Reminds me of something I came across in college 40 years ago when I came across and I wouldn’t swear to it, Cicourels Principles of Conversation, Reciprocity of perception, etcetera principle , normal forms as lexical items and one other that escapes me. Don’t know why I remember it but always thought it was useful.
Gadamer knew so well, it is back to Plato, whenever we have a philosophical problem to solve, or a new question to pose. Socrates shows how conversation is the key to everything, even if it leads to further perplexity.
Conversations does gain traction with amicable exchanges and of course what is initially "inviting" in those civilities...there s h o u l be a pragmatic balance as well....but with advent of internet often basic protocol is dropped and even basic introductions are dissgarded per chance any encounter
Thanks to Mete Khan, we (used to) have the decimal unit/squad system and the ranks are named practically. So, On başı means corporal, head of a ten, Yüz başı means captain, head of a hundred, Bin başı means major, head of a thousand. A lieutenant is teğmen, which means attacker. A sergeant is a Çavuş, which means one who shouts :D
@ 1:00 each has a inner experience that no one else can know is so true. Let's say taste. I enjoy mushrooms where that will kill my girl friend. She cannot experience the taste joy I get from a mushroom for it will kill her.
Leave to a philosopher to complicate something so common place, my advice, from the great doctor of AA, Dr. Bob, and I paraphrase, "keep it simple stupid "
The interludes are protocol in resecpt of "space"..which in EXCHANGED gives another person to convey anything as to clues of moods or reflection of any situation ...and any air of subject matters...
When a philosopher starts using the word "Reason" this way, I shut down. That's not plausible, any more. It is certainly true we're born full of idiosyncratic tastes and motivation potentials. That's a biological fact and the organism seeks to maximize its computational power through competition of passions. It's not even something one could deny if they wanted. Philosophers start from the abstract and try to tell a coherent story about the phenomenal. It's always doomed. Wittgenstein et al proved it. We're a slime mold writ large; a distributed intelligence where each node is invited to believe it is discrete and individual. Only when the node truly believes this does he give in to his emotional motivators and do what ever it is they tell him to do. Afterwards, he'll employ "reason" to justify and rationalize. In any case, each of us, thrusting willfully down one alley or another under the sway of some emotional impulse represents a pseudopod of this slime mold. The answer to this area is in biology. Philosophy is supposed to be about truth. If you wanted to find truth, you'd synthesize multiple disciplines, since philosophy only offers a story. You have to make the painful realization that maybe you're not after truth so much as a good story. That's actually how we are.
What you just described is how people that live in heteronomy act, or human slavery as Spinoza calls it. Why you don't consider the possibility for autonomy or rational consideration and freedom is beyond me, perhaps you have never tried it? It is possible to create your passions with reason, rather than let your passions create you reasons. Stop reading Hume, start reading Kant.
@@le2380 No, it isn't. That's not even a plausible claim. It's the kind of wishy-washy abstraction sickness that befalls people attracted to philosophy. Philosophy is now a bunch of silos with groups each trying to justify some pre-existing prejudice or another. The most hysterical are the moral philosophers. Apparently, someone looked at the lives of philosophers who work all day on systems for how to live "right", and they don't even model their own prescriptions. It's bullshit if you don't know how human nature really works, and if you don't crack open a science book, you won't learn it.
hopeful and respectful. reasoned analysis is a beautiful thing.
Reminds me of something I came across in college 40 years ago when I came across and I wouldn’t swear to it, Cicourels Principles of Conversation, Reciprocity of perception, etcetera principle , normal forms as lexical items and one other that escapes me. Don’t know why I remember it but always thought it was useful.
Gadamer knew so well, it is back to Plato, whenever we have a philosophical problem to solve, or a new question to pose. Socrates shows how conversation is the key to everything, even if it leads to further perplexity.
Thank You
As a conventionalist, whenever I seek guidance I turn to Gadamer.
