Origin

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Tovarishch

Sun Tzu:
It should be kept in mind that while we may say that we are masters of our world, it does not mean that it is true. How could it be, when poverty and crime abound, and we are continually at the mercy of the elements? Perhaps the only reason that such problems exist is that we count them as such- a problem.
Any ideas?
-Tovarishch

Perhaps the only reason Im bringing this up is because Im supposed to be studying it right now rather than using this site to procrastinate, but hell I learn a basic concept much better when Im forced to implement it immediately.

Before you are to make sense of my argument you will have to understand two perspectives in sociology, sociology being the study of the inner workings of society on a macro level. The argument of structural functionalism states that everything that makes up our society is there for a reason, that if there was any sort of inefficiency it would have been been eliminated swiftly and efficiently.

The second argument is the social conflict theory. The social conflict theory states that society is in a constant state of conflict, and that these conflicts fuel social change and innovations. Society is seperated into the haves and the have nots, with the have nots trying to get what the haves... have, and the people that possess what the others want trying to keep it out of the hands that don't possess it in the interest of controlling the class below them. For example you go to school to learn, you are the have not, the teacher that imparts the information unto you is the Have. The teacher has complete control over what information you receive and gives you it in the interest of receiving a service in exchange, in this case you filling out a worksheet.

Now Structural functionalism and social conflict theory aren't two entirely different theories, and there is room for them to coexist. For example a structural functional approach to conflict theory would state that social conflict exists because it performs a purpose. Social conflict allows for the means of social mobility.

So why is there poverty and crime? Because the conflict between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have nots serves a purpose in the overall functioning of our society. The poor provide unskilled manual labor for the rich, performing jobs that don't award much prestige or wage, however someone has to do it and seeing as how every person on the planet is capable of cleaning a toilet bowl there is a great deal of competition for the unpleasant job, making its value to society go down, in addition to its wage. Are you going to pay more than minimum wage to a person, when theres 50 other people outside the door capable of performing that janitorial position just as well as the person you currently have?

So what does social conflict do? It allows the person to specialize into a certain position, such as doctor that while still just as necessary as a clean working environment, have much less competition and require a greater deal of specialization.

So again why is there poverty and crime? Because it serves a purpose.

Perhaps I went a little off topic, and I feel that I was unclear in my original post. You are viewing argument in completely the wrong light, and I feel you need to look closer at my final paragraph.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

And so since reality is subjective you will have to agree with me that everything that we do is original. You see, philosophy didn't exist until we said it exists, mathematics didn't exist until someone scrawled a couple numbers into the sand on a beach, and science didn't bother rearing its ugly head until we damn well told it to. We humans are the masters of our world, creating and shaping it as we see fit. Regardless of whether or not the information or idea is out there floating around, it doesn't have any tangible reality until we choose to acknowledge it.

While granted nothing exists until I say it exists it, for me to acknowledge its existence there has to be something there to acknowledge. For example, objective sensory input. Now this objective sensory input is in all cases real, however not real, until we choose to put it through the filter that is our brain, turning it into subjective input.

So, for all intents and purposes the world out there is indeed "real", and "solid" however it doesn't become real to us individually until we choose to run it through the subjective filter. So there can be a hurricane rolling through Florida, however that hurricane doesn't exist until the citizens of Florida choose to acknowledge the sensory input that the hurricane was providing. People are more than capable of simply shutting themselves off and refusing to acknowledge the hurricanes existence, and they will be none the wiser of its presence. Of course the mind will also have to ignore the fact that your getting thrown around my 100 mph winds as well as getting smacked in the head with hale and rain. While this is incredibly unlikely due to our brains being built to acknowledge and respond to external sensory input it is not unheard of.

For example the album "Tommy" by The Who tells a tale of a child who is suffering from an extreme form of PTSD. Tommy refuses to acknowledge anything visually, auditory, and is completely mute. While all of Tommy's sensory organs work perfectly fine, Tommy chooses not to use them preferring the contents of his own thoughts as opposed to the content of the world around him. Tommy exists in his own world, and that world is real to him though it isn't real to anyone else.

Does that help make things a little clearer?

