Problematic
January 11th 2007 00:59
Karl Marx says:
Mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.
Krishnamurti says:
The problem, if you love it, is as beautiful as the sunset.
I say:
a) Generalising about mankind is unpalatable, but Karl manages to invest such interesting ideas into his framework as to make this quote stand out from many an other. What do you think?
b) Problems are love letters to yourself in disguise - so what sort of wild hazy salute do you wish to send yourself today?
You say:
| 82 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
* Generalizations can be true, and I personally don't hold anything that can be true to be completely unpalatable. Isn't it true that people generally have two eyes?
* Furthermore, isn't it difficult to avoid probabilistic thinking and generalizations? We work at our jobs on the odds that we'll need the money tomorrow, even if the fact is that we'll be hit by a bus today.
* I think it's generally true (though I don't know how generally) that people will restrain the urgency of their wants if the object is impossible. I might want to speak to Virgil, but I don't badly want this, and I haven't set one foot on the path of attempting to resurrect him. -- Marx therefore might have a point.
* But one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that problems can exist whether or not you set yourself to solving them. Poverty, cancer, hunger were around long before people set themselves to finding cures.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
They all translate to one thing: prejudice.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I don't think so, as they are based on 'reality' statements, and truth is subjective. I think this is a good example of an inspired generalisation which makes a deconstruction of it fun.
What do you think it says about you that you are interested in this 'truth'?
I tend to find them pretty easy to avoid as I don't find they add much to my narratives, though sometimes I employ them to make my work more 'accessible' to others - something that makes me feel conflicted.
I'm happily unemployed.
Damo,
I agree with you here, however
I think my perception is the only thing I can rely on.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
>>Generalizations can be true
>I don't think so, as they are based on 'reality' statements, and truth is subjective. I think this is a good example of an inspired generalisation which makes a deconstruction of it fun.
Well, is 2 x 2 = 4 subjective? Will different people consistently come to different results?
Is a statement like "truth is subjective" subjective, such that it is objective for some people?
Do you think that "people generally have two eyes" is a generalization that is false?
>>Furthermore, isn't it difficult to avoid probabilistic thinking and generalizations?
>I tend to find them pretty easy to avoid as I don't find they add much to my narratives
Well, if you walk into a car, there's a chance that you will pass right through it. But would you be willing to walk into a car? Do you really avoid probability?
And aren't most of the statements you've made generalizations? For instance, the statement "I tend to find them pretty easy to avoid".
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
It is in the latter type that his generalisation falls down in my view, because I have known people to go well beyond what they already have, in order to solve a problem, they thought they had.
Lilla
Comment by Justin
Cinematrix
Anyway, even in epistemology which you and Adrian are implicitly debating is an aside to the heart of the posited question - if we are only given the problems when we have the tools, then why aren't we systematically fixing them? I think the real subjectivity should lie in what kind of "solutions" would be brought about that would arguably be qualitative and quantitatively different from the specific time period, person, resources and circumstances.