1
   

“The Role of Categorization in Truth”

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 05:45 am
"The Role of Categorization in Truth"

We must categorize to live. We categorize that which is meaningful for us. We categorize things and actions; some categories emerge directly from experience. The categories emerging from experience are dependent upon the nature of our bodies and the environment in which we are placed. There are natural dimensions to our categories of objects: a perceptual dimension depends upon our senses, a movement dimension is dependent upon the motor characteristics of our hands and legs, and likewise there are functional and purposive dimensions.

Our categories for objects, events, activities, and all kinds of experiences are gestalts, i.e. a complex array combined together in some coherent fashion constituting a functional unit.

"A categorization is a natural way of identifying a kind of object or experience by highlighting certain properties, downplaying others, and hiding others." When we categorize an object we highlight some properties and push to the background certain other properties.

I've invited a sexy blond to the party.
I've invited a ballerina to the party.
I've invited a conservative to the party.
I've invited a lesbian to the part.

All of these properties are characteristics of the same person. I can highlight any one of these properties and can be talking about the same person. Every true statement I might make about this person leaves out something important about this person.

The natural dimensions of categories, i.e. the perceptual, functional, etc., are a function of how the world interacts with that person. Likewise we categorize in the same way. The properties that determine the ones we use to categorize are not necessarily the properties of the object but are the properties that interact with the world.

"It follows from this that true statements made in terms of human categories typically do not predicate properties of objects in themselves but rather interactional properties that make sense only relative to human functioning."

What this shows is that truth is dependent upon categorization in four ways: 1) the truth of a statement is relative to some comprehension of it; 2) comprehension always involves human categorization; 3) the truth of a statement is relative to the properties highlighted; and 4) categories are not fixed, they are defined by prototypes.

Light consists of particles. Light consists of waves. These are just two of a potpourri of celebrated examples to "show that sentences, in general are not true or false independent of human purposes."

How might a teacher categorize Italy to her class examining a globe looking for various countries?

Quotes from "Metaphors We Live By" Lakoff and Johnson
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 673 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 10:25 am
Quote:
We must categorize to live


No !

There is the observer domain, and there is the domain of the individual and these do not ontologically intersect even when the individual is itself an observer. Categorization lies in the domain of the observer and is an aspect of languing (i.e the act of using language). "Properties" also lie in that domain as expectancies of future interactions, not aspects of "things in themselves".

But from the point of view of the individual (organism) engaged in "the life process", there are no "experiences" other than "perturbations" to which "adaptations" are selectively made. There is merely distinction here , NOT "categorization". There are no "perceptions" or "sense data" and there are no "purposes"....such terms are confined the domain of the oberver.

Lakoff makes the mistake of confusing domains. "Life" is not confined to
to "categorizing" observers.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Feb, 2008 10:39 pm
sorry, but no. It is true that the intellect can only function by breaking down experience onto bits and comparing those bits to the framework that has been created by our experience. Deconstruct, categorize, compare. This is what those who follow the Christian myth would say is knowing with your head.

There is also another kind of knowing, knowing with your heart. This is based off of following and comparing patterns in our emotional history. We take our recent emotional history and compare it with what he have learned about our emotional patterns over our lives. It is knowing not by looking out and categorizing with our head, but rather looking inwards. Everything that is outside of us effects who we are inside if we are perceptive and connected to the outward. One can use their heart as their compass, for those there is very little reason to do much deconstructing and categorizing. All is revealed, it does not go through a process of determination.

You will find in all or almost all religions those who concentrate on the moralistic and legalistic aspects (those who are based in the head), but also the mystics (those who are based in the heart). The Mystics have been under attack for a very long time, first from the religious leaders who found them to be a threat, and then by the science myth which completely refuses to acknowledge heart or soul based intelligence. Most moderns are completely unaware of the ways of the mystics, of that part of human potential. This leads them to presume that the ways of the head, the only way they know about, is the only way. They are in error.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » “The Role of Categorization in Truth”
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 08:11:14