Poll: Philosophical Semantics. What are you?
- Thread starter zarix2311
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What i focus on, has no term yet, even though it is the most common thing of all: Relations and their patterns and constellations.... the difference to "logic" is:
- logic is an action - not a model (i basically see no difference between "reason" and "logic")
- existing models of logic do not model relationships as interactions. Instead, they work more similiar to mathematics: They work on a single frozen point in time, where entities get degraded to "objects", and the one doing the analyzation promoted to "subject".
- existing logical models are restricted to verbal/written "statements" only, instead of the whole world.
Since there is no term for such a thing, i currently privately call it "interactive relationism". I still think that sounds kinda stupid, but at least it expresses the two relevant core aspects: Relationships analyzed as "live" interactions, instead of frozen objects.
If the above sounded hard to understand: Imagine you'd apply behaviorism, physics and cybernetics to create a universal model of how "meaning" works. Hold that thought, then make the step of dropping the distinction between "statement-relationships" and the relationships between things in the world.
To bring a really trivial and not so interesting example: Things like attraction and repulsion do not just happen in the "outside-world", but between concepts and emotions too. This is the kind of stuff i'm doing.
- logic is an action - not a model (i basically see no difference between "reason" and "logic")
- existing models of logic do not model relationships as interactions. Instead, they work more similiar to mathematics: They work on a single frozen point in time, where entities get degraded to "objects", and the one doing the analyzation promoted to "subject".
- existing logical models are restricted to verbal/written "statements" only, instead of the whole world.
Since there is no term for such a thing, i currently privately call it "interactive relationism". I still think that sounds kinda stupid, but at least it expresses the two relevant core aspects: Relationships analyzed as "live" interactions, instead of frozen objects.
If the above sounded hard to understand: Imagine you'd apply behaviorism, physics and cybernetics to create a universal model of how "meaning" works. Hold that thought, then make the step of dropping the distinction between "statement-relationships" and the relationships between things in the world.
To bring a really trivial and not so interesting example: Things like attraction and repulsion do not just happen in the "outside-world", but between concepts and emotions too. This is the kind of stuff i'm doing.
same here, though there is some idealism in here too, though it usually gets tempered by the more dominant realist in me.T8B95 said:
It depends.
When it comes to day to day life, I am a realist.
However, as far as the grand scheme of life goes, I'm much more of an existentialist.
What I mean by this is that my personal philosophy and view of life is existentialist, but I recognize that I live in the real world and that my thoughts and beliefs are not going to change it for me. If I want to succeed I will need to either get enough other people to change the rules with me or play by the rules. Gaming the system is far easier than changing it, so I live like a realist and think like an existentialist.
When it comes to day to day life, I am a realist.
However, as far as the grand scheme of life goes, I'm much more of an existentialist.
What I mean by this is that my personal philosophy and view of life is existentialist, but I recognize that I live in the real world and that my thoughts and beliefs are not going to change it for me. If I want to succeed I will need to either get enough other people to change the rules with me or play by the rules. Gaming the system is far easier than changing it, so I live like a realist and think like an existentialist.
I try to be a realist at all times, and keep a more cynical and logical view on the world than the average person now a days. However, I do get the occasional twang of good feelings.
Not really sure. When it comes to morality and values I do believe that they exist for the sole purpose of maintaining balance between self and society, that one should not overrule the other.
In terms of perceiving the Universe, what we perceive are mental constructs of things. We are only able to conceive the world as a series of objects and actions because the brain allows us to process the information it receives in this way.
I am generally an Optimist.
In terms of perceiving the Universe, what we perceive are mental constructs of things. We are only able to conceive the world as a series of objects and actions because the brain allows us to process the information it receives in this way.
I am generally an Optimist.