|
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
|
On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
|
On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"?
whoa whoa whoa there trigger.
see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting.
in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
|
On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me!
see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar.
that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
|
On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me! see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar. that's an unfair linguistic stereotype.
I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
|
On May 06 2010 23:26 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"? whoa whoa whoa there trigger. see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting. in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
I find this interesting. As Such:
Is it not a bit of an assumption to say that a monkey flinging shit isn't referring to something?
Isn't language as it is ad hoc still in reference to something? albiet indirectly?
Somewhat like saying that it's not possible to be objective, but an objective truth exists, it's just not possible to know, perceive, or understand it.
I agree w/ what your saying definitely, but this subject is largely foreign to me 
edit: it almost feels like your saying that it isn't possible to -truly- refer to anything. Would this be the case?
|
On May 06 2010 23:32 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me! see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar. that's an unfair linguistic stereotype. I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends?
hahahaha, yeah dawg stop by for drinks anytime.
|
On May 06 2010 23:26 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:16 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. I'm wondering, if all words "do not truly refer to anything," then what is being referred to? (what do you mean by the word "refer"?) It seems inescapable that in some sense, this is in reference to some case that is true of reality, but that seems self-contradictory, does it not? How are we able to talk about things which hold true in reality, while not actually talking about them? Although I suppose this would constitute a denial of the correspondence theory of truth? Are you familiar with the distinction between "words" and "terms"? whoa whoa whoa there trigger. see the case is that speech is just a physiological phenomenon among many. we recruit various words and intonations and shit to try to communicate something to someone else at a specific point in time. it's much closer to a monkey flinging shit than most people would feel comfortable admitting. in saying words to not refer to anything. i am referring to the fact that words are only different from some howler monkey's cacaphonization by degree and not by nature. like i said language is intractably ad hoc. but i am not truly referring to anything. just trying like some neanderthal to reproduce what i think i saw on the walls of this here cave.
If questions get you this excited, just imagine if I had made assertions
Are you saying that words "do not refer to anything" or that words "do not truly refer to anything"? There is that one word - "truly" - that is missing, I'm wondering if that's significant. You see, if words "do not refer to anything," then they really do not and our discussion seems rather absurd (actually I think this would be a self-defeating position). If words do not truly refer to anything, then I can see how this means that words refer to things in reality as we perceive them, but not as they actually are. Conversation is still possible, though again, verges on the absurd. If you are not truly referring to anything, then your position, that language doesn't truly refer to anything, is not actually true (or we could not know it to be true). I don't see how this is avoidable unless you have some sort of linguistic gymnastics up your sleeve, or I'm misunderstanding you.
I asked you about the difference between words and terms, because as I understand it, a "word" is an arbitrary set of intonations (among other things) which attempt to communicate something true about the world. A "term" is some thing that actually exists in reality. There might be 13 different words for "tree," but they all refer to the same term (i.e. trees). So language does, in fact, refer to things (truly refers to things).
So what exactly are you saying?
|
On May 06 2010 23:39 tinman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 23:32 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 23:27 tinman wrote:On May 06 2010 23:18 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 23:09 tinman wrote:
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers. Oh, tinni, my friend, had I just known earlier that you are a linguist, I would have immediately stopped arguing and instead just agreed with you about everything right from the get go. Since all language is adhoc, I would have just stated the opposite of everything to everybody else and you would have congratulated me on my profound understanding of the dialectics of language! I thus stand corrected and bow to the might of words, while laughing at their impotence. Let me depart by saying that I enjoyed this confusing trip through the dim forests of language and could not have wished for a better guide than you! Thank you!
Edit: Corrected grammar. If you find more mistakes Tinni, please keep them for me! see man that's the kind of shit that pisses me off. what in the fuck makes you think i give a fuck about grammar. that's an unfair linguistic stereotype. I am deeply sorry and apologize. :-( Can we still be friends? hahahaha, yeah dawg stop by for drinks anytime.
Aaaaawwwwwlright! Keep it up, bro' and peace out!