[fejknick]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

So, for all intents and purposes the world out there is indeed "real", and "solid" however it doesn't become real to us individually until we choose to run it through the subjective filter. So there can be a hurricane rolling through Florida, however that hurricane doesn't exist until the citizens of Florida choose to acknowledge the sensory input that the hurricane was providing. People are more than capable of simply shutting themselves off and refusing to acknowledge the hurricanes existence, and they will be none the wiser of its presence. Of course the mind will also have to ignore the fact that your getting thrown around my 100 mph winds as well as getting smacked in the head with hale and rain. While this is incredibly unlikely due to our brains being built to acknowledge and respond to external sensory input it is not unheard of.

For example the album "Tommy" by The Who tells a tale of a child who is suffering from an extreme form of PTSD. Tommy refuses to acknowledge anything visually, auditory, and is completely mute. While all of Tommy's sensory organs work perfectly fine, Tommy chooses not to use them preferring the contents of his own thoughts as opposed to the content of the world around him. Tommy exists in his own world, and that world is real to him though it isn't real to anyone else.

Does that help make things a little clearer?

That cleared up a bit yes.

And it made me think about somethings to, so here goes.
First off, the hurricane theory is a good one. It states that the hurricane exist when they accept it. And without CNN or any other media i in sweden wouldn't even know about it. So before media the world was what you knew. 2000 years ago, the bible. The apocalypse, think about the tsunami in thailand. That was the end of the world for some of them, allot of them. So without media it would have been spoken of like the end of the world. So does that mean we got smarter or that we got help somewhere along the line? (Im thinking ID theory)

The tommy example is a good one, its like telling a delusional person that he's delusional. He wont buy it.
And since i have been a psychonaout for some years in my life, i know from personal experience that the world is your mind, nothing else. You create this every day. And therefore you can manipulate what you see. Hallucinations can be reality if you don't know that you have taken a mind altering substance.

[analogZero]

Sensory perception can be a cause of deceptive analysis when it comes to the 'real world'. For instance, the problem of being colour blind deprives you of a certain level of information about the world you see. In Tommy's case, it's easily said that he decided to reject one world in favour of another, ignoring reality in favour of one he produced, but it doesn't negate the other world. Imagination may be a grand source for original thought, but it has infinite potential. Now not all of us have inept, or dead senses, and certainly most people who've been in the middle of a hurricane can't tune it out. Sure it's easy to argue the potential's there, but to disregard something, to decide that it's not there because you'd prefer it weren't is ignorant, or because you're unaware is short sighted. That's not to sound offensive, more to literally say you're ignoring and/or disregarding what does or could exists. Being snobbish about what does and does not exist won't create or destroy that which is, regardless of whether or not you're aware of it. A thought is much like a carrot (feel free to substitute for your own favorite root vegetable here). If you were to plant carrots in a wild field, they would grow on their own and you likely wouldn't know they were there. However, if you were to pass by one and decide to pluck it out from the ground, you'd have a carrot, and you might even notice that there are other carrots growing nearby. thought is much the same, I'd say, in that it's there waiting for you to find it, you simply have to pluck it from the ground, so to speak.

[fejknick]

Off-course the world is still the real world even if i choose to deny it, I'm just saying that the "real" world might look different to different people. As you said, a color blind person wont see the world as i do. But he is still reading the same world like me, but without colors.

So it's just one world/universe then?
And our brain is the filter that renders the impulses to pictures for us?
Then by believing in Darwin when he said we come from monkeys is kinda stupid. How could our brain just be? I mean, that our mind is what it is, shows at-least me that somewhere along the line, evolution got Intelligent help, a push in the right direction.

[analogZero]

Well there is the manner in which we perceive, but their is also the manner which is. The world has intricacies far beyond what we'll understand in our lifetime and therefore it's impossible for us to see it for what it truly is. Much the same way that we only see what's available to the small gamut of light our eyes can accept, and the range of decibels our ears can acknowledge. We're limited in our intake of what the universe can offer. We're limited to the intake of what a person can communicate, being that our thoughts are limited to the ability of our language. We'll likely never know or understand most things as a whole as a result of our limitations, but we can interpret through our imagination and deductive reasoning. After all most of the universe's great mysteries have been uncovered this way.
Regardless, all this metaphysical droning is taking us off topic a little. proceed, good people.