|
Black Bones posted:Yes, of course. You are actually correct here. I'm sure that's a new experience for you, but don't be frightened! Embrace it, learn from it, become it. I choose to not interpret any of it because I have the strangest notion that morality and empathy exist as human qualities without the damnation/approval of a diety. So, kindly gently caress off god.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I choose to not interpret any of it because I have the strangest notion that morality and empathy exist as human qualities without the damnation/approval of a diety. Impressive, could you share your secret for reading a text without interpretation? You could probably make a real name for yourself, since it would be the first time in all of human history that someone has managed it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:That refers to the Church's specific moral and theological interpretations of the Bible, which it arrives at through the following process http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm God likes me too much to ever let me be wrong, therefore I am right. All those other people who say God wouldn't let them get their faith wrong? Liars. Like seriously this is the most  part of Catholicism to me (and that's saying a lot). God is totally cool letting billions and billions of people fall into error and be condemned for it without giving two shits but oh he's totally guiding me while I write some bullshit about how the trinity isn't polytheism or how condoms are evil, this is all the unvarnished truth, would God lie?But then I remember it's sad because once the Church takes an insane position like "wearing a condom to gently caress your wife when you can't afford another kid is a horrible sin just stop having sex forever", then no matter what subsequent developments in society or psychology have to say about it, the Church has no choice but to double down on that poo poo or backtrack and admit their teachings on morality aren't infallible after all. And as we've seen from the child sex abuse cover-ups, an institution with a reputation of moral authority to protect above all else is a dangerous thing. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
This thread is just the worst. It's like a bunch of 13 year olds arguing about their favorite superhero, except they're all juuuust old enough to start questioning why GAINING WEIGHT thinks spiderman is the best and Black Bones thinks Batman is totally the coolest, while Kyrie Elieison (or whatever his/her name is) rambles madly in the background talking about his/her own homegrown superhero that's totally the coolest of them all if you'll just check out his/her 400 page epic story that s/he wrote about them. Basically what I'm saying is this thread is really dumb, and Sedan Chair is, somehow, the voice of reason in a DnD thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Impressive, could you share your secret for reading a text without interpretation? You could probably make a real name for yourself, since it would be the first time in all of human history that someone has managed it. Its simple: I read about the Exodus (that never happened), the Great Flood (that was a regional event), and God's acceptance and use of genocide, closed the book and said "Anyone willing to interpret this as other than what it is, is just unwilling to accept the fact that god is a lovely and evil person" Where's my book deal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its simple: I read about the Exodus (that never happened), the Great Flood (that was a regional event), and God's acceptance and use of genocide, closed the book and said "Anyone willing to interpret this as other than what it is, is just unwilling to accept the fact that god is a lovely and evil person" As other than what? Could you explain how you arrived at a conclusion about what a text "is" without interpreting it? Separately, it's pretty impressive to become the foremost authority on the whole of an anthology of over 50 separate pieces of literature after reading approximately three of them, presumably in the absence of any other criticism or scholarship. I imagine that demonstrating this sort of preternatural acumen really impresses Christians and Jews when you try to browbeat them into deconversion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:As other than what? Could you explain how you arrived at a conclusion about what a text "is" without interpreting it? So, what you are saying is the Bible is really one of those magic eye books, and if I stare long enough I can see past the petty egotistic sociopath and see a kind a loving omnipotent being? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Sorry wrong thread
Falukorv fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:There are people that believe that. If logic doesn't work with faith that should tell you that there's something wrong with faith. You apply logic to every single other facet of your life, knowingly or unknowingly, and use it to determine how and why things are the way they are and to make sense of reality. And when the logic doesn't make sense you say to yourself, "Hold on this is right." And you find the problem and then correct it. But you're saying when it comes to determining whether a God exists and what his attributes are that that is the one and only time you should disregard logic and, you know, just go with whatever you're told. Don't think too hard on it, man, just go with it. How, exactly, is this not the Special Pleading fallacy? Look, if you said your car was acting up and asked me to explain how the engine works so you could fix it and I told you, "Don't apply logic to cars, just have faith that it will be ok." you'd call me retarded. And rightfully so. Because putting certain things in a special category that you're discouraged from applying logic to is a really stupid way to live. