10
   

Does "Nowhere" Exist?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 06:22 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

But as long as at least one thing exists, everything else has a place in relation to that object. As we can be sure one thing exists (thought), everything else has a place, even if it's just "Outside of our conscious." If nowhere exists somewhere, then it is not nowhere. If nowhere does not exist somewhere, nowhere does not exist.


1. If nowhere exists, then "nowhere" is the name of something.
2. But "nowhere" is not the same of something.
Therefore, 3. nowhere does not exist.
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 06:43 pm
@kennethamy,
Umm... Okay? I don't see how this conflicts with my answer, at all.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2010 07:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:



Just as I predicted, a flood of empty jargon.
What is a "form of logic"? Name one. What ACB wrote was right. What you wrote implied something that made no sense. And therefore, it made no sense. I would advise that you ought to think about it, but then what would be the point of such advice? As Kant famously said, "Ought implies can".


Correction, what I said makes no sense to you, not what i said makes no sense. For all the Wittgenstein and "philosophers of language" you vomit into the forum you have no idea how language is constructed, processed, or used. It must be nice to conveniently retreat into the " oh now s/he's using jargon to confuse us rhetoric every time you have no idea what you are doing. As I said I defined every linguistic term that was not taught of all of us by the 6th grade. There is no way to credibly accuse me of jargonism.


If what you wrote only did not make sense to me, but made sense, you would be able to translate it into ordinary plain English and drop the jargon. But apparently, the jargon is essential to what you say. That is, you cannot say what you mean in a way that is available to anyone who can speak English. No need for definitions. Especially since your definitions just be in terms of more impenetrable further jargon. What we need is for you to say it all in English and not your version of philosophese. Are you able to do that?



Billy nowhere
People search billy
people not find billy
nowhere places people search Billy
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 01:29 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:



Just as I predicted, a flood of empty jargon.
What is a "form of logic"? Name one. What ACB wrote was right. What you wrote implied something that made no sense. And therefore, it made no sense. I would advise that you ought to think about it, but then what would be the point of such advice? As Kant famously said, "Ought implies can".


Correction, what I said makes no sense to you, not what i said makes no sense. For all the Wittgenstein and "philosophers of language" you vomit into the forum you have no idea how language is constructed, processed, or used. It must be nice to conveniently retreat into the " oh now s/he's using jargon to confuse us rhetoric every time you have no idea what you are doing. As I said I defined every linguistic term that was not taught of all of us by the 6th grade. There is no way to credibly accuse me of jargonism.


If what you wrote only did not make sense to me, but made sense, you would be able to translate it into ordinary plain English and drop the jargon. But apparently, the jargon is essential to what you say. That is, you cannot say what you mean in a way that is available to anyone who can speak English. No need for definitions. Especially since your definitions just be in terms of more impenetrable further jargon. What we need is for you to say it all in English and not your version of philosophese. Are you able to do that?



Billy nowhere
People search billy
people not find billy
nowhere places people search Billy


If that is the best you can do, I suppose you can't.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:14 am
I'm wondering what this thread is about.
My dictionary tells me that nowhere is an ADVERB. An ADVERB is not a person place or thing, a NOUN is a person place or thing, an ADVERB is a word used to modify a verb. Nowhere exists, of course, as an ADVERB and only as an ADVERB. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 02:39 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

I'm wondering what this thread is about.
My dictionary tells me that nowhere is an ADVERB. An ADVERB is not a person place or thing, a NOUN is a person place or thing, an ADVERB is a word used to modify a verb. Nowhere exists, of course, as an ADVERB and only as an ADVERB. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty.


To say that the adverb "nowhere" exists is to talk about the word, "nowhere" and, of course, the word "nowhere" exists. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether nowhere exists. Just as no one disputes whether the word "unicorn" exists. The question is whether unicorns exist.

It may be that when you say that nowhere exists as an adverb, what you mean is that the adverb, "nowhere" exists. And that is, of course, true. And if you intend to say that only the adverb, "nowhere" exists, but that there is no such thing as a nowhere (just as you might say that only the noun "unicorn" exists, but there are no unicorns, that is true as well.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 03:35 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I'm wondering what this thread is about.
My dictionary tells me that nowhere is an ADVERB. An ADVERB is not a person place or thing, a NOUN is a person place or thing, an ADVERB is a word used to modify a verb. Nowhere exists, of course, as an ADVERB and only as an ADVERB. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty.


