in this thread i will try to discuss why confusion arises. confusion is the most well known barrier to understanding. lets see why confusion arises.
in this world every thing has two parts: name and feature/attribute. confusion arises from these 2 parts. how?
in this way:
same name + different feature = confusion
different name + same feature = confusion
for example there are 2 things: a square and a circle. if you call both A, then there will be a confusion each time A is uttered as to which one is referred here: square or circle.
now suppose there are 2 things: 2 identical squares. you call one A and another B. again there will be confusion as to which one is A and which one is B.
i hope you understand.
clarity is the opposite of confusion. how to achieve clarity?
different name + different feature = clarity.
for example: there are 2 things: a square and a circle. you call the square A and the circle B. now there is no confusion since they have different name and different feature.
It’s really not that simple for me, xxx200. Confusion comes, for me, especially in philosophy, when each philosopher tries to impose his/her own meaning on what’s pretty much the same thing–at least, to me: phenomena–what can be observed–neumena–phenomena which can’t be actually observed, but must be surely ‘there.’ Empiricism, depends on what kind of empiricism a particular philosopher believes in–rationalism, empiricism, logic, pragmatism–all have nuances of meaning for each individual philosopher. To understand them all (these are just a short list) would take years of study only to reach the conclusion that they all have nuances of meaning depending on which philosopher uses them in the way you understand and with which you agree the most.
I think the most lasting thing I learned from philosophy is, we are all alone.
this falls within my first equation of confusion. different name + same features = confusion.
when a philosopher uses these things a way that is familiar to me, i understand them. that is to say when philosophers explain nature using different name for a different thing, i can understand it easily.
i think philosophers are playing with nature without caring what it is.
I agree that this is an important issue. However, I have something else to offer. Although everything does have two parts: name and feature/attribute, it is risky to say same name + different feature = confusion. For example, if two people have the same last name and I know they are not related this does not necessarily cause confusion because it is known. In other words, just because two subjects are different in either name or attribute this just makes them different, it doesn’t necessarily cause confusion.
The way I believe this problem is solved is by the concept of extrinsic subject. Extrinsic subjects identify relations. For example, every family has a last name, their last name is an extrinsic subject. All of the members of a family are intrinsic to the family, they are all related. So, if one understands the concept of extrinsic subject, then confusion falls into place (along with these others) as so:
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Sorry, JH, will you please explain ‘extrinsic’? TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the following:
That’s hardly a definition since it says anything that lies outside the definition of ‘intrinsic’ is ‘extrinsic.’ It also admits the philosophers use “a number of terms” to explain such value.
If philosophers use a number of terms to explain their thoughts, don’t people choose philosophies based on how comfortable they feel with their own interpretations–definitions-- of the individual philosopher’s word choices? Heidegger believed he understood Nietzsche–but does anyone really understand Nietzsche?
As it says in the OP, everything has two parts, name and attributes. With me, I use the word subject instead of name. The attributes are things like height, weight, size, color, value. (This is basic knowledge in computer science. In computer science however, they use the word object instead of subject. Objects and subjects are both abstract words. The only difference, as you know, are that objects have no emotional ramifications but subjects can. In computer programming there are no emotional ramifications so they use object.) Attributes are how a subject is related with respect to other subjects. What they mean by intrinsic value is the conditional state the subject is in. For example, what the subject’s height and weight are are intrinsic values of the subject.
Subjects can also have properties. The words property and attribute are often used (and abused) interchangeably. However, there is a difference. Properties are things a subject owns. For example, your house is your property. It is intrinsic to you. Your house is not an attribute, it is a property. One can sell a property, one cannot sell an attribute.
Extrinsic subjects are subjects that identify a relation. Intrinsic subjects, attributes and properties, are related together within an extrinsic subject. For example, you are extrinsic to your attributes of height and weight. You are also the extrinsic subject to your house. Your family name is an extrinsic subject. Your country is also an extrinsic subject. Extrinsic subjects are also known as generalizations, categories and topics. Whatever is the label of a group (a relation) is an extrinsic subject.
