Autistic Philosophy

Post Reply New Topic

Lol, that is why I said to look at the etiology of the word. All philosophy is autistic, in the sense that it is the worldview of one person, who believes that it is the correct system of viewing reality. Your philosophy is not autistic, in the sense of autistic as used in correlation with autism. A truly autistic philosophy, would be mired in the stage of simplexity.
Do you see the difference?

Your missing my point. Im just interested in how people on the Autistic spectrum view the world.

How many damn times do I have to repeat this. I am not looking to try and caterise some thing for the sake of it. I REALLY don't see the point. I don't care wheither other non autistic people can have pholosofys that are autistic. Im not interested in them. It IS autistic pholosophy because it is coming from some one who is on the autistic spectrum and that makes it 'autistic pholosophy' in the sense i am trying to get accross. You keep focusing on wheither its autistic pholosphy or not which is not ever the friggin point of this thread. No one else so far has presented a differen't view on things execpt for this argument on wheither I have the write title for this thread or not. Which I do think this is the write title. And the fact also remains that most NTs are not pholosphers when alot of aspergers want to try understand there world around them so in that way they are.

Stop friggin focusing on the title of the post.

I do not think of Aspergers as a limitation. Alot of others seem to. I think it is a differen't way of thinking and that is merly what I am getting across I have made conclusions based on what I have read and how I my self feel and have come to the conclusion that NTs are not as interested in trying understand things other than people as aspergers are. Which is I think what the main difference is considered to be.

That's a bad assumption to make. Assuming that others are more likely to view the world the same as you, because its how YOU view the world, is what makes it autistic. Not the philosophy itself. Other philosophies are autistic, because they think others SHOULD view the world the same as they do. An autistic philosophy, would reflect that. An autistic philosophy, would be mired in simplexity, that your interpretation or perception of the world, is what everyone sees. Even, the only thing that can possibly be seen.


The tree example was in answer to your "with out life there is no universe" comment. You identify life with reality being observed and perceived by people, yes? Yet the tree still falls, and the sound is still generated, even though noone is around to see it happen. I take it, then, that you are a believer in creationism? Otherwise, from your philosophy, the universe wouldn't exist before we had evolved, no?


No, it is not right. Neither is it what I said. You would do well to note that I said all people view the world through the lens of themselves. Each lens is different, no lens is colored or flawed in exactly the same way. What I said, is that lenses can be similar. There are millions of catholics in the world. They view reality through a lens heavily colored by their belief. They may see chance as providence, or divine intervention. That is why religion works, because their lens is colored, in part, the same way.
Society is the same. Think of how society is structured. We all vote for a president or prime minister. They are elected according to how the majority view things. How they view the candidate, their policies, current world events, and even ethnicity. This view is colored by the experiences of their life, their beliefs, and many other 'eyelids of the mind'. People believe in the system (society), to function and to work, so it does. Think back on when societies have failed. Why did they fail? When people lose belief in the system essential to their lens, they are wont to believe anything.


Personally, I think you're wrong about what philosophy is. Philosophy is an attempt at seeing the world closer to what it is, without the lens. We can't hope to see every aspect of the world clearly, which is why we generalize the philosophies. At the end of it, if you studied the apple your whole life, what would you be able to see? The mechanics of the apple. What point, to what purpose, if you can't see anything else, just as it is. Its the LENS itself you need to clear, not look through the same lens but with a microscope. Things are more than the sum of their parts. Philosophy is about seeing the greater, interlocking truth, not the truth in part. Assuming what you see was correct, if you saw a written equation, ie 5 + 3 = , you would say the answer was 8. But if there was a missing addition in the equation, you would be wrong. If you saw the equation, 5 = 8, you might realize there was an addition missing.

Danlo

Oh ho, so its so: your glavering is blinding you to a simple and obvious fact. My posts ARE my philosophy, every word I have written. It is my philosophy on the subject of autism, on the subject of language, on the subject of existence and reality. I was using the title of your post as an example, a starting point for my philosophies. I merely took the word autistic, and plied it towards showing how all views are autistic, and viewed through the looking glass, as it were. I then expanded that to more scenarios, to help you understand what I was saying. That you cannot help but view it as an attack, is another shortcoming of an autistic lens.


