Basically title. I have found that many people here have traded one knowledge for another. The goal of every conversation and debate is to express an idea and to agree or disagree with it. When you use words that have subjective meanings or are disputed at best or misdefined at worse, you create chaos. Use simple words, or come together to agree on which meanings are appropriate. If you cannot agree on what words mean, then how can you express your beliefs or the truth to that person? Consider being open to understanding what the other person says. If you dont agree or understand each other, then speak with someone you can understand. Save yourself from needless headaches, let life shape and convience them if you cannot.
Do not exchange knowledge of reality for knowledge of words
Posts
Total:
20
Seems many of the new kids are making posts about how they are pissed off at people "using big words".
Why do so many people wish to limit the possibilities presented by a diverse language? Language is the only means... the ONLY means... that we have available to convey knowledge and ideas. To limit ones vocabulary is to limit both of these things.
How pathetic.
I was going to finish the above post by saying "how sad" but I realized that could be interpreted as the OP making me sad when in reality I meant that I felt sad for those who choose such a path for themselves and am not the least bit sad for myself or those that choose the path of broad and powerful language.
Changing one single word did that. Just another subtle example of a wider vocabulary being used to increase the precision of an idea being conveyed.
-->
@Melcharaz
So what do you mean when you say "knowledge of reality".
7 days later
Reality the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
-->
@Melcharaz
When you refer to " idealistic and notional ideas", are you perhaps referring to something like religion?
And how can we be certain that what happens within our heads, corresponds 100% with an external reality?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Melcharaz
@Discipulus_Didicit:
Seems many of the new kids are making posts about how they are pissed off at people "using big words".Why do so many people wish to limit the possibilities presented by a diverse language? Language is the only means... the ONLY means... that we have available to convey knowledge and ideas. To limit ones vocabulary is to limit both of these things.
Well said.
@Melcharaz:
Reality the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
How do make that distinction as the subject of your experience?
As they actually exist.
-->
@Melcharaz
As they actually exist.
And what is "actual" existence? Your experience is informed and dependent on the notions you use to rationalize it; so then, how does one control for that which is presumed "idealistic or notional" and that which is "actual"? Can you isolate the part of your experience that is completely removed from any ideas or notions, and observe it, let alone inform on it?
Yes, as can everyone else.
-->
@Melcharaz
How?Yes, as can everyone else.
By the 5 senses. The reality expressed is the reality given and asserted. If you ask 1000 people the same question in usage of 5 senses and they give roughly the same answer. Ie buildings are taller than people. Water needed for survival, trees often having leaves or needles, etc.
-->
@Melcharaz
By the 5 senses. The reality expressed is the reality given and asserted.
What are your senses without the notions you assign them? Take for example, your sense of touch. The idea that you're touching something as opposed to air is informed by notions of difference. Otherwise, you'd be "experiencing something" that you're not able to rationalize. One's senses are as contingent on notions as one's idealism.
If you ask 1000 people the same question in usage of 5 senses and they give roughly the same answer. Ie buildings are taller than people. Water needed for survival, trees often having leaves or needles, etc.
Be careful not to impute an ad populum fallacy. All asking 1000 people the same question in usage of 5 senses demonstrates is that those exact 1000 people communicate the sensation of their senses using a standard lexicon. And even then, that requires notions--particularly language.
Perhaps you did not understand the question. I'm asking how does one control for this "actual" existence isolated from their notions? That means NO sciences, math, logic, rationalizations, languages, concepts (including that of difference,) or words. How does one do it then?
This question, if you haven't gathered already, is rhetorical. To complete the task would impute a paradox. You'd have be able to perceive outside your capacity to perceive. And that includes your capacity to think. How does one observe or inform without the fundamental expression of one's cognition: the conception of an idea?
You are thinking too much. If you want sources for what reality is, go to plato or socrates, heck aristole or kant can help ya.
My message is dont let what you know about words confuse what is real and to talk to people in ways they understand. The cyclic nature of reality always had intelligent and common understandings of reality. Be fluent in common.
-->
@Melcharaz
You are thinking too much.
I don't think "too much." I just think. And in doing so, I extend arguments to their logical conclusions. That is the responsibility of all those who presume to debate.
If you want sources for what reality is, go to plato or socrates, heck aristole or kant can help ya.
I've already read the rationalizations of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, as well as Spinoza, Descartes, Nietzsche, Godwin, Schopenhauer, Aurelius, Epicurus, and the list goes on. I'll stand by my own rationalizations and not seek sources of assumed "authorities" on reality. The only source required is logic.
My message is dont let what you know about words confuse what is real and to talk to people in ways they understand. The cyclic nature of reality always had intelligent and common understandings of reality. Be fluent in common.
Your aversion for words which may confuse has nothing to do with reality. You presume to partition the aspects you prefer into reality and idealism. And I'm telling you that between the two aforementioned, there's no demonstrable difference.
I love the example one man gave. He used 2 words to explain something and then used over 15 words to describe the exact same thing. https://youtu.be/E7RZk2cjXAc
32:20 - 32:44
So you can use 2 word or 32 and get your message across
Also, yall seem to have a false understanding of what this thread is about. I dont have an aversion to large words or multi syllable words, i believe they have their part when needed.
Read the title. Im concerned when people trade what they know is real, for what sounds intelligent. I see it here on this site especially. Ddo wasnt as bad as there were more people involved in voting processes of debates, but thats a different topic altogether.
I hate to burst yalls bubble, but intelligence is not something to show, its a vehicle to communicate and do certain ideas. The common man is the one with more hope than the intelligent man. Because the intelligent man has greater risk of making a prision for himself, and there are fewer things more tragic than putting an idea in a cage and locking the door.
Even the gospel of salvation is more avalible to a common man than the intellectual or word/concept focused man
Corinthians 1:26-29 King James Version (KJV)
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Im not telling you to not be word concious or intelligent, im telling yall to straighten up and govern your gifts and talents and hard work correctly, otherwise you will lock yourself in a cell with your own concepts.
The acquisition and usage of data is such, that you are you and I am I, and therefore we are all to a certain degree, locked in a cell with our own concepts.
Nonetheless we have the ability to exchange update and reassess data and perhaps therefore peripherally reconceptualise.
Though formatively established databases become extremely difficult to modify or change as we get older.
So for example, it is unrealistic to expect formatively conditioned theists or atheists to completely change, simply because of a peripheral exchange of ideas.
Ok. So some people may assume conversion, but I would suggest that at first, this is more to do with a perceived necessity for social conversion rather than a desire to deeply reprogram.
That is to say, we can easily reconceptualise and thereby adopt a different approach to how we interact with our immediate social groups, whereby in time perhaps, we will tend towards newly established patterns of behaviour.
As for knowledge of reality....How can we be certain of anything, locked here in the brain cells that we are?
And the child has blocked me.
Fearful of understanding perhaps.
Its not fear to repel evil, its wisdom. Its not fear to block voices that harm, but discretion.
Fear is a physiological response to a stimuli.
Evil is a variable concept.
Wisdom is a sensible coping strategy.
Voices cannot harm...In terms of data transfer, rather that in terms of audibility.
And you choose to listen and are still compelled to respond.
Ergo, I regard blocking as immaturity and an associated lack of confidence.