For me all I could think about was Berkeley’s Idealism. His philosophy appeals to me and the article has sealed my affinity for it. Or should I say, my idea of an article.
It’s kind of like if you were born in a world without the word God would you ever attempt to talk about a universal authority. If wasn’t already established how would even bridge that gap? I don’t think I’d invent a brand new category on that scale.
In Russia they have no word for privacy. In combination with this, the extended family members cram into small houses together. So if you are an american man with a mail order bride, telling her you need to be alone, you know, space, she misses the hint by staying near you. Maybe even getting closer because your strange behavior makes her concerned.
With respect to awareness of colors and names of colors, which came first, awareness or conceptuality? Is this truly a chicken/egg question? Or is there a more obvious answer? Myself, I’m not sure…
Also, I wonder if there’s more McDonald’s in Halifax than in Montreal.
Maybe those first impressions that we now call opinions is the word of a god, first like mist drifting over the waters, then threw our teeth, always original.
Yep.
Like I said in the other thread; now think back on Plato a bit differently.
The guy was trying force his mind to see something that wasn’t part of the cultural observation previously in mass.
This is also why I think it’s premature to assume what any 3rd century BCE to 3rd century CE text was intending without doing quite a bit of homework and study regarding the cultural maturity and customs of the area circulating the texts and examining their use of language outside of the text (preferably in law and art where records are left, as with these, physical consequences of the interpretations are evident which helps in understanding the meanings) and understanding what is known about the logical construct of their thought and values.
To just pick something up, however, from that far back and say, “Well it means ‘forever’ because they used the word in their language that means ‘a very, very long distance’; but instead used here it is within time that they are discussing”, is about as erroneous as it gets.
Simply because “their” idea (whomever you are looking at from that far back) of “a very, very long distance in regards to time” has no inherent relation to the concept of the modern western cultural understanding of the idea surrounding “forever”, “infinite”, or “eternity”.
It may…but you can’t just assume that; and many people do.
Although I agree with TheStumps words I want to say that I think this article is drawing a wrongful, even impossible conclusion. It is not that it is impossible to grasp something, we just judge something not important. When confronted with different shades of blue we see the difference, we just don’t give a hoot. Sky blue, navy blue…let the wife decide!
In fact: if indeed we could not grasp it we could never learn and therefore never broaden our horizon. This again disproves empiricism.
It’s not that people didn’t simply grasp it.
It’s that it wasn’t made aware in the mind.
The mind made a thing invisible to the cognitive; like a magic trick.