Extrinsic subjects can never be related to intrinsic subjects. If that were to occur, a new extrinsic subject would instantly be created. Also, extrinsic subjects are necessary for relations. For example, one can’t compare apples and oranges unless the topic (extrinsic subject) was fruit.
So you see, all subjects are either extrinsic or intrinsic. They can be identified in syntax. The determinants a, the and some identify intrinsic subjects. The prepositions of and in identify extrinsic subjects.
As I posted yesterday, the concept of the extrinsic subject can be used to define serious, crazy and confusion.
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
It gets even better:
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
True - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject and the extrinsic subject is beyond the scope of language
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
As a result, one can say that right is the inverse of possession. After all, one has a right to one’s possessions.
Frankly, I think this is the first thing that should be taught in a philosophy class. I believe this is the proper way to understand right and true.
See what I mean? It took you a great deal of air time to explain the difference between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’–and then you explained it as what it means in computer science, which adds another layer of meaning, Computer science is logic with its own language that’s different from rhetorical logic. They both work with language, sure. But computer science, imm, is introducing a new language that those of us without computer science knowledge, complete with its jargon, don’t understand. That, to me, leads to confusion–along with philosophers who have their own meanings for what we ‘ignorant’ people call ‘everyday language.’
Actually, I can explain extrinsic and intrinsic simply as:
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
I just wanted to go into more detail.
I only mentioned computer science because computer science, in this way, is a connection between language and machine. I didn’t use computer science jargon though. The words subject and object are not exclusive to computer science. The fact that objects do not have emotional ramifications can be verified by your own personal knowledge. It is ‘everyday language.’ I just threw out an awful lot of information for someone to digest.
Okay, here’s what’s going on in my mind, now. The subject of a sentence is the actor–the doer. Your ‘subject’ has a different meaning. Extrinsic, to me, means qualities, motivations, whatever, coming from outside while intrinsic means qualities, motivations, whatever, that are inherent. (One of the first things people should do, on meeting, imm, is try to familiarize themselves with each others’ language. This is difficult when all you have to work with is the written word.)
However, the OP mentions confusion coming about in this way: when an object has the same name, but different features, or when an object has a different name, but the same features. That’s not a bad description, but it’s very broad, imm–the level of abstraction is too high.
We just adopted a cat. Cat is a subject: the attributes of this particular cat are–he’s a neutered male, 12 yrs. old, grey with a white bib and paws. He has yellow eyes and a pink nose. His tail is ringed, like a raccoon’s tail. He’s an indoor only cat. I could go on, but I think you understand what I mean.
Going back to my idea of why confusion arises, I think it comes about when people use the same words thinking the listener will automatically attach the same meanings to those words that are in the mind of the speaker. They may not. They most often don’t, because each of us has our own attributes attached to the words we use–our own meanings.
Our minds aren’t machines. For people to equate the human mind to a computer is simply incorrect. At best, it’s a way for some people to image a given brain function; at worst, it’s defamatory.
At first it would of course, but my point was once it was learned the two are not related there is no confusion even though they have the same name.
Consider the case where two people have the same first name but different last names compared to the case where two people have the same last name but different first names. The second case is more confusing as a person’s last name is their extrinsic subject. You see, it is the extrinsic subject that is the key to confusion.
It’s not that I’m opposed to your definition of confusion. It’s just that I prefer the use of subject instead of name. With subject you have extrinsic subject and intrinsic subject. Subject is an abstract word, name is a label.
Other examples of confusion where one could get in trouble with defining it with name would be in conversation and procedures. One could have confusion about what one is talking about in a conversation. One could also have confusion about which way they should go in a procedure. Although topics of conversations can have names, typically they are called subjects as in the phrase, “Let’s change the subject.” It’s the same with procedures. Procedures do have names but “the way to go” is a subject which only is labelled with a name.
There seems to be a very limited approach to confusion in OP.
When a message is very unclear, it can be interpeted in many different ways, therefore it can cause confusion.
When different messages overlaps, in warfare different commanders will order the same group to do different things, there always arises total confusion, ie friendly fire.
When someone doesn’t have sufficient knowledge about something, their “spere of plausibility” is very limited and they will often reject anything outside this “sphere”, ie the concept of time takes an observer and time will change dependand of the observer.