Perhaps with a better understanding of grammar, you would realize that it is not the right title for the post. You're looking for: Autistics' Philosophies. I'll let you figure out why.

Danlo

Apologies if my misunderstandings have caused any problem. Until I reach some transcedent metastate, I'm lumbered with me. If my perceptions and experience are different then my need is for a philosophy that accomodates that. A philosophy must relate things in not only human terms but recognize where I am in there also ( the humanist keeps coming out: Man is the measure). If I give someone directions then the other person is taken into account with things like mode of transport, I don't give a uniform set of directions irrespective. In my undrstanding a philosophy is initially a tool for understanding/explaining and therefore must take my neurology into account in order. Keep going you make more sense than me.

I keep encountering these two paradoxical accounts of autism.
In my experience, autism allows one more objectivity in viewing the various lenses that we percieve the world through. I believe that this is why we are more likely to enjoy philosophy.
On the other hand people repeatedly argue that autism does just the opposite. That it in fact causes one's view to be narrow and egocentric.

I believe that society functions on a foundation of shared assumptions.
People compare their mental models of the world, and those in the minority adjust to fit the "norm" Any failure to do so, on the part of an individual, is labeled as "egocentric". This kind of behavior is frowned upon, for the simple reason that if everyone did it, there would not be any concensus. But we know from history, that the majority is not always correct. And in hindsight, those who presented a novel interpretation of the world are often given the mostmordem label, "genius"

It is perplexing, but both views seem to be two sides of the same coin.
The inability to match models with peers creates the impression of narrow egocentrism. On the other hand this very same characteristic, allows for an escape from dangers such as tribalism, nationalism, or any other type of dogma.

I really hate to say it but Autistics' Philosophies would of been alot better title for my thread. It mite of been able to prevent what happened in this. I just gave the first example of a pholosphy that came into my head as an example for this thread and then hoped that others would then present there pholosophy.

I did not intend the focus to be on my pholosophy that I presented. If I had I would of thought more about the subject first. I could not understand why every one was getting confused over what my point was to posting the thread.

About viewing the world alot of what I said was more to do with how it effects us rather than wheither something still exists. Of course the branch still exists but does it effect our viewing len's if no one ever finds out about it?

My use of the word world was being used in a medophoric sense that I was thinking and it seems that this part is what did not seem clear. Also the fact that would not make it clear is that I was changing between the metaphoric meaning and the real meaning and I was not explaining when or even that this change was happening. I guess its what happens when people post unedited line of thought.

I felt I had to respond to the posts even though I really did not have the time at that stage as I was not at my own home at that time. I was playing Warcraft III in a local area network. I have more time to respond to things now after i have arrive back.

I have not managed to explain what I was meaning in the way I intended and it annoys me I didn't proof read any of my posts when I was either in a hurry to get back to gaming or too tired from gaming.

Oh ho, so its so: unity of apparent opposites; I would say that its both at the same time. Unlike a coin, one side isn't up while the other is down. They are both equally present at the same time. Egocentricity is more the inability to understand that others don't think the same as you. So we're prone to extending what our objectivity tell us, and assume everyone is like that. Take Mind's comment for example, and break it down:


His intellectual view was objective; his philosophy was that everyone views the world differently. Yet he was still a slave to egocentricity, and assumed all autistics would view the world like that. The exact opposite of his philosophy. I would also wager, he saw this comment as objective. This is the problem of viewing things through a lens. What one sees as objective, is not necessarily so.


I agree, that society functions on a foundation of shared assumptions. But I have to disagree that egocentricity is a clash of mental models. A clash of mental models is not egocentricity. You could believe in god, I could be an atheist. Even though you're in the majority, that doesn't make me egocentric, does it? Egocentricity comes into effect, when the person fails to regulate the assumption that others see everything according to their mental model. If I thought everyone was an atheist, that would make me egocentric.


