Thread: Theory of Ideas
View Single Post
Old Saturday, June 24, 2006
Qurratulain's Avatar
Qurratulain Qurratulain is offline
Economist In Equilibrium
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: she won the Essay competitionBest Moderator Award: Awarded for censoring all swearing and keeping posts in order. - Issue reason: Best ModMember of the Year: Awarded to those community members who have made invaluable contributions to the Community in the particular year - Issue reason: For the year 2006
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Devil's Paradise
Posts: 1,742
Thanks: 118
Thanked 406 Times in 145 Posts
Qurratulain has a spectacular aura aboutQurratulain has a spectacular aura aboutQurratulain has a spectacular aura about

*********** I’ve partitioned your post in two segments for my own ease.***********

The description of the ‘invalid’ and ‘compound’ ideas is exquisite. Well, what I’ve assumed from such description is about “how the idea of gravitation came in Newton’s mind”. It may be as follows:
There were some scattered facts or ideas like, ‘the falling apple’, its journey from the branch of the tree to the ground’ and ‘its stop at there’ etc. these scattered facts or ideas may be interpreted by Newton with the help of answering such questions like, ‘why didn’t apple stay in the air?’, ‘why did it go down?’, ‘did anything pull it?’, ‘if there’s so what’s that?’ etc. and thus he formulated a compound idea on the basisi of scattered ideas , and the idea was valid because its application resulted in the attainment of desired results.
(its my own perception… may disagree)

Now my anti thesis, hahaha………..!

Well, I’m not in the position to develop an anti thesis, as I’m still working on it and I don’t know how long will it take. But I’ve some points to discuss.

Part 1

My disagreement is on “the invalidity of weak powerful”
If we limit the course of discussion to other physical entities than human, them may be the invalidity is justified, but if we expand the course of study to human life. The ‘invalidity of idea’ seems invalid’. Man’s life contains not only the interpersonal but intrapersonal course of action also. And the both aspects have the probability of ‘weak-powerful’. For instance a person is physically powerful but mentally not so, then the validity of ‘the idea of weak powerful’ exists there. Similarly in the case of a person with good speaking/ writing abilities but with no practical exposure. In my opinion, there is variety of such characteristics in all individuals, and hence on the basis of such, they all can be regarded as ‘weak-powerful’.


In this part I’ll comment on the overall writing(of part 2)
I am also of the opinion that there’s no such discrimination between the principles which govern the mind. In defense of my say, I’d like to mention that for specification of any principle it’s necessary to classify the object on which that principle is expected to work. As far as specification of human is concerned, its impossible in its totality. If we look at the scientific composition of human body, we find DNA as a basic structure of any individual, which is different in all individuals. This difference in the structure of DNA results not only in the physical structure of individuals but also in mental approach of individuals.
Individuals may be specified on the basis of their agreement to a particular situation, but not on the basis of their mental approach which is different in all. For instance you and me are of the same opinion with reference to the disagreement on ‘different principles of ordinary & Special principles governing conscious and unconscious, but the approach we are using is totally different. Hence the principle on which your mind works (in the same situation) may differ from those on which my mind works, so here the generalization or specification of principles is not the base to find the validity or invalidity of the same idea. The validity or invalidity of idea here depends upon the ability of our judgment. In my opinion, the ability of judgment further depends upon the involvement of our senses in the situation. The more deeply the senses are involved the better will be the ability to judge. In this connection, the involvement of our senses in a situation is more that that of the involvement of senses in unconscious.
Now this validity or invalidity of an idea observed by the judgment can be better analyzed only from the application of the same.

Now come dreams, here you mentioned that it is closely associated to the similarities of happenings. Well the cause of dream is still unexplained. As you mentioned that it’s a situation one faces during unconscious with reference to the happenings of real life. For instance swimming in ocean because of cold, or riding a bike because of interest in that. I’d like to mention some more causes. For example, A person climbing up a mountain in dream but there is no such thing to climb up in real. In this case it is the consequence of the person’s high aims. In another case a person sees himself in trouble like, facing a lion or falling from a building etc. here the dream is consequence of his expected fears of a particular situation.

I think its enough till next post.

||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete
Reply With Quote