Conversation

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Suppose that all humans agreed about how to live life and what it all means.

Also suppose that because of this Harmony, There was no more anger and hate, and all the separation that is in the world.

Would Vocal conversation still be used by the human race?

Is conversing a selfish action? How come Most people need someone to talk too?

To me its seems that whenever I'm talking to someone close to me, about subjects of philosophy, we can never satisfy the gap between ourselves enough to change each others opinion. Also lately, I've been coming to the conclusion that conversations are looked upon with the highest respect of generating intelligent thought, that it might not actually deserve. When i say that I mean in the terms of using Conversation for progression of of understanding. It sounds crazy, but is it possible that the human language is just a primitive way of communicating with each other? Is it possible that its not what were discussing about that inhibits our knowledge, its the fact that we are using the wrong system for connection with one another?

just some thoughts, what do you guys think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,215 • Replies: 16

No top replies

@Joe,

Words such as equality can unite, whereas words like inequity divide.
Perhaps then the solution to a divided world is simply the greater use of equality.

=
MJA

1 Reply

@MJA,

I like the human language. It places a buffer in the front of thoughts. My thoughts are no where near as coherent has my speech. The act of speaking seems to organise my thougths.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity;31274 wrote:

The act of speaking seems to organise my thougths.

Interesting, I find the act of 'thinking' seems to organize my words.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Suppose that all humans agreed about how to live life and what it all means.

Also suppose that because of this Harmony, There was no more anger and hate, and all the separation that is in the world.

Would Vocal conversation still be used by the human race?

Is conversing a selfish action? How come Most people need someone to talk too?

To me its seems that whenever I'm talking to someone close to me, about subjects of philosophy, we can never satisfy the gap between ourselves enough to change each others opinion. Also lately, I've been coming to the conclusion that conversations are looked upon with the highest respect of generating intelligent thought, that it might not actually deserve. When i say that I mean in the terms of using Conversation for progression of of understanding. It sounds crazy, but is it possible that the human language is just a primitive way of communicating with each other? Is it possible that its not what were discussing about that inhibits our knowledge, its the fact that we are using the wrong system for connection with one another?

just some thoughts, what do you guys think?

I agree that there is a disconnect between our conscious thought and language that will never be overcome. I can't how many times I have read a statement or essay and been able to put a meaning to the sentence, but not to the proposition behind it; I can't figure out exactly what they are thinking. However, that doesn't mean that language cannot be effectual on the consciousness or cannot serve a purpose in the spread of ideas.

Chances are the inability to change opinions stems more from a problem with dogmatism and attachment than from the inadequacies of language.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Interesting, I find the act of 'thinking' seems to organize my words.

Yes. I find that far more often I am paring down my thoughts into near incoherency in order to pass them on. There is so much context needed to really understand a statement that just can't be feasibly passed on.

0 Replies

@Joe,

"Look! There is a snake! Watch out!"

"Let me show you how to make that shelf and attach it to the frame."

"Let's meet up at my place before we go out to the restaurant"
"Who will make the reservations?"

"I love you very much."

Even with complete human harmony, if such a thing is possible, we would still need speech. And even if everyone practiced the "peaceful arts" and the highest courtesy toward each other, that would not mean that everyone did so from the sames reasons or that everyone thought exactly the same way.

If even bees in a honeycomb need to communicate, how much more so humans.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Suppose that all humans agreed about how to live life and what it all means.

Yay! Welcome to Cleveland!

Joe wrote:

Would Vocal conversation still be used by the human race?

Sure, there are too many more reasons to communicate meaning other than the quest to get along.

Joe wrote:

Is conversing a selfish action? How come Most people need someone to talk too?

Well, the term "conversing" implies a two-way exchange. So I guess the answer would have to be 'no'. But "talking" could - generally speaking - be so described; or at least I should think that the case.

Joe wrote:

To me its seems that whenever I'm talking to someone close to me, about subjects of philosophy, we can never satisfy the gap between ourselves enough to change each others opinion.

Ahh... so we come to the gist of it. I've wrestled with this one from time to time over the years. The conclusion I've come to is that: You can't change anyone's mind on anything; whether or not anyone is influenced has to do with that person; intimately within their own mind. You can plant the seed of another perspective, or succeed at suggesting some other alternative, but changing the mind, on any subject, comes from within that person's mind only.

Most, in the hot-topics that we hit on often, just like to talk, preach or try to convince others. I think this is natural to a point (and I'm guilty of this as well). But even here (and I think our forums here are a good example of this) very few people appear really read and work to understand what someone's written; they skim, quickly, just itchin to write a retort. Ego perhaps? Arrogance?: Probably.

You have to *WORK* to understand what someone is saying. A favorite line I read a long time ago (in a military management book, ironically enough) was: Listen first to understand, not to refute.

... gotta love people.

Thanks!

0 Replies

@Joe,

nameless wrote:

Interesting, I find the act of 'thinking' seems to organize my words.

Me, too. I'm a conceptual thinker. I don't think in words, but in concepts, and then I have to translate when I speak or write. It means my communications are often less than desirable.

I've wondered if there is a way to communicate that would work better for me, but I haven't found it. It's not so much that we wouldn't use words, but that their structure would be different - just as mathematics or music uses a different language.

Joe wrote:

Is conversing a selfish action?

Why does philosophy obsess about selfishness? I find that interesting. People always seem to take these hard line positions that everything we do is selfish. If I do something, it's selfish. If I don't, it's selfish. It's like we're insecure little children embarassed by the mere presence of a priest. Anyway ...

Joe wrote:

To me its seems that whenever I'm talking to someone close to me, about subjects of philosophy, we can never satisfy the gap between ourselves enough to change each others opinion.

