Objectification of life

[coberst]

Objectification of life

The human world is filled with meaning, thus the theorist of the human sciences is concerned with causality and meaning, whereas the theorist of the physical world deals almost completely with causality. The human world needs understanding and interpretation, whereas the physical world requires knowledge and explanation.

Herein lays the reason why human relationships cannot be intellectually embraced in the same manner as is physical relationships.

Dilthey proclaims that the depths of human meaning and understanding are particularly accessible for interpretation in the works of art and literature. He called this work of interpreting the products of human activity which reveal the qualities of human life, the “hermeneutical art.”

When the wind blows down a tree we seek a relationship between wind force and tree strength. A man fells a tree; we seek an understanding of intention. A woman slaps a man’s face; there is a world of intentionalities to be considered, because we are dealing with the actions of human beings.

For Dilthey, “understanding is insight into the working of the human mind, the rediscovery of the ‘I in the Thou’…Thus I can understand why John paces up and down the room but not why my plant won’t grow. In the latter case I would have to say, ‘I know why it won’t grow’. The notion of understanding would also apply to what human beings have produced; thus I might understand a poem as well as a gadget.”

Our insights that result from our own humanness allow us to understand other people. Therein lay the difference between physical science and human science; human science will never reach the precision of the physical sciences but there is the great advantage of moving within a world that is familiar to us. Human life is not only meaningful but it is also articulate in expressing its own meaning, which we can understand.

As we reflect on our own life we can reflect on and understand the life of others. Their patterns are available to me just as my own patterns are available to me. I understand their meaning because I understand mine, more or less. Human life is not only meaningful but it can be articulated.

The life of the individual must also be considered in light of the society. The context in which the individual stands is constructed from tradition, beliefs, and language. Everywhere there is human life there is pattern and meaning that can be articulated and understood, more of less.

The process of comprehending individual units of life’s experiences, such as being in a chess club, or being a Catholic, or being a Republican, Dilthey calls an ‘objectification of life’. Dilthey makes no metaphysical claims here, these units are marks on paper or formed by bricks but they are units of created meanings and can be grasped by humans. Dilthey says ‘Poetry has influenced my life’…‘Protestantism is an important factor in the history of England.’ In other words these are units for understanding individuals and also for understanding community relationships.

Ideas and quotes from “Pattern and Meaning in History”—Wilhelm Dilthey

[Kilroy_x]

Oh bull****. Human beings are complicated, but that doesn't mean they can't be explained by science. The entirety of human studies relies on a large set of purely heuristic devices at the moment. It's crap like this that perpetuates the idea that humans are off limits to study. It's a throwback to vitalism.

Human beings are complicated because biology is complicated. Organic Biochemistry is widely regarded as one of the most obscenely difficult subjects around. Tools for observing what composes human beings are also not developed enough to let us examine individuals.

Thus we're left with heuristic devices. Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology all fall in this caregory. Psychiatry incorporates knowledge from biology and chemistry but the foundation or motivation of its practice is unfortunately still entirely heuristic. Labeling someone "protestant" or "republican" or what have you is a function of language, specifically of the private language of whatever individual is using the words. The act of laying a grid onto which these words are to be used and using them to describe something "real" is part of the soft sciences. These sciences are "soft" because they still keep a place for untested intuition, emotion, and pure interpretation within them, but as we see with all sciences they begin this way but they evolve to not require these things. In fact these things really just get in the way most of the time.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by coberst

Objectification of life

[b]The human world is filled with meaning, thus the theorist of the human sciences is concerned with causality and meaning, whereas the theorist of the physical world deals almost completely with causality. The human world needs understanding and interpretation, whereas the physical world requires knowledge and explanation.

This is where you went wrong. You assumed that the human world is filled with meaning. You've completely glossed over all of epistemology with an axiomatic assumption that let's you argue whatever half-brained ideas you want.

The only reason the natural and human sciences are split is because the human sciences focus at a mental programming level that has been built up many times from lower levels that we're just now starting to formally understand. Just because you can't trace the process of humanity back to some formalized axioms doesn't mean they don't exist.

I really hope you actually use your brain once in awhile to judge what you're reading, because I'm getting fed up with your posts. You are a pseudointellectual nit who can gloss over the surface of concepts without having any understanding of the underlying system. Since you seem to think that humanity is so special and separate from everything else, I'd like to send your world crashing down... How about some artificial humanity:
http://www.imagination-engines.com/cm.htm

If you understand the generative algorithm for human development rather than trying to trace your way back through every level of human processing, you can generate human characteristics autonomously very quickly.


Edit: I just noticed you got shunned out of and probated from SomethingAwful's D&D forum for much the same reasons. You have an interest in philosophy, but really, sit down and examine the small elements of philosophy before you sit there and try to build everything up into a magnum opus of human reasoning. When you are poring through ten different treatises in a day, you only come to terms with the surface of the thought and miss the intricate network behind the statements.

[coberst]

aperson

Sorry. I try to please everyone but it is difficult. Some say my posts are too hard to comprehend and some say that everyone already knows everything I post.

[Kiro51]

Are you a bot?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

You posted it on about 20 forums. O_o

[lord_carbo]

http://www.google.com/search?q=coberst+is+annoying