It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster
I'd like 5 minutes alone in a room behind a locked door with the guy who dreamed up the phrase "I AM". When I was done with that idiot, he'd be wishing "he wasn't."
"I am" is a very incomplete statement. It also leads to further question begging. I am what? It can only ever serve as an incomplete statement. Yet apparently this half-concept is used as a principle somehow. That is quite telling in itself.
Forget about God for a minute - and focus on emotion
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain
Are you? Or aren't you?
Are I or aren't I what?
People have experienced different sensations and feelings. And we call those sensations and feelings emotions. There is something concrete that's happening, and we can name it, describe it and relate to it. We can imagine what it's like to be happy or sad.
But what imagery do euphemisms bring? Euphemisms are designed to negate the imagery involved in common understanding. To use Orwell's example, we use the word "pacification" as a euphemism for the slaughter of a number of people. We use the word to justify that slaughter, by not allowing anyone to visualize it. That's why the word pacification in this context is empty, because it doesn't allow one to understand the truth about what is really happening. In fact, it leads us away from the truth.
I have asked twice, respectfully and it doesn't seem you want to explain your conclusion there. So I'll just come to my own conclusion.
Perhaps you find the word God offensive? The concept offends your senses, because it contradicts them- your physical senses pick up no evidence of this God, and this offends your values about the physical world.
This makes me think that you might be assuming others feel as you do, in response to that word...
Originally posted by NorEaster
So, who or what is your real self? Seriously. That riff almost sounds like it makes sense, but if the ego is "what a causes a person to impulsively want for him/herself" then what is left as a natural impulse for the "real" self, and how could you possibly discern it to be different than the other impulse source that you've convinced yourself that you've defeated? All it would be is yet another impulse.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Unless you've allowed someone else to define YOU to you, which seems to be just another hijacking of yet another human mind by yet another religion/ideology cobbled together by yet another group of people.
I do make this stuff up as I go along, so please bear with me.
what the heck are you proposing?
also - was kinda serious about the name - Misanthrope...
Irony? Euphemism (I sincerely hope not)? Or is it anti-euphemistic and in keeping with what seems to be your preference - beautifully and simply accurate?
"If everyone were clothed with integrity,
If every heart were just, frank, kindly,
The other virtues would be well-nigh useless,
Since their chief purpose is to make us bear with patience
The injustice of our fellows"
~ Le Misanthrope - Moliere
I am proposing, in a nutshell, that people should be more honest with themselves and others; and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be seduced by words so easily. I feel that critiquing the words—for words are all they so far amount to—will lead us to further understand these concepts. And who knows, if we eventually understand them to be nothings, non-existent, maybe we could finally excuse them from the table? Surely it would be quite difficult to fly a plane into a building for no reason.
It is the name of my avatar. It is also an amalgamation of two plays I enjoy—Les Miserables by Hugo and Le Misanthrope by Moliere.
But what imagery do euphemisms bring? Euphemisms are designed to negate the imagery involved in common understanding. To use Orwell's example, we use the word "pacification" as a euphemism for the slaughter of a number of people. We use the word to justify that slaughter, by not allowing anyone to visualize it. That's why the word pacification in this context is empty, because it doesn't allow one to understand the truth about what is really happening. In fact, it leads us away from the truth.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
My only conclusion—and I've hinted at this, although I would hope people would arrive at their own conclusions—is that being able to explain something clearly leads to further understanding, not only by the one who heard it, but also by the one who spoke it.
I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience.
I then asked myself why someone would use completely abstract terms to describe something they find concrete enough to believe in. I figured it is because the words are euphemisms, kept in place to hide the maybe too painful truth that nothing is there in the first place.
Not necessarily. There are many reasons why a person may not grasp an idea even if it is clearly explained.
Also not true. The key to successful communication lies as much with the listener as the speaker. Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic.
Also, one persons lack of experience does not negate another persons experience.
As bluesma pointed out earlier, there are words that pertain to things that we can't experience materially yet enough people have compared notes about what they have experienced to differentiate between them.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Yes, but I haven't claimed otherwise. Care to explain these reasons?
Once again, I didn't claim otherwise.
Can someone be taught the basics? How would you teach the basics of, say, "the soul"?
I don't think I argued the opposite.
I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience.
Name one thing we cannot experience materially.
"Can someone be taught the basics? How would you teach the basics of, say, "the soul"?"
What do you mean by teach. Someone can try to explain it but that does not mean that it will be understood by the person being "taught".
Now, if there are no words to convey the message of what the soul is then, what do you expect someone to use when he tries to teach about the soul?
Feelings.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
When I say "teach" I mean exactly what you think it means. If in order to understand something, they first must understand the basics, as you've asserted, ("Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic." ) then what I'm asking you is, how can someone learn the basics about something if there's no basics to be taught?
Further, how can someone explain, or teach something without having any basics to teach?
I would expect them to use empty words.
But in order to say that the word "feelings" is simply immaterial is to also not acknowledge the very real material thing performing that action, and the physical consequences that result.
Despite the ambiguity of the word "feelings", it nonetheless connotes the idea of bodily sensations, physical interaction, and the changes that occur within the human body.
Well hopefully when an intimate tells you they have great love and tremendous feelings for you, LesMis, you don't have that conversation!
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Likewise there are no such things as "feelings", only the idea that between this time and that, something was feeling.