Very important for keeping a family together, believe me
Conversations does gain traction with amicable exchanges and of course what is initially "inviting" in those civilities...there s h o u l be a pragmatic balance as well....but with advent of internet often basic protocol is dropped and even basic introductions are dissgarded per chance any encounter
I really don't understand the point of showing images of Gad that don't fit the audio. It just looks comical.
I don't know. I prefer this more than just a steady picture of him instead.
@@mihail263 Fair enough; he does look scary
Thanks to Mete Khan, we (used to) have the decimal unit/squad system and the ranks are named practically. So, On başı means corporal, head of a ten, Yüz başı means captain, head of a hundred, Bin başı means major, head of a thousand. A lieutenant is teğmen, which means attacker. A sergeant is a Çavuş, which means one who shouts :D
What is a "conversationalist?"
Someone who is good at encouraging the flow of conversation.
@@projectmalus Oh, like a talk show host?
@@hanskung3278 Could be, or just someone at a party.
@@projectmalus I'll bet you could get a PHD in conversationology, specializing in Gadamer of course.
Is this what the Americans mean when they say "that's so relatable..."?
This inability is poignant rn
Gadamer & a black cat❤🐈⬛
@ 1:00 each has a inner experience that no one else can know is so true. Let's say taste. I enjoy mushrooms where that will kill my girl friend. She cannot experience the taste joy I get from a mushroom for it will kill her.
Leave to a philosopher to complicate something so common place, my advice, from the great doctor of AA, Dr. Bob, and I paraphrase, "keep it simple stupid "
To the simpleton, simple things...
@@DawsonSWilliams To the complicators......complicate what is simple.
@@hanskung3278 Simplify, Simplify, sayeth Thoreau.
Cointelpro dominates the internet. There's your fricken answer.
platitudes...
You may be correct but could you explain the conclusion with more explanation?
Nah.
@@zarathustra8789 No, it's simple and beautiful. Schubert.
@@nigelhard1519 I would call it humanistic, but I agree.
The interludes are protocol in resecpt of "space"..which in EXCHANGED gives another person to convey anything as to clues of moods or reflection of any situation ...and any air of subject matters...
When a philosopher starts using the word "Reason" this way, I shut down. That's not plausible, any more. It is certainly true we're born full of idiosyncratic tastes and motivation potentials. That's a biological fact and the organism seeks to maximize its computational power through competition of passions. It's not even something one could deny if they wanted. Philosophers start from the abstract and try to tell a coherent story about the phenomenal. It's always doomed. Wittgenstein et al proved it. We're a slime mold writ large; a distributed intelligence where each node is invited to believe it is discrete and individual. Only when the node truly believes this does he give in to his emotional motivators and do what ever it is they tell him to do. Afterwards, he'll employ "reason" to justify and rationalize. In any case, each of us, thrusting willfully down one alley or another under the sway of some emotional impulse represents a pseudopod of this slime mold. The answer to this area is in biology. Philosophy is supposed to be about truth. If you wanted to find truth, you'd synthesize multiple disciplines, since philosophy only offers a story. You have to make the painful realization that maybe you're not after truth so much as a good story. That's actually how we are.
You don't "believe" all that, do you?
@@electricrussell I suspect it.
What you just described is how people that live in heteronomy act, or human slavery as Spinoza calls it. Why you don't consider the possibility for autonomy or rational consideration and freedom is beyond me, perhaps you have never tried it? It is possible to create your passions with reason, rather than let your passions create you reasons. Stop reading Hume, start reading Kant.
"Stories" do not contain truth?
@@le2380 No, it isn't. That's not even a plausible claim. It's the kind of wishy-washy abstraction sickness that befalls people attracted to philosophy. Philosophy is now a bunch of silos with groups each trying to justify some pre-existing prejudice or another. The most hysterical are the moral philosophers. Apparently, someone looked at the lives of philosophers who work all day on systems for how to live "right", and they don't even model their own prescriptions. It's bullshit if you don't know how human nature really works, and if you don't crack open a science book, you won't learn it.