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Read more carefully. No, seriously, I am not misreading anything. I understand exactly what you are saying. You posit that we (meaning any human who looks toward anything supernatural at all) are all worshiping the same thing, even if we call it different things or conceptualize it differently. There is a correct version of God, which we are all perceiving, but just maybe not fully or accurately. Christians, Hindus, Egyptians, and Pastafarians alike are actually talking about the same thing, just in different ways. That's nice that you think so. And I understand that you do. But God Himself, if the Christian Bible is to be believed, says indicates quite clearly that you can worship a false or wrong god, and he is very much against it. When the Jewish people worshiped the golden calf, God was rarin' to smite them (luckily Moses talked him out of it). And furthermore, the full account of what God is and wants varies greatly among religions, and many aspects disagree directly - as per my question earlier about religions whose God or gods deem the Christian God to be false. So even if we were all talking about the same thing ultimately, most people must be wrong about exactly what attributes this Thing has. So my question is, if you recognize that nobody's right and everyone has at least some attributes dead wrong, how do you then pick one version of God and claim it is the most accurate? How do you separate the false claims about what God is from the true? Have you made some mistakes in interpreting what The Thing is and what it wants? If so, how can you be sure that the interpretation, "it's all the same God, and he doesn't care exactly what version you worship" is a correct one? Your own doctrine disagrees with that quite strongly. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If logic doesn't work with faith that should tell you that there's something wrong with faith. You apply logic to every single other facet of your life, knowingly or unknowingly, and use it to determine how and why things are the way they are and to make sense of reality. And when the logic doesn't make sense you say to yourself, "Hold on this is right." And you find the problem and then correct it. Yes. I agree. But holding to something no matter what anything or anyone else says is a hallmark of faith in the religions being discussed. So in this thread discussing faith, all attempts to use logic are doomed to fail, and it's absolutely idiotic to try to use a rigorous system of fact checking and logical, cohesive analysis to judge the religion(s) being discussed. They are (if you believe or whatever) supernatural and thus not confined to the rules of logic and nature. If you apply logic to faith, you find it lacking and move on from faith or come to terms with Special Pleading because Jesus. This thread alone has run into contradiction after contradiction, and silly 'oh well this one thing is metaphorical but that one isn't' back and forths. You seem to have missed the tone and constant reiteration in my posts, where I point out that I am an atheist. But also poke at GAINING WEIGHT and others for trying to wear the cloak of logical thought while discussing the stories of a 2000 year dead magician as if it really happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You apply logic to every single other facet of your life, knowingly or unknowingly, and use it to determine how and why things are the way they are and to make sense of reality. And when the logic doesn't make sense you say to yourself, "Hold on this is right." And you find the problem and then correct it. No you don't. Very few of your actions are consciously arrived at by logical thought. Logic is difficult to do, limited in its application, and only under special circumstances is the result of using it an improvement. Today I have done thousands of things. I've thought logically about a handful of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No you don't. Very few of your actions are consciously arrived at by logical thought. Logic is difficult to do, limited in its application, and only under special circumstances is the result of using it an improvement. No, even simple automated and instinctual actions required logical approach, regardless of if you gave them thought or not. Sure, not advanced intellectual logic, but logic is still present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, even simple automated and instinctual actions required logical approach, regardless of if you gave them thought or not. Sure, not advanced intellectual logic, but logic is still present. No, logic is the use of reasoning. An instinctual or automated action occurs without reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, even simple automated and instinctual actions required logical approach, regardless of if you gave them thought or not. Sure, not advanced intellectual logic, but logic is still present. How are you defining "logic"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:No you don't. Very few of your actions are consciously arrived at by logical thought. Logic is difficult to do, limited in its application, and only under special circumstances is the result of using it an improvement. Saying you don't use logic in your day-to-day because you're not consciously thinking about it is like denying that you breathe unless you're doing it manually. Logic isn't all "if p then q" abstract kind of stuff, logic can be something like: "If I drop this fork in the silverware drawer from several feet, it will make a loud noise when it hits the rest of the silverware and possibly move them around some. I base this on previous experience of doing or seeing done similar things. Since I do not want this result, I will instead gently place the fork in the drawer". Of course you don't consciously consider all of that, it's all streamlined into one action. You may disagree, but I ask: if you instead thought, "If I drop this fork in the silverware drawer from several feet, it will cause a nuclear explosion" wouldn't you call that illogical? I mean in addition to moronic, insane, and troubling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:How are you defining "logic"? Maybe I was a little too broad, but his definition is a little too slim. The idea that logic only exists in something you must think out completely prior to complete isn't true either. Some actions that require logical thinking in the first few tries eventually become mapped patterns that still use subconscious logical processes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, what you are saying is the Bible is really one of those magic eye books, and if I stare long enough I can see past the petty egotistic sociopath and see a kind a loving omnipotent being? I am saying that all literature is subject to interpretation, and therefore getting smug about people discussing their hermenuetic is laughably ignorant and your own hermeneutic as illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I am saying that all literature is subject to interpretation, and therefore getting smug about people discussing their hermenuetic is laughably ignorant and your own hermeneutic as illiterate. Hand-waving away God's actions through interpretation and argument that some things are metaphorical instead of literal is not 'interpreting' anymore than making excuses for accidentally hitting someones car. For example: We can claim that racism in the 1800s in both literature and speech as a product of its time, but in the end its still racism and its still wrong. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Some actions that require logical thinking in the first few tries eventually become mapped patterns that still use subconscious logical processes. And some (most) never required logical thinking at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:And some (most) never required logical thinking at all. Give me an example
