Is it possible to love both stupidity and wisdom at the same time?
If x loves wisdom he is a philosopher. What if he loves the love of wisdom? He must then be a lover of stupidity. I think I understand that this could only be possible if we include time into the analysis. That is, at time t when x is a philosopher he is stupid. Are we in a position to conclude that at time t1 when x loves the love of wisdom it is true that x must somehow be wise?
But if I´m wise already, what am I doing here? But I “know” that I`am stupid…please, I can not reconcil these views.
a) Is it possible to hold two different sentiments at the same time, e.g hate and love?
if not
Second question:
b) What happens -if anything? - if there is a third element or dependency relation besides the predicate?
Exampel:
a) If x likes to like wine, surely it is not the case that x simply likes wine. I think the opposite holds as well. That is, if x likes wine it is not the case that x likes to like wine. If this is true, some third factor will be needed to explain the phenomenon
b) Now let us include time as such a factor. At time t x likes wine and at time t1 x likes to like wine. This seems to be perfectly clear but if we look at it a bit closer, I´m afraid…in fact the two empirical factors, in this case x and wine are in a flux, aren´t they, while time is a constant, or…is it the case that x and wine is constants while time changes?
I prefer the first alternative. But that makes the issue even harder to understand, because if both x and wine are in flux neither x nor wine will ever be the same…and that is disastrous to b)
The conclusion of all this is that now I don´t even know if it is possible to hold any sentiments at all…I beg you to save the phenomenon with a reasonable account. Please explain how it is possible to hold sentiments
Isn’t it true though that when living with someone that you dislike (ie. Hate) that once that person is gone that you will feel like your missing something.
So you could in fact say that even though you dislike the person you like to have them round. So it is like a lov/hate relationship.
eschew obfuscation! you’re literally making no sense and your question can be answered by, literally… thinking about it.
“Is it possible to hold two different sentiments at the same time, e.g hate and love?” you ask
OF COURSE!!! Have you not heard of ambivalence!? Do you not realize that our system of language, formulated for the very reason to EXPRESS SENTIMENTS which we apprehend in consciousness, has created a word for it, in english, for U!!!???
This “mysterious” third phenomena that you speak of is an attatchment to the initial desire. I can LOVE to HATE the YANKEES if I want, theres no mystery, I’m just attatched to the desire I get in hating a team. There fore, I can love to hate them, although, I think thats a crappy example, but you get the idea!
…loving, liking and hating are relative concepts anyway, they are ALWAYS in flux, on the other hand…
when u say
“in this case x and wine are in a flux, aren´t they, while time is a constant, or…is it the case that x and wine is constants while time changes?”
you sound like you’re in a warped derrida flux!
First off, “Loving to hate” is not the same thing as “both love and hate”. I cannot love the color yellow and hate the color yellow at the same time. I cannot love circles and hate circles at the same time. You can love certain aspects of an object and hate other aspects. THIS is ambivalence, it’s the UNCERTAINTY of love or hate. When you “love to hate” something, you’re loving your hate, you’re not loving the object because you hate it. There is a HUGE difference.
When you say, “x likes to wine, x does not like wine,” and, “y likes wine, y does not like to wine,” you’re modifying the action of getting drunk for X and not the method in which one gets drunk. Perhaps they like the social aspect of wineing and dining, but not the actual flavor or texture of wine.
When judging actions, you must look at them component-wise, not on the whole. Judging the whole because of its component parts is actually (ironically) called “splitting” and is something that people with major ethical mental disorders do. It makes some things ALL-evil and other things ALL-good, and fails to see the greys that make the world so intense some times and so blase` other times.
For instance, I hate roller coasters, I love theme parks. This is not a contradiction.
Now, let us suppose that a person lives alone “with himself†and starts to dislike his own thoughts, would that person still feel like he is missing something if he suddenly would become a zombie? Under certain circumstances yes…but do you think the conclusion holds - a love and hate relationship?
No contradiction, you say. Strange, correct me If I´m wrong, but I get the impression that you don´t care about the object of you lust at all. It doesn’t seem to matter to you whether the object of your desires exist or not as long as it generates lust, is that correct?
Dude, you not only cannot write English, you cannot read it.
