If you knew how intelligent he is and how much like Foster your threads appear, you cannot possibly be that unaware. Just because someone creates silly humour does not mean they lack intelligence.

 

I'm a professional sucker ducker.

 

I really do not know what to say to that, because we each define ourselves and our own definition only has the limitations that we place upon ourselves.

 

someone please explain who foster is, i'm fairly new here

 

I was introduced to that usage by Filipinos

 

Yes, our OWN definition only has the limitation we place upon ourselves, but we do not really define ourselves alone.
These things often degenerate into a word game and this is a tricky one.
Because there are two definitions for "define":
1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.

With #1, to be as accurate as possible, we ought to include a phrase like: "...along with everything of which we are unaware."
With #2, debate can be has as to whether marking out the boundaries and limits actually MAKES a thing what it "is".
We can not do that, but nature (all of reality) does that.
When it comes to humans, what we ARE needs to be clarified, because what we are really talking about here is our human perceptions and imagination about who we are... and that is why what I wrote about above came to mind...
We ought to be wary of placing limits, because we are unaware of so much, and that includes human potentials.
We are particularly unaware of so much about the brain, and the brain we have has only existed in nature for a few million years.
Specifically the neo-cortex ... Perhaps it is not unique in nature ... we know of no other life forms beyond Earth.
But to us, it is new and unique. Maybe we have a fairly good understanding of it and consciousness is simply an emergent property and like so many other things we simply have not worked out the mechanisms yet. And it may be that we are unable to...
There is no rule in nature that things within it can map out the complexity of other things.
Nature itself has no "mind" or "plan" or any need to understand itself, and "goes on" to the limits of physics (what we know of and what we don't).

In the practical sense, (all relative judgments of course, but not ARBITRARY) what we WANT to do as much as possible, is to define ourselves. Of course we are firstly defined by our genetics and environment, but the more free the social environment (parents & culture) the more we can define ourselves.
The more we are aware of the limits to our understanding, the more caution we should use in placing limits on our potentials.

 

All that matters is your answer to the question.

That intellectual talk causes nosebleeds?

 

I don't know much about Foster myself.... so let me tell you all about him!
From what I gather, he engaged in provocative discussion, and perhaps not as circumspect as intelligent...
I suspect he was banned, but he may have left under his own power...

 

Without intellectualising the parameters, the most common meaning when anyone says "We define ourselves", simply means we have a choice to let other people label us as to who we are or we refuse to be labelled by anyone else.
It is simple logic not complicated. Each human being has their own set of unique DNA so therefore no two people are identical. Even naming twins that look alike as "identical twins" is inaccurate.

What people see, read or hear is only superficial. It does not mean the entire makeup of that person is composed of only that yet people define someone on that limitation and it is very limited.
So yes, we define ourselves by our own life choices and path we choose and how we label ourselves, not somebody else.
It's not complicated.

 

Well I don't know the exact origin or meaning, and I am sure many Filipinos do not either, as it seems to be used in slightly differet ways, but yes, it would be a response to intellectual talk.
When I first heard it I thought of "nosebleed seats" and high altitude causing nosebleeds, along with "highfalutin" (although it seemed to me that term wouldn't be known by the average Filipino).
It seems to also be used implying a brain hemorrhage, ostensibly from having to think too hard or getting to much into the brain at once.
"Too high up for me" was a quick meaning I got from my friend when I asked, and forgot to go into it more at the time.

 

I still think it is complicated, even when talking just about one area of life.
First, other people will label us whether we like it or not and there is no way we can stop them.
We can not "refuse" something that occurs in other people's minds.
Many music artists "refuse" to be labelled ... but we know what happens.
We can have influence in how we project our image...and even project a false image...

To say that we define who we "are" by our choices and how we label ourselves...
1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.

For both definitions it is true that our choices and how we label ourselves are INFLUENCES,
but do not state or describe the exactly our nature, scope or meaning, boundaries or limits.