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Give me an example Most physical actions - walking, catching, etc. Understanding the story of a film. Most 'decisions' about stuff you buy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Most physical actions - walking, catching, etc. Are you sure you are not confusing 'logical' with 'analytical'? Because it feels like you are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hand-waving away God's actions through interpretation and argument that some things are metaphorical instead of literal is not 'interpreting' anymore than making excuses for accidentally hitting someones car. That's not what interpretation means, although it sure can include that. Your claim is that you don't interpret the text. You don't mean that you have no personal bias at all, then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe I was a little too broad, but his definition is a little too slim. The idea that logic only exists in something you must think out completely prior to complete isn't true either. Bel Shazar posted:Are you sure you are not confusing 'logical' with 'analytical'? Because it feels like you are. The problem here is that "logic" has a lot of different meanings. Also just because we group several different phenomena under the same English word does not mean that those phenomena are all the same. It might be that what we group together under the umbrella term "logic" can actually be broken down into several distinct and contradictory meanings. Hence why I think its important in a discussion like this one that people be really clear and explicit about how they are defining their terms. What do we mean by "logic" here? Anyway, going back to the quote that started this interchange: Who What Now posted:If logic doesn't work with faith that should tell you that there's something wrong with faith. You apply logic to every single other facet of your life, knowingly or unknowingly, and use it to determine how and why things are the way they are and to make sense of reality. And when the logic doesn't make sense you say to yourself, "Hold on this is right." And you find the problem and then correct it. I'm not sure how accurately this summarizes our decision making. Forums user Who What Now seems to be suggesting that even when we aren't using conscious thought we are somehow using the same mental faculty to make decisions. Apparently me knowledge of which piano keys to touch in order to play "Moonlight Sonata" is the same mental process through which I figure out that 2 + 2 = 4. I think that this is actually a contentious claim and would need to be supported with evidence rather than simply asserted as obvious common sense. That isn't to say his point is necessarily illegitimate. I agree that Christians tend to indulge in some special pleading when it comes to applying logical processes to readings of divine texts. However, if we're gonna claim that the human brain reaches all its decisions "logically" then that requires an explication of how you define logic plus evidence that this definition actually encompasses all the decision making faculties of the human mind. To draw on an example: so far as we can tell the physical world is composed of atoms of matter. But we don't see the world around us as a huge collection of atoms. Instead, our brain perceives objects. Right now I perceive myself to be sitting in a "chair", working on a "computer" that sits on a "desk". Is it "logical" for me to think that the computer, the chair and the desk are discrete objects? There are many different materials forming the computer, why do I see them as all being part of the same object? And yet how do I determine that the computer is a separate object from the desk? You might say that there's a degree of conscious logic being used to decide where one object begins and another ends, but mostly I seem to be making these discriminations based on instinct. Is it actually "logical" to see the world as being composed of discrete objects rather than just seeing a huge collection of individual atoms? I don't know, I guess that would depend on how you define logic. Similarly, we assume that we have free will and that other people have free will as well. We base important predictions on our own and other people's behaviour based on that assumed free will. Is that logical? Again, depends on how you define logic. You could say that "free will" is a useful heuristic for predicting behaviour, but on the other hand it also seems to be predicated on the idea that your "will" is an uncaused cause of action, and that is pretty dubious. This line of thinking can quickly lead to naval gazing, but it's still a helpful corrective to the idea that our decision making is entirely logical. Our biology and psychology basically forces us to perceive the world in a certain way, and logic only really applies past that point. If you step back and examine the way our perceptions structure the world then they don't seem to correspond directly to any kind of "logic" as we would define it. So effectively we use our logic to navigate a world that is itself not built on logic but rather on something else. Or at least, that is my sense of things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hand-waving away God's actions through interpretation and argument that some things are metaphorical instead of literal is not 'interpreting' anymore than making excuses for accidentally hitting someones car. Right, but what you are doing is reading Huck Finn say "friend of the family" and then making GBS threads on anyone who argues that the novel doesn't portray him as an irredeemable white supremacist. e: Meanwhile, a fundamentalist uses the exact same reading as you but since they assume that Huck can't ever be racist in any way, they decide that saying "friend of the family" is okay, if not commendable. Pro tip: if you find yourself agreeing with a fundamentalist about textual interpretation, you done hosed up. