Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys
No man, it doesn't work like that, it NEVER EVER works like that. What about buying a car, you have to be weary of the car salesman and make sure he isn't swindling you. Given this example you have automatically assumed he is out to get you.
With the room example. No, you will see the door. Your brain wil distinguish patterns and curiousity will ensue.
|
I have to disagree on both counts. With the salesman example, it is a choice, subconcious or concious, to not trust the salesman. Now, it would be stupid and naive to say that "car salesmen" aren't, generally, out to take you for your money; it's part of the business. But to assume that is certainly restricting your view of who and what he is; making him simply an obstacle to overcome. I can't telly ou how many people who are deemed oppposition by society that I've interacted with to my satisfaction or advantage simply because I allowed myself to get a VERY basic understanding of who they are, and interacting with that part of them. If that person shows no sign of human life (ie: he shows no part of HIMSELF through his work. which seems very unlikely) then the excercise is irrelevant anyways.
On the patern, curiousity front, you are designing an argument that works on the most basic of levels. Of course our mind recognizes difference, but to say by looking at something we discover it's purpose without having prior knowledge of something similar, is impossible. I can be curious, and will be, but without distingiushing what it is I simply see it as an excentric part of a wall. An example I'll use is sorta silly but effective. An african herdsman is known for his intuitive connection with his cows; for example he can tell their physical state by their color. A man or woman unaware of this would say "that's a dark brown cow" but the herdsman would look at each cow and say "she is dehydrated, he is ill, he is healthy, she is recently pregnant". The unknowledgable person wouldn't be able to see this or even percieve it. Their mind can't understand it because what they see is "brown".
Another way of saying this is a disservice to the concept but perhaps a more widely recognizable thought that "does something exist if I've never heard of it? does a tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it fall?" Everything is assumption, and it works for the most part because society and knowledge don't require physical evidence on a conversational or educational level (see: history, or, well, every subject on earth). Someone can tell you something and you assume it's valid and true. Like "Stella is a great gal". But the idea is that Stella's existence is, until you distingiush her existence, verbal. She exists as a part of language until you can put a physical form of independant and unique mass to said "idea". My philosophy recognizes the danger in assumption, generalization, and social isms that leave room for existence to unfold.