What Causes a TV Show?


Well-Known Member
Reaction score
What Causes a TV Show?

Causality is a concept argued over by many very important philosophers.

Cause is a determining factor in a situation. A prototypical causation is when a force is applied to something thereby moving it. Causes are temporally prior. Causes are sources of events. Cause is the agent of event. We conceptualize causes in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Motion in space is fundamental to all creatures and this is our source of much of our experiential knowledge. Cause is force and causation is forced movement.

A critically self-conscious individual has a very different attitude toward the world and the self than does the non-critical thinking individual.

In our everyday experiences we encounter numerous ideas regarding causation.
Domino: Start a proper first change and like dominos others will follow.
Thresholds: A barrier must be overcome. Once that initial hurdle is carried then change will occur.
Plate tectonic: The change takes much time because of the vast inertia that must be overcome.
Path: The path taken determines the events caused. Some might argue that Iraq has been “set on the path’ to democracy. Being on the path means that eventually the goal will be reached.

These are causal models with a different logic for each. “In domino logic, but not in causal path logic, the change is stopped by the application of force. In domino logic, a change is to be prevented. In plate tectonic logic, a change is to be effected. In domino logic, just enough force is necessary to keep the domino from falling. In causal-path logic, just a little push now and then is necessary. But, in plate tectonic logic, a huge amount of force is necessary over a long time.”

There are philosophical widespread views.

Causes are: material substance—forms—purposes—applications of force—necessary conditions—temporally prior to effects—laws of nature—uniformities of nature—correlations (constant conjunctions).

“At the heart of causation is its most fundamental case: the manipulation of objects by force…It is conscious volitional human agency via direct physical force that is at the center of our concept of causation.”

Our fundamental understandings of events are in terms of locations and in terms of objects. Fundamentally we “conceptualize events and all aspects of them—actions, causes, changes, states, purposes, and so forth—in terms of our extensive experience with, and knowledge about, motion in space.”

Location: Causation Is the Forced Movement of an Entity (The Affected Entity) To a New Location (The Effect)

Figure = Affected Entity
Ground = Effect
Example: “The homerun sent the crowd (Figure) into a frenzy (Ground).”

Object: Causation Is The Transfer Of A Possible Object (The Effect) To Or From An Entity (The Affected Entity).

Figure = Effect
Ground = Affected Entity
Example: “The loud music gave a headache (Figure) to each of the guests (Ground).”

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

Question for your judgment

From the position of the advertiser what is the purpose of a TV show?—Sell merchandise to audience.
From the position of the entertainment producer what is the purpose of the TV show?—Sell entertainment package to advertiser.
From the position of the audience what is the purpose of the TV show?—Entertainment

Which entity do you think caused the TV show, the Advertiser, Entertainment Producer, or Audience?
Here we can better see the complexity of just determining the cause effect relationship. I think that this fact can help us to comprehend the nature of multi-logical problem solving.

I think that our first step is for a significant percentage of our population to become sufficiently intellectually sophisticated as to make many citizens capable of engaging in dialogical reasoning. To do this I think that many citizens must become self-actualizing self-learners when their school daze are over.

Under our normal cultural situation communication means to discourse, to exchange opinions with one another. It seems to me that there are opinions, considered opinions, and judgments. Opinions are a dime-a-dozen. Considered opinions, however, are opinions that have received a considerable degree of thought but have not received special study. A considered opinion starts out perhaps as tacit knowledge but receives sufficient intellectual attention to have become consciously organized in some fashion. Judgments are made within a process of study.

In dialogue, person ‘A’ may state a thesis and in return person ‘B’ does not respond with exactly the same meaning as does ‘A’. The meanings are generally similar but not identical; thus ‘A’ listening to ‘B’ perceives a disconnect between what she said and what ‘B’ replies. ‘A’ then has the opportunity to respond with this disconnect in mind, thereby creating a response that takes these matters into consideration; ‘A’ performs an operation known as a dialectic (a juxtaposition of opposed or contradictory ideas). And so the dialogical process proceeds.

A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.
Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

With all due respect coberst, dialogue requires two way interaction...communication. Since your arrival after starting quite a few threads I have seen almost no dialogue or communication on your part. So your comment here just rings a bit hollow to me.

I can't speak for others of course...but the resounding silence seems to me quite telling.

If dialogue is indeed one of your intents and goals for others, it might help your cause to actually engage in it yourself, *with* others rather than *at* others. ;)

Personally I see nothing particularly wrong with what you are doing, other than in terms of communication and dialogue your posts are extremely ineffectual...precisely because you do *not* dialogue. Which is why your comment here struck me such that I felt the need to respond.

Did a little adding:

You have started 37 threads that I found on the philosophy board, which seems to be the haunt of choice for you, and that's certainly OK. Out of those 37 threads, I counted 10 that have no responses. Now, anybody can lay an egg around here, I've laid my share. Still, that is more than a quarter of *threads* that people do not feel invited to respond to.

Of the remaining threads, another 11 have 3 or fewer responses, for a total of 21 out of 37. Now again, anybody can have an off day, but with such numbers I can't help but feel it is the style of presentation that is off-putting.

Indeed, in one of the remaining threads (an early one) that did elicit 23 responses, you only posted one follow up response, a mere one sentence, and failed to respond to the remaining points that 22 other posts made.

How is that to seem inviting dialogue, if one seems to be creating threads as some headmeister guru and expecting everyone else to do the heavy lifting for them?

I hope I am making my point. I certainly don't wish in any way to seem antagonistic, but I certainly see great irony in preaching dialogue while practicing soapbox standing.

For what its worth...
Last edited: