Philosophy and implication

[Zinkovich]

Note: This thought is more half than fully formed, so you'll have ot bear iwth me on developing this topic for a minute.

Sometimes, philosophers seem to attempt to implicate answers in assumption that they are there, and get away with it.

Within the core of the juxtaposition of dogmatic statements, an implied support of personal experience on the part of the writer or some relation thereof lies "between the lines". For example, in posts such as these(I made this one up ont he top of my head):

"So mans will limits itself only when it allows him to, causing him to think that jumping over mountains is impossible, when he can, in fact, even move them with enough motivation and belief"

...the poster implies experience in men doing such things, yet does not give personalized examples or relate it to himself. I think this is because these experiences have begun to imply themselves in a personal manner within his own mind, even if he had not experienced anything to do with them previously.

When I see emotional response to a movie or novel from someone on the onset, I often see further change from them by way of subtle response. One often staggers after a movie, and there is a often a silence amongst the crowd from being so affected by an entirely fictional or impersonalized, reinterpreted/stylistically represented character. Considering this, I do not find it a stretch to believe that the same sort of interplay of filtration/response is possible on the intellectual level, coloring one's integration of data with unfounded fabrications or twists of prexisting data and experiences, causing devastating impact to the intellectual journey we all must undergo.

What do you think? Can being exposed to certain juxtapositions of words cause someone to subtly integrate experiences they never have had themselves into their way of looking at things, causing them to further disassociate themselves from fact and move towards more dogmatic, entirely intuitional reinterpreations of their experiences?

[Zhavric]

Can being exposed to certain juxtapositions of words cause someone to subtly integrate experiences they never have had themselves into their way of looking at things, causing them to further disassociate themselves from fact and move towards more dogmatic, entirely intuitional reinterpreations of their experiences?

I see where you're going with this, but I do not feel your fears are justified.

Have you ever been to Spain for the running of the bulls? I'm presuming you have not.

As humans, we're capable of imagination, understanding metaphor, and picturing the abstract.

Thus, without ever having been to the running of the bulls, we can tell by our knowledge of bulls, running, physics and accounts of eyewitnesses that the experience is dangerous and exciting even though we've never done it.

I see no reason to conclude that this sort of abstract thinking leads to "dogmatic, entirely intuitional reinterpreations" of experiences.

[Athena]

Last year the Evangelist preacher, Billy Graham, did such a moving holiday show about how God compels fine family men to serve in Iraq, I almost signed up for service myself, and I am not Christian, nor do I approve of the war.

Time and again, I am impressed by the presentation of religion stories. They are very moving, and of course we get caught up in the spirit of them, regardless of our religious beliefs. And just think, the same is so for Muslims, and some of them are moved enough to strap on bombs and walk into a crowd and blow themselves up, leaving their wives and children in a very bad situation. They may ever cry at the thought, but dismiss their moment of sanity as Satan trying to stop from doing the right thing.

How about the insanity of men rushing towards each other knowing it is very lackly they will be killed! How about watching movies of this and feeling compeled to sign up for military service and be such a hero? After watching a movie of nun, I wanted to become a nun. Only problem is, I don't believe the religious stuff.

Yes, we can be moved by what we hear and see, and assimilate it into our sense of reality and what we should do. There is a biological reason for this. Researchers discovered, when a monkey sees someone pick and eat a banana, the neurons in its head fire as though it had picked and started to eat the banana. We do think/feel what another experiences.

[Fonceai]

@Zinkovich

I think the answer to your question is in the amount of sensory input a person receives.

Trying to communicate anything to another person, from concepts to how to add numbers, is always easier if there is a way to appeal to as many senses as possible.

Reading is probably at the lowest level because it relies on the detail of the author and the imagination and experience of the reader. To use Zhavric's bull example, the most elaborate description of the feelings involved is useless for a person who has never felt a certain level of intensity in their feelings.

Your comment about movies is very effective because through the use of visual imagery and soundtrack, you are doing some of the work for the person, freeing their imagination.

By creating a sensory experience, you are drawing them deeper into the place where their emotions relating to an experience closer match their emotions in the actual experience.

This was very popular with the really good thrill movies of the 1980's. I've never been assaulted by a nightmarish man in my dreams, but the emotions evoked from the scares of Nightmare on Elm Street might as well be the real thing as far as I'm concerned.

And as you address in your last line of the opening post, I do think that if people rely more and more on "virtual" experience they will become dissociated from the true emotions of the "actual" experience.