One of the biggest benefits I get from philosophical discussion is that people help me fill in the details. I miss many details because I'm always fixed on the high-level concept. So, my position may shift slightly, but it's unlikely it will change dramatically.

As much as people like to claim their position is determined intellectually, I've found that to be a rare thing. For most something else determines their beliefs, and they don't change until it becomes too painful to hold their current position. Once that pain causes them to go looking for something else, conversation can be persuasive. Until then, it does very little.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Kant acknowledges that reading Hume awoke him from his "dogmatic slumber" even though he did not accept Hume's conclusions. Quite often the exposure to a different perspective may not "convert" a reader, but may initiate (and often over time) a new train of thinking. One may not be convinced of an argument or position, but the realisation that a different one is possible, or even defending one's one position against it, my further clarify both the problem and one's own view.

Careful reading is just as important (especially given the nature of internet forums) as careful writing. And even though these may be goals, they seem to be very important goals for anyone who wishes to philosophise.

2 Replies

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Quite often the exposure to a different perspective may not "convert" a reader, but may initiate (and often over time) a new train of thinking. One may not be convinced of an argument or position, but the realisation that a different one is possible, or even defending one's one position against it, my further clarify both the problem and one's own view.

Very true.

Aside from conversation, I'm curious about other aspects of human relationships that may persuade people, i.e., what creates the crisis I spoke of earlier?

It is obvious to me that my parents set my early views. I shared both their religious faith and their political views. Later in life my political associations changed drastically, but I continue to share their faith. So why did one change and not the other?

My social class has changed, and that had an effect. It is easy to see the positives of the class to which you belong and the negatives of the class to which you do not belong. My wife had very different political views when we met, yet shared my faith. That had an effect.

Yet, more interesting, my father has also since changed his political associations even though his social class hasn't changed and he's still married to my mother. What happened?

My conclusion is that for both of us, moral issues have become more important than economic, social, environmental, and other political issues, and that is what has caused the change.

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner;31319 wrote:

Me, too. I'm a conceptual thinker. I don't think in words, but in concepts, and then I have to translate when I speak or write. It means my communications are often less than desirable.

I've wondered if there is a way to communicate that would work better for me, but I haven't found it. It's not so much that we wouldn't use words, but that their structure would be different - just as mathematics or music uses a different language.

Our general medieval language and conceptual structure is beginning to undergo great evolution. It will lead, a quantum leap, to a completely new 'world-view'. Language defines/describes our universe as perceived as 'filtered' through thought!
'Empathic' (telepathic) communication eliminates all possibility of miscommunication.
'Sender' and 'receiver' are One.

1 Reply

@nameless,

Well the reason i asked these questions has to do with family matters. Not going into specifics, Two people in my immediate family have given up on each other and it cause's ripples. One is willing to talk about whats going on between them and the other is totally withdrawn.

in the past I've been a believer that when conversation is no longer an option and you care enough about the other person, you should take uncommon approaches to fixing the situation. Doing things that you dint understand and maybe even dislike. This is of course the spot where the two individuals are stuck and I'm only a spectator.

Thanks for your input guys.

1 Reply

@Joe,

A couple of thoughts to consider:

I read somewhere (embarrassed to say where) that over time, we never truly change, we only become more fully what we always really were. Perhaps these changes are simply part of the growing/becoming process.

Political and Religious views seem to often correlate to stereotypical views. But I think this mold is being smashed; and what a good move it is! It represents a social freedom to be an "odd combination".

Folks who once stood together on issues and theological views, and who now don't (read: family) sounds like a perfectly-natural course in the evolution of said relationships. That one can accept another's change; and respect it, is of course a mark of respect.

People tend to hold their political and theological belief systems very tightly; clutched to their chest defending against the hordish onslaught! It can be unnerving to 1) Embrace someone not of your view, 2) Consider, really honestly consider another point of view. 3) Hold to the love and relationship of the person, while accepting that they no longer "think you're right" - always there is ego creeping in.

One of the biggest sources of resentment, in this area, seems to be "Identification". When I identify with you, I take you on as my own; as one "like me". If I find your views, lifestyle or theology to be opposed to mine, you'll see a rise in temper. It almost feels like a betrayal, insult or other slight on myself. Right or wrong, good or bad, I think we're all guilty of this (to some greater or lesser extent).

Hope this contributes and/or is received well.

Thanks

0 Replies

@jgweed,

I don't think it is the form of communication that is the problem, I think that no matter that method, the gaps between one persons mind and another are too big to bridge. That is unless brains became completely mappable and memories or thoughts could be shared between people via download type interaction. That may be possible in the future. For now, I think connections between people are a lot less than people think.

p.s. can someone tell me how to put a quote in gray like seems to be common

0 Replies

@Joe,

People seem to be detaching 'thought' from 'language' in this thread. I don't think you can do that. Just because you don't necessarily think with all the manmade language-symbols attached to your thoughts, doesn't mean you aren't thinking in language. Without language there is no thought. If you have a thought you can't fully articulate, it's simply because our symbols have not evolved sufficiently to represent that particular bit of language...

The way I see it, the death of communication means the death of the evolution of our understanding of language... and therefore the death of any hope we have of figuring this whole thing out.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Suppose that all humans agreed about how to live life and what it all means.

It sounds crazy, but is it possible that the human language is just a primitive way of communicating with each other? Is it possible that its not what were discussing about that inhibits our knowledge, its the fact that we are using the wrong system for connection with one another?

Language will always be needed, even if we agreed how to live life and what it means. As we will never be able to define many thing's in the way that we can define Odd number's and triangle's.

So even if we where to live by these decree's that we all agreed too there would be a natural ambiguity too them, which we could only address with the use of language and extensive definition.

Is the fuzzyness of our discourse an impediment too understanding one another? I would say that it isnt.

0 Replies

Conversation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know