings would be different because you're not the same person. And since you're not the same person, you can't disallow 'biological factors' unless you're substituting one person with an exact clone of that person.
Kolya on 3/2/2011 at 14:28
You know, I'm all for different takes and opinions peacefully coexisting when a question allows it. I don't need you to agree with me and I can see where your interpretation is coming from, SE. I think it's correct, within the framing you use.
But for the same reason that I grant you this tolerance I won't accept your opinion as a unitary view either. And yeah, I can be really stubborn when it comes to intolerance.
The problem is of course in the framing, that is the assumptions we both make because the original question is so meagre.
Still that's all we got and if you must have it one way, then you'll have to jettison your framing first and look at the original text again, hermeneutical analysis here we come!
Quote Posted by A question of philosophy?
"If I'd experienced exactly what you experienced throughout your life, I would feel/believe the same way that you do."
So it is framed (titled) as "A question of philosophy?". This apparently evokes a certain "type of question" with you, that you know from high school discussions. But wait, for one thing philosophy is more than that, for another there's a question mark at the end. So it may not be a philosophical question after all. Was the author uncertain here or possibly paving the way for a wide scope of interpretations? Well I know your answer, because I've seen you react when you think you got it. So in your mind it's a philosophical question and the author is just unsure.
Next the question which is actually a statement that we should agree with or not: "If I'd experienced..." Note how he uses past perfect here. The action is over. So we're supposed to imagine that I had experienced the same as someone else.... Until when? Well it says "throughout life" but does that mean either of us were dead now? Or is that just adding things to the question that are not there. Your choice. I understand this as
experiencing the same throughout life until now. But it really is open to interpretation until this point.
Second part: "I would feel/believe the same way that you do." Note the use of present tense here. We're back to now and apparently no one has died. Phew!
But in your mind
"The question doesn't require a comparison between another person who has really existed because it's a theoretical question."Wait what? Where is that? Without someone to compare to, there's no comparison obviously. But for you it's just that
typical "What if..." - question, which you've seen enacted in dozens of TV series, that have framed your mind. That's where the parallel universes come in.
But none of that is actually in the question. It's even doubtful if it is a philosophical question at all.
Again, I understand your take, surprisingly I'm not too stupid, and I agree it's one way to look at the question. But only if you bring a whole lot of assumptions on board that are based on the culturally backed up construct of the typical "What if"-question.
However that's not in the question and a different understanding is possible. And actually you should welcome it, because it could help you to think outside of the box of your TV series and your well worn mental pathways. But instead you react aggressively. Now why is that?
That different understanding actually manages without many assumptions, except a certain understanding of times in the syntax of the question. Here it is in parentheses:
If I'd [from birth] experienced exactly what you experienced [from birth] throughout your life [until now], I would [right now] feel/believe the same way that you do [now].
If I had assumed your kind of What if-lingo I could have rephrased the questions as: "What if we were twins doing everything together? Would we feel the same?"
But yeah, that's assuming a bit too much. :)
But tell me, prove me with the original question if you can, how this approach is any less worthwhile than yours.
Kuuso on 3/2/2011 at 14:43
Wittgenstein
/thread
SubJeff on 3/2/2011 at 14:55
Quote Posted by Kolya
This apparently evokes a certain "type of question" with you, that you know from high school discussions.
Jesus Christ will you shut up about highschool. I wish I'd never mentioned it. You're like a broken record. No, it's not from highschool discussions and I never claimed it was. The example I gave was from a highschool discussion and I mention that because it's an extremely simple concept that I would rate as highschool level at best.
Quote Posted by Kolya
But instead you react aggressively. Now why is that?
Because you do stupid things, like harping about highschool and teachers. Or these
Quote Posted by Kolya
fffffffffff-fffffffffffff-ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffuck
Quote Posted by Kolya
I hope you can still sleep.
Quote Posted by Kolya
Must be really cosy in that little box of yours.
Quote Posted by Kolya
I'm not your student, but I when I read your
desperately condescending posts, I sense your fear.
Typical reaction of authority figures who've gotten used to their way of explaining shit a little too much. Completely blinkered.
Emphasis my own.
And to reiterate - I only started in the vein I did because
you started with the "fffffffffffuck" BS. I suspect you don't realise what impression that gives. Your constant insistence that I'm a teacher of some sort is equally irking. I'm not.
I totally agree with your breakdown and reconstruction of the question and have to ask why you didn't naturally do that with the question? Everyone else in here seems to have done so.
And I think you just got owned by Kuuso. If he means what I think he means that's one hell of a zing!
Wormrat on 3/2/2011 at 14:55
Quote Posted by Kuuso
Wittgenstein
/thread
Indeed.
Quote Posted by "Ludwig Wittgenstein"
For an answer which cannot be expressed, the question too cannot be expressed.
The
riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.
Quote:
Whereof one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence.
Kolya on 3/2/2011 at 15:34
:D
Friends?
