Good clarification. Thank you and I agree.

Here is how I would have worded it (just for the sake of consistency).

…in a case where a reader has used that means in order to make false or wrongful (illogical) accusations about the writer's thoughts, only the writer would know for sure whether or not those accusations were false or wrongful (illogical).

I agree. I was not "arguing" the point and I don't use "straw man" tactics or ad what ever arguments because I was not arguing. I was answering the question in the strictest literal sense possible. It was a generic question about the writing and whether it "reflects" how the author thinks. It was not about the reader at all. Creative kept insisting that a writing must be read to answer the initial question. This is just not true in the literal sense.

I agreed that the writing would only have to be read if a reader wanted to actually proceed to evaluate 'how the author thinks' and his conclusions are his own personal opinion and unique to him or her. None of this activity is required to logically answer the initial question posed in the O.P.

The silly idea that I was using 'straw man' argument or 'as homin-whatever is way off in left field as far as I am concerned, because I was not arguing. I am talking about the English language, sentence structure, in the literal sense.

Some people can't handle criticism. They should not criticize.

Sky...



If one knows enough about the mistakes which are commonly made in reasoning, that can(and should) be shown as well.

The example above was referring to only the reader and writer. However, one who does philosophy or debate fairly well can recognize fallacious reasoning in an argument in which s/he is not involved in also.

JB wrote...



Now earlier I did not focus upon this for my own reasons at the time. This is a very commonly held belief, I think. I have heard it many times from many different people.

I would like to change gears here and look at this idea a little more.

1.) The claim is that everything you do or say is a reflection of you. As I mentioned a while back...

How clear is that reflection. How does one tell that?

2.) How you look and dress is a reflection of you.

Is this held to be a reflection of who you are inside? The term everything is an absolutist description. Are these conclusions absolutely true in every case imaginable?

I mean what can one truly know about another who dresses and looks like a common description of a homeless person who smells bad?

What can one truly know about another who talks like a rapper(whatever that may be like...)?

“what can one truly know about another who dresses and looks like a common description of a homeless person who smells bad? – that they dress and look like a common description of a homeless person who smells bad.

Given the facts as present, there is nothing else that can be known.

Basically, it says “Here’s what we know: ________”, and then asks “What do we know?”

Well the answer to that can only be “______”. Anything else is assumption/belief/opinion.

So I assume that the question was intended to elicit responses regarding assumptions about the guy, rather than facts about him.

Now rather than go into a whole philosophical elucidation, I think I can sum up my whole viewpoint with a simple analogy: All else being equal, if it waddles and quacks, why not just call it a “duck”.

The same reasoning could be applied to what one does and says and dresses like and looks like.

Try looking at it from the opposite side of the coin.

That is: is there anything you do or say or look or dress that is not in some way a reflection of you? Isn’t that exactly what “you” is? What you do and say and look like and dress like, etc.?

If not, then what is this “you” thing you’re referring to? (And I think you can safely infer where that leads. )

Sky...



It can, in my humble opinion, and is... far too often.

I understand that you often come from a utilitarian viewpoint, as do I whenever I think it applies. However, I do not think that that is a very reasonable approach regarding the topic of human reflection.

The duck analogy fails to be an adequate representation of what needs to be shown. It is a gross over-simplification, and these are not only two completely different things, but they are also two completely different applications of knowledge. Calling something 'a duck' would be the act of identifying an object/animal through commonly known physical traits. That particular animal has certain physical traits which make it what it is, or rather, which determine what we call it...

A duck...

There is every reason to believe that all ducks waddle and quack, therefore that label would necessarily fit, mainly because nothing else that we know of waddles and quacks. Subsequently speaking, the potential for being mistaken is nil in the world as we have come to know it. Knowing that constitutes reasonable grounds for certainty in applying the label correctly.

