»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
An Impersonal History?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
An Impersonal History? |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
Izzat possible? quote: I read the above as the blurb for the following essay: Development of an Individual Identity Parallels Recorded History by Michael Dayah, which can be read in full at the following link: http://essays.dayah.com/identity-development (Lucent's Essays) I'm curious to what you guys think, 'cause I'm not sure what I think.  And also, if anybody has links to any related material, I'd be especially grateful. Thanks in advance! |
||
| © Copyright 2007 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
what is "Good Ideas" and "Bad ideas"? If people do not getting better with age, how come ideas is getting better? so does history! and don't hate me for saying this, SB. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-08-2007 09:41 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Karen, I think some of the ideas put forward in the essay are wrong. The problem is I’ve a feeling I’d have to write an essay at least twice as long to explain why and I‘m not sure I‘m up to it right now! But here’s a start: History is series of individual events not a series of events related to one specific individual. That’s an important distinction for many reasons, one of which is that historical events can be unconnected whereas events pertaining to the individual are always connected and related (to the individual). If the individual is you it means your perception of you at this point in time is subjective, whereas history is viewed objectively. That means that the idea put forward in the essay that an individual perceives their present position as being based on good ideas has to be correct (people only act on what they perceive to be good ideas at the time). However the present position as far as history is concerned, when viewed objectively, is a smorgasbord of good and evil and not the universal good the essay claims. For instance evil empires do exist , I could point to Iran (ironically they could just as easily point to America but that‘s another story). Another proposition where the essay falls down is the fallacy that the victor always writes history - if that were true we’d have a very different take on the war in Vietnam. Hopefully someone will expand on this, more probably they’ll contest it, either way I hope it helps. Oh! The last line of that poem you couldn't understand: She stopped him doing something he may have regretted. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmm. Thank you both. I'm looking for something and I don't know what it is... I came across this article because I became fascinated by the idea that as an endeavor of human growth (or personal evolution?) that our brains apparently commence a civil war. Neural firings commence, and aspects of the brain are "disengaged" or not, depending on if that particular aspect is needed for our survival. And TM? I'm not disregarding your point--in fact, I'm taking that quite seriously. After reading the above info (if I find the link to share that I shall) I actually pictured our brains, playing cards, and choosing and discarding what we should keep. (Probably a bad analogy, but I'm sure somebody will show me where that fails, if it does. *wink*) But I think that the author might have intended "good ideas and bad ideas" to mean what principles of "truth and reality" enable us to thrive in our varied, diverse experience and environment. I doubt seriously if this little essay covers all of this, or even if it was the author's intent to try; but I did hope to open a dialogue that might involve/evolve to a discourse much more encompassing. The very idea that our brains are involved in "neural wars" even as we type and read, that the outcome(s) of these battles are designed for our own expedience and perpetuity (with or without our consent) is fascinating. I'll look for the links that describe this, too. My apologies for asking ya'll to travel down a partially lighted road too. I'm just poking at ideas here, not the least of which is the well-known axiom that we only utilize ten percent of our brains. I found myself curious after reading above, that perhaps we only have "x" amount of "juice", and an empahtic perhaps that the implications of intelligence were simply a matter of what individual circumstance deems necessary for survival. But yep, I need to find my sources.  I was kind of excited to think that what I considered to be inevitable hazards of aging and maybe even other distinctions of quantitative intelligence might simply be um, situational adjustments. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There is evidence of at least some disengagement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilian_brain quote: I’d avoid this one if I were you, it’s a fallacy although the possible origins of the fallacy are quite interesting. Early research into the firing of neurons discovered that a maximum of 10 percent are active at any given time, one school of thought believes that a simple misunderstanding of this when it was first discovered gave rise to the 10% myth. If this is true “at any one time” should be added to the statement. Another school of thought claims that the misunderstand arose when it was reported that neurons only make up 10% of brain cells, the rest are cells that play some part in the thought process but are not directly related in the same way neurons are. If this is true “ directly for thought processing, the other 90% is busy doing other things” should be added to the statement. Sorry about the sidetrack - darn neurons have a mind of their own sometimes. Hope you find what you're looking for. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