You don't intend, but it happens nonetheless, no matter what the title or purpose of the thread. You start talking philosophy, it begins arguments between different philosophies. Its only natural that people would present their own philosophies that address the same points you address, if you're asking people what their philosophies are. You can't expect people to just begin listing philosophies that are unrelated to each other. Our minds work by connections.
I take your philosophy, and then tell you how my philosophy differs from yours. The focus is not your philosophy. The focus is still to let you know about my own philosophy. Do you see?

This is difficult to explain. I have discussed this with others on here before. But I totally agree with what you have said here.
Firstly let me tell you what definition I am considering when I hear someone say that autistics tend to be egocentric.

e·go·cen·tric
1. Holding the view that the ego is the center, object, and norm of all experience.
2.
1. Confined in attitude or interest to one's own needs or affairs.
2. Caring only about oneself; selfish.

I find the first one inconsequential. It is the second two that seem to be of concern to society.
Now what I am saying is that through the lens of society, autistic people or anyone who "marches to their own drummer" might seem egocentric. This assumption is based solely on a lack of conformity. I think this is flawed reasoning however. Because it does not consider all the possibilities that are outside of both social conformity and simple selfishness.

I don't know if that will make sense. But ultimately what I am saying is that I don't consider egocentricism as a defining characteristic of autism. I think is is purely a misconception.

Ahha, we come to the crux of misunderstanding. Does it make more sense, if instead of using egocentric, we dispense with the word altogether and say theory of mind? Take a look at the meaning of the word 'egocentricity'. When I say egocentric, I mean: having egocentricity.
To save you the bother:



Everyone has a measure of egocentricity. Its not limited to only autistics, and is also apparent in NT's, child and adult. But we, more often as not, experience these extreme forms of egocentricity. I know I did, still do, even. When the crystal clarity of intelligent analysis is not employed, aka when I am not posting, I display all of the aforementioned extreme forms of egocentricity. Even when posting, I am victim to being concerned with the appearance of truth, fairness, and fair mindedness, and with being right in everything I say. None of you seem to have any understanding of the subject at all, because all your posts are construed as wrong. Eventually, it gets to the point where I degenerate into personal attacks, and disregard anything you say.
THIS is the egocentricity that autistics have, the egocentricity that is being talked about. Do you see?

Yip. I still hate the word though, its been polluted by those using it to imply vanity and all sorts of other things. My egocentricity is due to lack of ToM and causes me to have to work much harder at many things than most.

I have noticed the fact that you seemed to view 'everything' we say as wrong. This was clear with some points because you decided to take you own meanings from parts of what people wrote which were never the meaning that was intended. Most of the posts I have seen from you so far have been almost the same pholosophy as the one I first posted with some differences and some things you are thinking are differen't. I am guessing danlo you are insisting on the fact your pholsophy is so vastly differen't from ours because you are tided down with the same type of brain wiring of others of us that post on the forum. The part that says 'I am right, ONLY I am right' Well I think I picked the wrong choice of words for that sentence but I hope you are not going to be picky again and pull that sentence appart because you say you don't know what I mean and that I don't view things through your lens so I couldn't possibly be right. Which will be an example of exactly what I am talking about how you(danlo) seem to be reacting

Another thing to realise is even if you point is completely valid you are missing the point that from our differen't viewing lens our point could be completely vaild to. The universe is nothing like this black and white right or wrong picture that seems to be the thing we are looking for.

I still do think that every live is infinately important. Because each life is like a unique world of consesness that will never be repeated. Not matter what happens in the univese I will never be alive again once I pass away and my bones turn to dust. There will never be another me. Because If there was another me It would still have to be me or else it would just be a copy of me. And a copy of me would never be looking through the same eyes as me.

The fact that when we pass away the world we know doesn't exist to us any more because we do not exist any more. Unless your one of these people that hope/believe theres a after life.

You just reminded me of a student film I saw a while back. It was a little strange, but the basic point was that each of us creates a universe through our power of imagination. So the idea is that maybe we are part of some being's imaginary universe. And then we come along and we imagine our own universe etc etc. And they just sort of multiply and expand.