We cannot even begin to say the same thing regarding the human reflection. Equivocating between the world as one has come to know it, and the world as it is is the most dangerous aspect that I see in doing such a thing, and is the epitome of being overly confident in one's personal judgment. Prejudice, racism, and hate are born from the very same idea. They all judge a book by it's cover, or in the worst situations, equivocate what they think the cover represents, to what is actually inside the book without ever really looking.

When a subject is absolutely confident in their own ability to assess and label another person based upon looks and/or words alone, then that subject is projecting the knowledge/opinion born from his/her own past onto the other. One who thinks like that could easily fall into the unconscious trap of drawing current conclusions based upon past experience in similar situations. Now, the situations may in fact be comparable, but doing so automatically equates past with present, and the one being labeled takes upon all of the prior meaning of that label, regardless of whether or not it fits.



Oh, but I am!



That question has been answered. The focus now becomes...

How well does the subject's judgment label and all of it's inherent meaning - which has been determined according to prior experience - correspond to the situation currently at hand?

The "reflection" does not reflect the total person. (Its just a reflection.)

In this case the term used by me "everything" is not an absolute. (If you mistook it as one, then I retract it. It was simply a figure of speech in the expression of an opinion.)

If I had said that "everything you do or say, how you look, how you dress, reveal all the truth about you and my impressions of that is absolutely true in every case imaginable..." <----That is an absolute.

You asked: "Are these conclusions absolutely true in every case imaginable? "

My question is: "What conclusions are you talking about?"

Literally everything you see with your eyes is a reflection. Yet not everyone sees things the same way. As far as people and impressions are concerned, you should read the book "You've only got three Seconds." By Camille Lavington. It is all about making a good first impression. Three seconds is all it takes for someone to sum you up and and form an opinion of you. This may not seem fair or be accurate, but this is basically true.

Creative saidWell tell me what the “subject's judgment label and all of it's inherent meaning” is, and what the “situation currently at hand” is, and I’ll try to answer. But any answer I do give will only be another instance of “subject's judgment label and all of it's inherent meaning”. It’s a viscous circle. The snake is biting it’s own tail.

In other words, there cannot be an absolute answer to that question. Simply because the answer is dependent on something that is relative – “prior experience”.

It was not referring to a specific situation. I was referring to the general concept of it. If we are assessing exactly what that label is, and how well it correlates to a current situation, we would be delving into the subjective nature of our own assessments of that particular label.

If we attempt to identify the individual elements which comprise the totality of the notion at hand, without defining specific labels, we can be more objective.

I think that recognizing the potential for making an error has been well established.

Perhaps getting more into exactly what the notion of human reflection consists of would be a good direction at this time. What do you guys think?

Ok by me.

Although personally, I don’t know how we can get anywhere at all if we don’t have any specifically defined labels to work with. I mean we have to start somewhere. We have to agree on something. And wherever or whatever we start from is a specifically defined label. After all, the entire format of the discussion is nothing but labels (i.e. words). And since we have to start with spcifically defined labels, what’s the most we can end up with? Specifically defined labels.

But anyway, it’s fine with me to change the focus to “human reflection”.

Sky...

The entire thread is about human reflection...



At this point in time, I question whether or not there is any real value to be had in continuing. After reading your last response, I have no idea how those thoughts apply to the topic at hand. Of course there are agreements to be made concerning the terms we are using - that much is obvious. We both must know the meanings of the words we communicate with. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

All terms are not the same, do not carry the same presupposition and personal judgment. Those specific terms need not be discussed nor agreed upon in order to establish the fact that they affect human reflection. You seem to be equivocating between personal judgment - labels - and the words used to discuss those things. That kind of generalization makes it impossible to have any meaningful focus on the subject.

An agreement upon what the term 'Jew bastard' means and to whom need not be discussed in detail in order to realize that it affects the user's perception of a Jewish person. It affects the human reflection.

Do you follow me?

Mostly ... I think.

So ... go ahead.