If we just go with the most lenient thing, "meaning", we still do not define our meaning by ourselves,
except theoretically TO and FOR ourselves..if we really believe and are totally controlled by our process of defining.
If we really believe consciously and unconsciously our intellectual construction of who we are, and our limbic and reptilian systems act accordingly, then we have defined who we are, at least to ourselves.
If we live a solitary life, all of what we are (in this sense) is what we are to ourselves.

But to all other people we "are" what we are to them.
As social animals, most of us are defined by society and by other individuals.
The idea of the individual is not new, but the current ideas of what it means to be an individual is new.
Even using the most lenient and flexible phrase "meaning of" out of the definitions won't work, except internally and only in theory.

So, are we defined by one person, or all the other people ?
Some make the argument that "identity" is a "negotiation" between the individual and society.
That seems appropriate, but rather bland. I see it as a matrix.. a convenient way of implying it's complexity and the fact that so much of it happens outside anyone's conscious "negotiation.
In some ways we owe all we are to others, so it is a cooperative thing, and in other ways it is a fight to the death, and sometimes literally.
In the larger and long-term sense, the "negotiation" is between the individual and the rest of nature, and while the individual physically dies, their influence ... their "meaning" ...their "definition"... survives, both genetically and culturally (so long as the culture can pass it along). Long live Jimi H., James D., Norma Jean, Albert E.and River P., Selina ...the list goes on, unfortunately including Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol P., etc...
Some live on because they were more defined by others <-[EDIT: INCORRECT: The thing to stress is that they FIRST defined themselves in certain ways that caused them to be further defined by others in certain ways] and in positive ways, and some who imposed their own definition upon others... Well for better and worse, still a negotiation in low resolution and a matrix under the microscope.

And more thoughts on "defining"...

Spoiler

There is a problem of what it means to "define", and its relation to "identity" and I may sneer and call it a "word game", but it is THE WORD GAME we all play at various level and to varying degree, and are all subject to, both from society and within our own minds. It is important to be clear about what we mean .. to define the words that make up our thoughts.
It seems to be those words, with all their implications, that actually ENABLE us to think the way we modern humans do.
So if we are unclear about meanings there will be more incoherence in the ideas they make up.
Sometimes it is just a problem of finding the right words / usage, but other times the problem is in the idea itself.
Most ideas and words have been argued and defined pretty well, and those that are still a real problem ... well, philosophers argue over those. I think in those cases the problems are clearly in the ideas ... we either don't have the knowledge to define, or perhaps for some... we MAY be trying to define what actually can't be defined due to a logical impossibility.
I am not clear about the different opinions on logic. Must everything be subject to logic (in theory, if applied perfectly), or if there is consensus among some at least that logic has limits due to it being a thought process, and therefore can have some inherent flaw or two even if applied perfectly.

Well, I hope you don't think I am dismissing the points you make and the attitude we OUGHT to have about it...
I think I promoted that aspect a lot in my previous reply, so this is my cautionary reply to myself as well

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2018

*nosebleed*

 

You are a really intelligent person and that is obvious, so without dumbing it down because I do not disagree with you, I think from many years of analysing, I have come to the conclusion that we tend to complicate a lot of things all by ourselves when we do not need to.

 

but he didnt compilicate things here...

guys...

the times were even the smartest person needed to repeat read a part of a book 10 times is not long ago...
btw
we are all dumber than generation before already...

 

Yes, when it comes to "What to do", all that is subsumed into how we feel...
and that feeling is largely a subconscious judgment .. a kind of wisdom our intellect can not directly access...

 

Oh I believe! I know our IQ scores keep rising, but the more I learn ... the more I believe we are getting dumber...
But i think the music got better up until i was 17 ..then began to decline...but that is a different matter

 

Just use an ice pack in a washcloth and tilt your head back.
It is working for me. But it is hard to type long rants in this position.

 

I feel it was wrong to reply in this thread so much without giving my own opinion on the question:
Can music corrupt your morals?
Yes it can, and it's a good thing it can.

 

Why is it a good thing? Are you not concernened about commercial propaganda making us unhappy...and being molested by corporations?

PS: Identity is a relation; you cannot give an ostensive definition of a relation (or concept)... *wipes nose*

"Whereof one cannot speak; thereof, one must remain silent." - Wittgenstein