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:e: Meanwhile, a fundamentalist uses the exact same reading as you but since they assume that Huck can't ever be racist in any way, they decide that saying "friend of the family" is okay, if not commendable. Pro tip: if you find yourself agreeing with a fundamentalist about textual interpretation, you done hosed up. Agreeing? Somewhat. More agree that its wrong where they find it right. But unfortunately, while SOME of the Christian churches have chosen to interpret it in better light, the ones most people have to deal with have not. It all comes down to the fact that the book is a source of contention as to who is interpreting it properly or not and who has the one 'true' religion. So regardless if you feel the interpretation is wrong, someone feels its right, and someone's 'True' religion is based on it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Agreeing? Somewhat. More agree that its wrong where they find it right. But unfortunately, while SOME of the Christian churches have chosen to interpret it in better light, the ones most people have to deal with have not. You and fundamentalists both have a similar interpretation of the Bible (theirs is better, of course, because they have actually read the whole thing): a series of simple historical accounts and ethical commandments that are intended to be factual/consistent and unambiguous. The place where you differ is in whether the Bible should determine the value of your moral system or vice versa. But fundamentalism is a recent, particularly ignorant heresy and using it to attack Christians who don't share it is ridiculous. It's like if I told you I learned empathy for the victims of racism from The Bluest Eye and you told me I was wrong because I thought Cholly Breedlove was a real person and approved of his behavior. Absolutely, there exists a religion based on that reading of the Bible. That doesn't make it a good or supportable reading, but I guarantee you that being able to argue against its proponents on both moral and hermeneutic grounds is doing more good than just yelling that God is evil and they're stupid. e: And the fact that a work has multiple interpretations speaks well of it, not poorly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:Most physical actions - walking, catching, etc. So, uh, you walk places based on whether your animal brain tells you there might be food or a mate there, you are possibly the only creature in existence with an instinctive understanding of narrative, and you buy things almost entirely based on whether you think they're shiny, immediately edible, or you can have sex with them, and also somehow were born with the understanding of 'buying' something instead of just taking it, again possibly unique in the world. You are either very special or very difficult to live with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, uh, you walk places based on whether your animal brain tells you there might be food or a mate there, you are possibly the only creature in existence with an instinctive understanding of narrative, and you buy things almost entirely based on whether you think they're shiny, immediately edible, or you can have sex with them, and also somehow were born with the understanding of 'buying' something instead of just taking it, again possibly unique in the world. I'll grant you the rest, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about the physical act of walking, like taking steps. You don't typically think about how you're walking, and when you do, over thinking the act is usually a hindrance. I don't think most people remember learning to walk, but one could argue that baby brain logic is used in figuring that out before you develop the reflexes to do it without thinking. In that regard, most actions are based in some reasoning, since, like playing the piano, you have to reason out what you're doing while you're learning the act.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, uh, you walk places based on whether your animal brain tells you there might be food or a mate there, you are possibly the only creature in existence with an instinctive understanding of narrative, and you buy things almost entirely based on whether you think they're shiny, immediately edible, or you can have sex with them, and also somehow were born with the understanding of 'buying' something instead of just taking it, again possibly unique in the world. Seems to me like a lot of narrative is processed instinctively. Though, again, this kind of depends on how you are defining the terms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
bobtheconqueror posted:I'll grant you the rest, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about the physical act of walking, like taking steps. You don't typically think about how you're walking, and when you do, over thinking the act is usually a hindrance. I don't think most people remember learning to walk, but one could argue that baby brain logic is used in figuring that out before you develop the reflexes to do it without thinking. In that regard, most actions are based in some reasoning, since, like playing the piano, you have to reason out what you're doing while you're learning the act. Well yeah, but who just walks for no reason? If you walk it's because you want to go somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Actually I get up and walk around all the time without any particular purpose other than expending energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well yeah, but who just walks for no reason? If you walk it's because you want to go somewhere. If wanting to go somewhere is the result of logic, then praying is because you want to talk to God, the logic's no different. Logic, meaning the application of reason, is an extraordinarily limited way of interacting with the world. You do it infrequently and badly. The vast majority of actions you take in your life are either well below the level of logic, or are decisions arrived at by non-rational processes. Very, very rarely do you sit down and puzzle out something from the beginning. You'd take a year to get dressed if you worked it all out from first principles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:If