This video was very interesting and the point it purported forced me to consider much about who people are and why they are as they are. I found that in my thinking, I disagree that we are no more than the sum of our parts. It is a logical fallacy to compare humans to watches and other inanimate objects as we are animate and much more complex in our existence than a watch. Consider, a watch cannot itself determine the time unless a person sets it such that time is accurately told. A part from the outside work of a person programming the watch, a watch is useless matter that has no purpose. With people it is not so. When a person exists, they exist regardless of the programming or lack thereof they receive. No person is useless inasfar as they are still an operating functioning person regardless of who they are or how they behave. Yes, people are versatile and they change based on their beliefs and experiences, but to limit a person to merely the sum of such is to belittle what it means to be human.
I do agree with the summary of the talk in that self is not a static existence, but rather a process which is fashioned out of our experiences and beliefs, which continues to ebb and flow shaping who we are, until we are not. In the same way, art is a process rather than a static existence that is, and never changes. We determine what is art based on our own process of discovery and the intertwining of that discovery and our personal experiences and beliefs.
While arguing for the nonexistence of the "self" as commonly imagined, Baggini does bring powerful and salient points. However, I think his comparisons are somewhat misplaced. For example: while it is true that two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms constitute a water molecule (and are not necessarily linked by it), he equates these to experiences that humans beings possessed, such as emotions and opinions. But, a fairer comparison was to side these individual atoms to physical human parts themselves, such as the multitude of atoms and particles that constitute our bodies. There is more for example to a watch then its physical parts: how was it crafted? how well can it constitute time? With regards to the idea of artistic portrayal, Baggini brings his most salient point: that humans tend to simplify ideas, concepts, and bodies to understand it, but ultimately fail to. Instead, energy should be focused on enhancing the complexity and embracing the idea that the most pure and definite artistic portrayal is indefiniteness itself, or the promulgation of the notion that a picture or image is changing based on the characteristics and ideals of the observer's time. As such, this implies that we should accept the circle of confusion, as a spot, however large, is the fairest and more real representation of a point.
I really love all the philosophy behind this TED talk topic. Such a philosophical question as "who am I really?" is quite simply impossible to truly answer really. I like Julian's thought, though, that who we are is a sum of our parts. Different things that make us up combine with each other to create our full selves. We as humans tend to "simplify ourselves" into these parts and as such have trouble seeing the full picture. We do the same with pictures. We tend to focus on certain areas of it, like highlights or the foreground.
I think this was a really cool talk and that what the presenter was saying makes a lot of sense. As he said, it is a subtle difference but I completely agree that we aren't entities that have feelings, beliefs, and experiences but rather that we are defined by all of these feelings, beliefs, and experiences. This is why people sometimes say that someone has been "reborn" when they adopt a new outlook on life. This isn't because this person has actually been reborn but it is because they changed a large part of their beliefs. Since a person's beliefs are an important part of what defines them if someone changes their beliefs drastically it is like they are a new person or "reborn." I also think that the examples involving the water molecule and the watch were very good ways to think about what he was saying and that they make very good arguments for his view.
But Natasha, you're argument about the watch to human comparison is completely flawed. Once the watch itself is made, the watch can regulate itself and keep track of time. It's mechanism is completely already set. There needs almost no maintenance. We as humans are the same way. We had to be created by the Almighty, just like how we created the watches. Yes, now humans are independent and self sufficient, doing what we were created for, to make God feel good and stuff, just like how watches keep track of time, which helps us out.
If you do not 'reply' to someone's comment (in the above that would be Natasha), they will not know and your argument will be for naught. I am guessing most people do not keep scanning the blog for new comments without notification. your reply still shows your participation.
I'm not sure if I agree with his idea that we are really only the sum of our parts. I understand where he's coming from with this idea, but I'm not sure if I buy into it. I think there's a self-centeredness involved when talking about "self" and other inner-reflective type things, wanting to feel like there's something centralized and vital to what makes us each who we are. Regardless, it's meta and interesting to contemplate your own existence.
I thought this talk was surprising, as the description pointed out, and I agree and disagree with parts of it. I think that yes there is a sort of self-centeredness but that that is all based on our brain and because of that, the way we look at things. The way we look at things results in our actions, beliefs, memories, etc which does bring a sort-of central core amongst the things composing ones self. I think Baggini's final statement that we have the power to create our own selves has some truth to it but I also wonder about it- if we all have a set brain that functions a certain way with differing amounts of chemicals, completely different than any other human on the planet's brain, is it really possible that we have the ability to change ourselves, and change the lens that is influenced by permanent biology?