I have always been intrigued by the idea that the universe is only something in my mind. Or rather that the only universe that my conciousness has direct contact with is one that it has fabricated from various sources of information.

Jee, you noticed? I guess my pointing it out was redundant. I don't derive meanings from thin air, that aren't apparent in the text of your writing. I can't read your mind, I can't read what you INTEND. I read what you write, according to the meanings of the individual words, grammar, and various other technicalities.


Lmao! Oh my, that strikes me as very funny; amateur psychology at its best. Whereever did I insist that my philosophy was so vastly different? Indeed, I argued that it is the same, a moot point as most regard it as true! The exact opposite of what you 'guess'. You figure I think that 'I am right, ONLY I am right'? Please, stop taking what I said and pretending it is an insight you have made. Now, I'm not going to say what you thought I would say; you are exactly right in that I think I am right, because I told you that!


Oh, I realize that your point can be completely valid to you. But that doesn't make it closer to reality. The world viewed by a schizophrenic or a madman can be completely valid to him, but I would hardly think that view is even close to reality. I'm not missing the point. Where have I told you that your view of the world is wrong? Indeed, my philosophy says that yours is as valid as mine, and I have not acted in contradiction to it once. I have merely been telling you where my view disagrees with yours.

So everything is subjective right ?
I came to this conclusion many years ago, and I confess that now it seems a bit sophomoric at best. At its worst it becomes some sort of lame cop out.

I find it difficult to describe my thought processes after this realization, but they began something like this.
If I state that "all philosophical views are subjective."
Then is that also a subjective view or am I beginning to venture into territory that is truly objective ?

I am unable to sustain argurments with people over the internet. I can't get my mind in the picture about what they are meaning enough because the people are not phisically there. I know the argurment you are putting accross may make sense to you but you are grossly missunderstanding what I am trying to say at every single chance possible.

You are not respecting my ideas at all even though to you it will appear that you are. You think that you can logically explain every thing there for your interpretaintion is right. And don't get at me for pointing the ovious because oviously you don't completely understand that my ideas are right too. And in alot of ways don't conflict with yours.

But I seem to be unable to put my ideas down with out being insulted and told i am wrong and how you laugh at my interpretation of things. You respond to people challenging your ideas with an arguement. And I respond to it with anger in alot of situations. And I get to pissed off with you consitintly misunderstanding me and insisting that you arn't.

Honestly I feel like wraping a bat round your head but you sound to damn like me and its really starting to scare me. How many times have I taken an interpritaition of what people are saying or doing literily and been offended and felt the need to explain my side of the story. I start to think maybe those people didn't really mean what I thought they meant.

As you think I was talking about the real world as how it is. I will have yet another attempt at trying to explain what I meant but I don't think its going to make any difference because you have your mind made up already and I am already aware that it doesn't matter what I say you are going to pull this post appart and start attacking some little thing in it taking it the way your idea of what I am saying is. And how you are already at the point where you are not listening you are just looking for some way to get me back.

I was trying to describe about the importance of how the brain views the world and how there is so many differen't ways to view the world and how humans as a whole are blind to most of the ways. Humans are blind to most of the possiblitys that exist. My point to bring up this arguement and comparing how people view the world to real worlds was to try and show how the differences between aspergers and NTs can cause alot of problems of understanding. Because of the fact that Asperger Lens for viewing the world are very differen't to NT lens for viewing the world.

Hopefully that is a clearer explination of this idea and why I brought it up. I am considering wheither this thread could be successful if i tryed again later. But I think I am going to have to wait a while for the fog to clear from your lens about the ideas I am trying get accross. You have no idea how frustrated I am that I am unable to communicate my ideas and my attempts to communicate them accross are picking at things that were never intended.

I am guessing you are going to post another personal attack now. And if you do screw you. Theres no point in contiuing to argue with you just because you have some distorted view in you head and you are preservering with it.

DAMN Im so frustrated with how this thread has gone.