What you just said was nonsensical. I shant answer it without you clarifying that statement.
Just as a clarification of my own, I’m not talking about ‘lust’…I’m talking about how a verbal function and its linguistical inverse cannot coexist in the same mind at the same time.
You say that a man should judge his actions â€component-wiseâ€; otherwise it makes some things all evil and other things all-good.
Now, I think I could possibly agree with you that there is no such thing as an all-evil empirical object, except per chance mud of some sort. But what do you mean with the suggestion that it somehow could be possible to “make†all things evil? You seem to suggest that a man could perceive objects as all good or all evil.
Now, we are discussing concepts here, are we not, and the concept itself apart from any speculations concerning concept formation has to be regarded as totally transparent, e g. there is no evil in good concepts.
Actually, I might also agree with you concerning the main question, e g the possibility or impossibility of entertaining two opposite valuations at the same time, under on condition; i.e. if and only if the subject is taken as an unchangeable constant. But there are no such things as “an unchangeable manâ€; therefore it remains an open question whether it is even plausible postulate the possibility.
Well, I disagree with the words “evil” and “good” in a formal way. I rather liked sticking with the words “love” and “hate” as they implied perspective. Someone can love everything about an object, and they could hate everything about an object. However, just because they STATE they hate an object does NOT imply that they hate all of it. For instance, I hate ketchup, but I don’t hate tomatoes. Kinda see what I mean? I love pizza but I don’t like the crust.
However, I hate everything about Rainbow Bright. I love everything about Voltron. Understand? It’s not implied by “hate” that every aspect is to be hated. It’s a component-wise weighted measure of human perception.
Now, just because I hate La Rouche does not mean I think he’s evil. I just think he’s nuts.
Kinda see? It’s all relative. Something can be perceived as all loved or all hated, but stating that you hate or love something does not imply that you hate all of it. And by no means does it make it evil. Geesh, if I could declare things to be evil that easily, Bush would be drowned for witchcraft.
By the way, change is a function of time. Therefore, when it’s stated that “about how a verbal function and its linguistical inverse cannot coexist in the same mind at the same time,” it is implied that there is no change invovled as time is remaining constant.
Now, is there or is there not something that does all this hating, loving etc, etc? I’ll take it that your answer is yes. In fact I believe you would also agree to that there must be something that gathers all these different perceptions. You don’t hate with your eyes or love with your ears, do you? So the question is not whether it is possible to differentiate between different aspects in the object of desire; the question is whether it is possible or not for this “somethingâ€, regardless of any aesthetical views, to entertain two opposite sentiments at the same time.
Besides, you are constantly referring to the world of flux, like a weather report. If you use the perceptions as points of reference or rather, if you try to get hold them one by one, a whole mass of them will slip through. It is therefore better to think or contemplate upon the beautiful, true and right, after that you might be better prepared to discriminate among this indistinct mass.
“Now” remains in space, “Change” remains in time. While you can state that the world is in a state of flux, you cannot deny that the world is really just a series of discrete points.
You can claim that if you look at them one by one that many component parts “slip through”, but that’s not the case. Why? Why are you judging in the first place if that’s the case? If anything, it demonstrates the futility of evil and good, of love and hate, correct? Are you saying that at one moment you can love something and in the process of contemplating that love, the world will sweep you up and you’ll hate it?
The point is still made, though. You cannot love and hate the same essense at the same time. You can only love and hate aspects of it. Remember, even mud has its purpose.
â€â€¦all these things [ objects of sense ] are…in motion, and their motion has in it either swiftness or slowness. Now the slow element keeps its motion in the same place and directed towards such things as draw near it, and indeed it is in this way that it begets. But the things begotten in this way are quicker; for they move from one place to another, and their motion is naturally from one place to another. Now when the eye and some appropriate object which approaches beget whiteness and the corresponding perception…then, while sight from the eye and whiteness from that which helps to produce the colour are moving from one to the other, the eye becomes full of sight and so begins at that moment to see, and becomes, certainly not sight, but a seeing eye, and the object which joined in begetting the colour is filled with whiteness and becomes in its turn, not whiteness, but white, whether it be at stick or a stone…we must assume…that nothing exists in itself, but all things of all sorts arise out of motion by intercourse with each other…â€