If a person reads a piece of writing, every feeling, thought, and visualization that the piece brings about in the reader are predetermined by the reader's prior life experience. Each word has it's own unique set of correlations in the reader's mind. This foundation, which automatically begins to form a picture in an unconscious effort to mentally grasp the idea/meaning of those words, compares all things currently read with all things prior known.

That establishes the fact that the reader his/herself is an integral part of another's human reflection.

You are basically saying the same thing that some people say about reality. That if there are no observers, there is no reality. You are saying that an object does not exist (reflect) if there are no observers.

You are saying that what an observer "sees" or "perceives" is an integral part of what actually exists.

You are talking about the question of whether or not we live in an objective or subjective reality.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it or sees it, does it exist? Would anything exist without an observer to interpret its reflection? (or existence?)

Bottom line, if you were the only writer in the whole universe or world, and you wrote something and then died, and I were the only person who could read your writing, then you are correct. Your writing would not reflect anything if I never read it. Then when I did read it, my opinion would basically rule.

With no other readers, and with you dead, my opinion of your writing would be THE UNDISPUTED LAW.

And I seem to remember you arguing the exact opposite concept when it concerned the question of an objective or subjective reality. Is that the level you wish to examine?

I think you made the claim that things exist with or without any observers.

The existence of things are nothing but reflections of light. Everything we see is a reflection of light. If you don't believe that, just wait until a dark and stormy night and shut off all the electricity and lights and see if you can see anything.

Your observations then would have to be by "touching and feeling" the fields (matter)that make up the objects. But if your own physical density was such that you could not touch an object and your hand passed through it, then you could not observe anything that way either. It may appear to you that nothing exists in this case because you can's see anything or touch anything.

So what is it? Can reality exist without observers?
Is writing meaningless and non-reflective when there is no reader?

So to say that what a writer reflects is dependant on a reader is saying the same thing about reality being subjective, and that reality is Dependant upon observers.

Another question to ponder: Would I be wasting my time writing this post if I were the only person left in the world and no one was going to read it?

No, I can honestly say I wouldn't.

I followed that right up to the last sentence. Then you lost me.

There is no mention of "another" in the first paragraph so I'm having trouble seeing how it establishes anything at all concerning any "other".

I can see how every contact that the reader has ever had with any "other", would constitue part of the experince of the reader. And since the same would be true with the "other's" contact with the reader, then the reader would necessarily be a part of that "othere's" reflection.

Is that what you mean?

Sky...



I can understand how that could be the case. I will attempt to get into more detail...

In the case at hand, the human reflection is the totality of memory, emotion, knowledge, and opinion that is sparked within a person when focusing upon another's writing. This completely belongs to the observer/reader when drawing conclusions about another based upon words alone. It is self-evident that only the reader's meanings are being applied to the writing.



I think you are referring to cases where there is a history between the reader and writer, such as between say, you and I. Is that correct?

In a case with a history of written communication, yes, each would have in their own personal history an amount of experience with the other which would constitute each actually being a part of the other's reflection measures. However, that does not necessarily mean that the part which is attributed to either has a basis in factual representation. In other words, just because I have a history of written communication with a person, it does not necessarily follow that that history has been translated well by either party involved.

It could very well be the case in which one or the other, or both for that matter, had such strongly influenced presuppositions concerning the other based upon a 'bad start' that most of the communication since has been skewed by conclusions drawn early on.

In one without, no.

In a case of shared understanding - a meaningful and effective dialogue which has imparted a true understanding between the two - yes, the writer would be a part of that reader's life experience, and the meaning contained within the reflection(s) would or could be an accurate representation of the other. That is of course assuming that the the nature of the conversation had enough 'evidence' in which a valid conclusion could be drawn about who the other person actually is.

Does that help you to understand some of my thoughts on the matter?

Yes it does, and I agree with all of it. I simply got hung up on the word "another" because up to that point, there was only "reader" and "writer". And in the context in which it was used, "another" didn't seem to refer to either "reader" or "writer", so I had no referent for "another".

But in any case, I agree with everything else you've said.