This video was very interesting and the point it purported forced me to consider much about who people are and why they are as they are. I found that in my thinking, I disagree that we are no more than the sum of our parts. It is a logical fallacy to compare humans to watches and other inanimate objects as we are animate and much more complex in our existence than a watch. Consider, a watch cannot itself determine the time unless a person sets it such that time is accurately told. A part from the outside work of a person programming the watch, a watch is useless matter that has no purpose. With people it is not so. When a person exists, they exist regardless of the programming or lack thereof they receive. No person is useless inasfar as they are still an operating functioning person regardless of who they are or how they behave. Yes, people are versatile and they change based on their beliefs and experiences, but to limit a person to merely the sum of such is to belittle what it means to be human.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the summary of the talk in that self is not a static existence, but rather a process which is fashioned out of our experiences and beliefs, which continues to ebb and flow shaping who we are, until we are not. In the same way, art is a process rather than a static existence that is, and never changes. We determine what is art based on our own process of discovery and the intertwining of that discovery and our personal experiences and beliefs.
While arguing for the nonexistence of the "self" as commonly imagined, Baggini does bring powerful and salient points. However, I think his comparisons are somewhat misplaced. For example: while it is true that two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms constitute a water molecule (and are not necessarily linked by it), he equates these to experiences that humans beings possessed, such as emotions and opinions. But, a fairer comparison was to side these individual atoms to physical human parts themselves, such as the multitude of atoms and particles that constitute our bodies. There is more for example to a watch then its physical parts: how was it crafted? how well can it constitute time?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the idea of artistic portrayal, Baggini brings his most salient point: that humans tend to simplify ideas, concepts, and bodies to understand it, but ultimately fail to. Instead, energy should be focused on enhancing the complexity and embracing the idea that the most pure and definite artistic portrayal is indefiniteness itself, or the promulgation of the notion that a picture or image is changing based on the characteristics and ideals of the observer's time. As such, this implies that we should accept the circle of confusion, as a spot, however large, is the fairest and more real representation of a point.
I really love all the philosophy behind this TED talk topic. Such a philosophical question as "who am I really?" is quite simply impossible to truly answer really. I like Julian's thought, though, that who we are is a sum of our parts. Different things that make us up combine with each other to create our full selves. We as humans tend to "simplify ourselves" into these parts and as such have trouble seeing the full picture. We do the same with pictures. We tend to focus on certain areas of it, like highlights or the foreground.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a really cool talk and that what the presenter was saying makes a lot of sense. As he said, it is a subtle difference but I completely agree that we aren't entities that have feelings, beliefs, and experiences but rather that we are defined by all of these feelings, beliefs, and experiences. This is why people sometimes say that someone has been "reborn" when they adopt a new outlook on life. This isn't because this person has actually been reborn but it is because they changed a large part of their beliefs. Since a person's beliefs are an important part of what defines them if someone changes their beliefs drastically it is like they are a new person or "reborn." I also think that the examples involving the water molecule and the watch were very good ways to think about what he was saying and that they make very good arguments for his view.
ReplyDeleteBut Natasha, you're argument about the watch to human comparison is completely flawed. Once the watch itself is made, the watch can regulate itself and keep track of time. It's mechanism is completely already set. There needs almost no maintenance. We as humans are the same way. We had to be created by the Almighty, just like how we created the watches. Yes, now humans are independent and self sufficient, doing what we were created for, to make God feel good and stuff, just like how watches keep track of time, which helps us out.
ReplyDeleteIf you do not 'reply' to someone's comment (in the above that would be Natasha), they will not know and your argument will be for naught. I am guessing most people do not keep scanning the blog for new comments without notification. your reply still shows your participation.
DeleteI'm not sure if I agree with his idea that we are really only the sum of our parts. I understand where he's coming from with this idea, but I'm not sure if I buy into it. I think there's a self-centeredness involved when talking about "self" and other inner-reflective type things, wanting to feel like there's something centralized and vital to what makes us each who we are. Regardless, it's meta and interesting to contemplate your own existence.
ReplyDeleteI thought this talk was surprising, as the description pointed out, and I agree and disagree with parts of it. I think that yes there is a sort of self-centeredness but that that is all based on our brain and because of that, the way we look at things. The way we look at things results in our actions, beliefs, memories, etc which does bring a sort-of central core amongst the things composing ones self. I think Baggini's final statement that we have the power to create our own selves has some truth to it but I also wonder about it- if we all have a set brain that functions a certain way with differing amounts of chemicals, completely different than any other human on the planet's brain, is it really possible that we have the ability to change ourselves, and change the lens that is influenced by permanent biology?
ReplyDelete