wanting to go somewhere is the result of logic, then praying is because you want to talk to God, the logic's no different. What if I took an extra amount of time to decide what I will wear in the future... does that still count as using logic to dress when I get dressed at that future time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:If wanting to go somewhere is the result of logic, then praying is because you want to talk to God, the logic's no different. I dunno about you but when I get dressed, I think about what I'm going to be doing, and decide what would be appropriate to wear. Based on expectations of dress code, the weather, whether I can take things off when I get there, what I have in the wardrobe, and whether I want to wear something in particular today. And that's pretty easy because 90% of what I own is black and formal, because I don't like to spend a long time thinking about what to wear. But I still think about it, I still use my brain to figure out what the optimal choice is. How on earth do you get dressed in the morning? Just roll around in a heap of rags until some of them stick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:What if I took an extra amount of time to decide what I will wear in the future... does that still count as using logic to dress when I get dressed at that future time? Just because you don't put a decision into action for a while doesn't mean you arrived at it in a logical way. Most people, in my experience, use a combination of methods--logic, habit, randomness, various heuristics--whether they're planning in advance or dressing in a rush (though the ratio of the methods might change). e: When building an outfit, you may need logic for some questions ("what pants are appropriate?") and intuition for some ("what pants are attractive?"). Similarly, developing an interpretation of a text requires a combination of skills in order to be both meaningful and coherent. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno about you but when I get dressed, I think about what I'm going to be doing, and decide what would be appropriate to wear. Based on expectations of dress code, the weather, whether I can take things off when I get there, what I have in the wardrobe, and whether I want to wear something in particular today. And that's pretty easy because 90% of what I own is black and formal, because I don't like to spend a long time thinking about what to wear. So you evaluate every piece of clothing you have against dimensions of dress code, weather, ability to change, and internal emotional state? How long do you spend analysing your model for weighting these criteria? What data do you capture to assess the success of your choice? Or do you actually not think too hard on it, just go with it, and wear what you wear 90% of the time anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
People don't start from first principles, but reason is an integral part of how people go about their day to day lives. Most of our wants aren't really grounded in logic, because they're either instinctive or emotional. We still have to reason out how to achieve these goals, though. Human activity is a mixture of instinct and reason, because we have both, and frequently the one aspect utilizes the other. We learn new things using reason based on some instinctive want. A musical instrument is a great example, as the desire to play one isn't usually logical, but you absolutely have to use reason when figuring out how to interface with the instrument to get the desired results. Once learned, we reason that, through practice, we can do the thing without the need to reason it out every time. Eventually you can play the trumpet without having to think about the specific finger movements to hit each note.Cavaradossi posted:So you evaluate every piece of clothing you have against dimensions of dress code, weather, ability to change, and internal emotional state? How long do you spend analysing your model for weighting these criteria? What data do you capture to assess the success of your choice? You don't have to analyze a situation perfectly to use reason in decision making. I usually think about the weather before deciding if I need to wear a coat. Not thinking hard doesn't mean not using reasonable faculties. It just means not having strict criteria. On the other hand, I've had girlfriends who care a whole bunch about how they look, and they'll absolutely go to that level of effort to decide how to dress themselves. Edit: You seem to have this idea that using logic or reason is trying to come to perfect solutions, when in reality, as you say, we don't really use logic perfectly on a regular basis, cause that's hard and boring and gets into epistomological issues that most people don't even know about. That said, every consideration you make about how to do something is using reason and simple logic, cause you're analyzing yourself and your environment to reach a goal, even if imperfectly. bobtheconqueror fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Cavaradossi posted:So you evaluate every piece of clothing you have against dimensions of dress code, weather, ability to change, and internal emotional state? How long do you spend analysing your model for weighting these criteria? What data do you capture to assess the success of your choice? Yes? I don't go through the whole wardrobe but if I'm, say, going to work, which is most days, I look out the window, see what the weather is doing, look at the work clothes, decide if I need to wear an undershirt, shirt, or both, I get a clean pair of trousers, then I look at my coats and decide if I need to wear a heavy coat, light coat, jacket, or nothing, I grab my work belt and if I'm wearing a coat I take the bits out I need because it looks silly under a coat, I double check that I didn't forget anything, then I leave for work. That does require some thought about what I'm doing that day and what I need to wear to get it done, which requires like, an understanding of the causative relationships between what I carry with me and what I can get done with how much ease. If it's cold I need to wear more, if I'm meeting with someone important I need to stick to the dress code more which means no coat and definitely a shirt, if I'm going to be outside I need a coat while if I'm indoors, even if it's cold out, I don't need to wear one because I won't be able to store it. It's not rocket science but it's basic 'if this, then that' logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:40
|
|