The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[TheFoo]

Says who? It means suspending, not surrendering. You don’t succumb to those with whom you empathize. You suspend one perspective for another, in an effort to understand, if not change.

To gain understanding without changing is empathy without consequence (“I understand why you don’t want me to eat your baby, but I’m going to eat him anyway”). To the extent you define empathy in such a milquetoast way, it is a useless concept.

 

[9thsymph]

To gain understanding without changing is empathy without consequence (“I understand why you don’t want me to eat your baby, but I’m going to eat him anyway”). To the extent you define empathy in such a milquetoast way, it is a useless concept.

A change with consequence can occur without altering one’s previously held practices, insofar as the change through understanding can curtail a desire to fashion novel punitive acts (or any sort) that may have transpired in the absence of the understanding (empathy).

Also, your baby quote is only empathetic from one perspective. The opposing perspective might be transformative in understanding that scenario

 

[LA Guy]

Then what are disagreeing with me about? I have been arguing and have always argued that it is more fruitful to discuss style as if their are paradigms, perspectives, ideas, etc., that can improve our own point of view.

Um, I didn’t disagree with you. I simply said that there was a false dichotomy in your discussion with @UnFacconable . Somehow you managed to find fault with that. I dunno bro.

 

[Loathing]

Subjectivity of a value, by definition, requires that such value be solely determinable by each individual relative to his unique preferences and needs. There is no way to fruitful way for two different individuals to discuss differing subjective values since neither has a rationale for their values that can compel anyone but themselces.

You are conflating subjectivity with solipsism here. You can have multiple people with subjective preferences that overlap, and you can discuss those overlaps and try to understand each other’s internal logic — what is usually referred to as intersubjectivity. Humans can still interact and relate to each on topics without an objective answer, like the discussion we are having right now.

 

[TheFoo]

You are conflating subjectivity with solipsism here. You can have multiple people with subjective preferences that overlap, and you can discuss those overlaps and try to understand each other’s internal logic — what is usually referred to as intersubjectivity. Humans can still interact and relate to each on topics without an objective answer, like the discussion we are having right now.

On what grounds can one relate to another without admitting some degree of objectivity, even if that objectivity is limited to only the privilege of consensus or mutuality?

 

[TheFoo]

Um, I didn’t disagree with you. I simply said that there was a false dichotomy in your discussion with @UnFacconable . Somehow you managed to find fault with that. I dunno bro.

That’s why I asked—still not clear to me what you’re referring to as a false dichotomy.

 

[9thsymph]

On what grounds can one relate to another without admitting some degree of objectivity, even if that objectivity is limited to only the privilege of consensus or mutuality?

Husserl and Merleau-Ponty have entered the chat...

 

[am55]

Um, I didn’t disagree with you. I simply said that there was a false dichotomy in your discussion with @UnFacconable . Somehow you managed to find fault with that. I dunno bro.

That is the fault of aforementioned solipsistic nature of the internet. It can make sense to imagine Foo as imagining the people he interacts with as thinking like him. He is, in effect, arguing with people within himself, projecting himself onto them - as we all are to some extent.

 

[TheFoo]

A change with consequence can occur without altering one’s previously held practices, insofar as the change through understanding can curtail a desire to fashion novel punitive acts (or any sort) that may have transpired in the absence of the understanding (empathy).

Discontinuing activity of some sort is a form of change. I don’t see the importance of the distinction you’re trying to make.

Also, your baby quote is only empathetic from one perspective. The opposing perspective might be transformative in understanding that scenario

Yes, and to the universe outside of the baby eater, his empathy is inconsequential insofar as he continues eating babies.

 

[TheFoo]

That is the fault of aforementioned solipsistic nature of the internet. It can make sense to imagine Foo as imagining the people he interacts with as thinking like him. He is, in effect, arguing with people within himself, projecting himself onto them - as we all are to some extent.

Uhh ... possible, but more likely that someone was misunderstood and/or that I am now arguing with four or five people simultaneously.

 

[double00]

happy friday everybodd this threak rocks

 

[ronscuba]

happy friday everybodd this threak rocks

Yes, a happy Friday indeed !

 

[9thsymph]

Discontinuing activity of some sort is a form of change. I don’t see the importance of the distinction you’re trying to make.



Yes, and to the universe outside of the baby eater, his empathy is inconsequential insofar as he continues eating babies.

You‘re sooo close to getting this. Now instead of considering the empathy _of_ the baby eater, you consider empathy _for_ the baby eater? These two perspectives can result in vastly different conclusions as to the rightness, or wrongness of baby eating (haha...this phenomenon being quite ubiquitous in many species...).

You often pose a seemingly exhaustive list of inquires from _one_ perspective, but mistake the number of inquiries for the number of perspectives relative to the inquiries. In other words, you argue for an array of possibilities that are already enveloped in the perspective you aim to prescribe. Meaningful discourse, in this case, is an illusion. You say “discourse” but practice “rhetoric”

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

How about a food analogy ? French food has all kinds of flavors and seasonings. I also enjoy a nice expensive steak. Not complex in it's preparation or seasoning, but just as enjoyable. I am not a chef and cannot identify all the different ingredients or how it was prepared. All I know is if I like how it tastes.

I just had a very nice New York strip steak. It hit the spot. All steak is good and I will not judge your preference. Unless your favorite is filet mignon, in which case I will side-eye you and chuckle softly under my breath.

 

[Keith T]

This is a watch. That I wear. Sometimes.