<pounds chest with fist twice, then gives peace sign>
|
dearest motiva,
i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.
dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
|
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote:
dearest motiva,
i am saying that people, by the strategical recruitment of words, attempt to refer to things. but there is no magical property of words that makes them different from any other attempt in the natural world to communicate something.
dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
Aightz Thanks, makes sense. yes yes
|
I have to say I'm rather skeptical about this critical thinking...
|
On May 06 2010 23:49 tinman wrote:
dearest gnossis,
all conversations are absurd. you are trying to create some contradiction in the position that "words don't refer to anything." of course there's a contradiction there. i'm using the phrase "words don't refer to anything" to try to refer to the phenomenon that words don't refer to anything. a general goes to war with the army he's got.
personally i'm alright with this contradiction being inherent. it folks like you (you gnostics you) who feel the need for conversations to be some means of approaching (divine) truth.
Gnosis* but that's okay And interestingly enough, a name I've only used here.
If you admit the contradiction, then simply, you aren't describing anything, so what are you talking about? Not even your contradiction exists, so the general may as well leave the battlefield. Thus I find it curious that you admit the contradiction at all. One other thing...
...From correspondence theory to divine truth, quite the jump you've made (I believe I only referred to the former). I'm a theist yes, a gnostic, no. I might have been, if I felt the need to insulate myself against all reason and critique. Or I might have simply chosen to believe in true contradictions
If the contradiction is inherent, then the system is destroyed, ifj hafw elfoid jvhoa wietl dotih eyad e
|
of course "the system" is destroyed. it's silly to think of language as a system anyway. old hat.
|
On May 07 2010 00:08 tinman wrote:
of course "the system" is destroyed. it's silly to think of language as a system anyway. old hat.
No, it can't be destroyed. It only functions (or operates) dissimilarly to how we would like or expect it to.
|
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.
|
On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote:
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish.
There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.
|
On May 06 2010 22:30 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote:
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion. Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality? In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion") If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....
“
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
”
I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society.
As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe.
However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites.
1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c
2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c
Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know.
However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?
|
On May 07 2010 00:14 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2010 00:13 tinman wrote:
well however you would like to put it. it's up to you man. you may fling poo in whatever direction and with however much velocity as you wish. There is still a reason behind the fling But it's okay, I see nothing more than sophism.
of course monkies fling shit for a reason. that doesn't make their shit-fling a "system" that "operates." people use language (like i have been saying) to describe. that's the reason. but language doesn't suddenly become a system with the property of accurately corresponding to reality via the wizardly intercession of words.
|
On May 07 2010 00:17 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 22:30 Motiva wrote:On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote:
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion. Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality? In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion") If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies.... “ Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance. ” I kinda threw "Objective Morality" out there, but essentially I meant that there is a standard of right and wrong, that is objectively true and that morality is not simply the arbitrary leanings of society. As far as I can tell Absurdism does not really solve the problem. I am assuming as you said that Absurdism is that it is not possible to know whether there is inherent meaning in our lives and the universe. However, I do not think Absurdism "solves" it as, it leaves itself with two possibilites. 1) There is inherent meaning in the universe, an objective form of morality e.t.c 2) There is no such inherent meaning, moral objectivity e.t.c Absurdism seems to sit between these two as the position is that either could correct we just cannot know. However it seems to be the case that one of the positions is true and one not, and so my question is IF 2) is the case, then is Nihilism the only logical conclusion? or is the only way you avoid Nihilism by resting on the possibility of 1)?
Well, If logic was the king and that's how human's acted, I personally, I would say probably so.
However, no human will ever possess the ability to be a true nihilist, or at the least you won't ever meet anyone that does. rofl Obviously any true nihilist would snap suicide.
Given the lack of an objective form of morality, or any attainable greater truth, or any meaning or value in life or the universe. There are a few solutions. I'm not totally sure a solution is necessary.
The first, would be Nihilism, which would be suicide.
The second would be Theism, which is too much like nihilism for me.
Or you can sit on the fence, and admit to yourself that you're a human being, you're a slave to subjectivity and life is your career. Life is in itself, and you'll most likely be dead soon anyway (soon relative to the universe at the least), might as well milk it's for what it's worth even if you can acknowledge the vanity.
I dunno, this is how i perceive these things, I'm certainly not an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