To say that the adverb "nowhere" exists is to talk about the word, "nowhere" and, of course, the word "nowhere" exists. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether nowhere exists. Just as no one disputes whether the word "unicorn" exists. The question is whether unicorns exist.

It may be that when you say that nowhere exists as an adverb, what you mean is that the adverb, "nowhere" exists. And that is, of course, true. And if you intend to say that only the adverb, "nowhere" exists, but that there is no such thing as a nowhere (just as you might say that only the noun "unicorn" exists, but there are no unicorns, that is true as well.


To dispute whether nowhere exists as one might dispute whether unicorns exist is specious as per rule of language. One could, however, dispute whether, or not, a place called nowhere exists.
When used as a noun, nowhere, must denote a specific or general person place or thing, else the word has no meaning. We need assign meaning to words for them to have any value at all.
Of course , you knew all this.
The word, nowhere, in this thread has been removed from context and divorced from meaning and thrown out there to create a specious argument.
I doubt that was the intention, but that is the only possible result when you do that with a word.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 07:20 am
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I'm wondering what this thread is about.
My dictionary tells me that nowhere is an ADVERB. An ADVERB is not a person place or thing, a NOUN is a person place or thing, an ADVERB is a word used to modify a verb. Nowhere exists, of course, as an ADVERB and only as an ADVERB. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty.


To say that the adverb "nowhere" exists is to talk about the word, "nowhere" and, of course, the word "nowhere" exists. No one disputes that. What is disputed is whether nowhere exists. Just as no one disputes whether the word "unicorn" exists. The question is whether unicorns exist.

It may be that when you say that nowhere exists as an adverb, what you mean is that the adverb, "nowhere" exists. And that is, of course, true. And if you intend to say that only the adverb, "nowhere" exists, but that there is no such thing as a nowhere (just as you might say that only the noun "unicorn" exists, but there are no unicorns, that is true as well.


To dispute whether nowhere exists as one might dispute whether unicorns exist is specious as per rule of language. One could, however, dispute whether, or not, a place called nowhere exists.
When used as a noun, nowhere, must denote a specific or general person place or thing, else the word has no meaning. We need assign meaning to words for them to have any value at all.
Of course , you knew all this.
The word, nowhere, in this thread has been removed from context and divorced from meaning and thrown out there to create a specious argument.
I doubt that was the intention, but that is the only possible result when you do that with a word.


Yes. It is pretty important to distinguish between words and things, and not confuse talking about words with talking about the things (if any) that they refer to. One common error is to think that because a word exist, it must refer to something or other, and then when it is obvious that some words (like "unicorn" or "mermaid") do not refer to anything (since there are no unicorns or mermaids) to go ahead and actually invent something for those words to refer to because you are so convinced that your theory that every word must have a referent is true (despite the obvious fact that theory is false). It is interesting to ask why it is that some holds on to the theory that every word has a referent (despite its obvious falsity) and the answer seems to be that people often confuse two different things: 1. reference, and 2. meaning, and, as a consequence think that unless a word has a referent is does not have a meaning. And, because of this confusion, and (of course) because a word like "unicorn" and "mermaid" have meanings (obviously, they are in the dictionary) they then, according to this bad argument, (must) have referents. Of course, what is the matter with this argument is that one of its premises is false, namely, that because a word has a meaning it (must have a referent) and the reason people believe that is because they believe something else that is false, namely that meaning and reference are the same thing. So what I think you are saying is that those who are confused are confused because they infer from the truth that the word, "nowhere" has a meaning, that the word "nowhere" has a referent. As a consequence, they make up an absurd referent for "nowhere" to have, like "nowhere" refers to everyplace but this place. Thus confusion compounds confusion. The remedy is simple, not be confused in the first place. In particular, not confuse meaning with reference. (As Wittgenstein pointed out, some philosophical problems are like illnesses. You have to diagnose them, find the cause (confusion) and then find the cure, namely, clarification).
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 09:13 am
@mark noble,
As it reads - "Yes".
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2010 11:19 pm
@kennethamy,
Thanks for describing the distinction between meaning and reference so well.
I'm sure I must have known that on some subconscious level but I could not have thought of it consciously before your excellent description. I guess I learned something today.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 01:02 am
@kennethamy,
One must also concern oneself with the way language works. Language is not philosophy and does not follow the same rules. A proform always has an antecedent (referent). My argument does not claim a place (noun) at all and this is what you are not understanding. The word is an adverb. It cannot claim a place (noun). The whole point of the original argument is that there cannot be a nowhere (noun) because the word is not being used as a pronoun. Also there cannot be a nowhere (noun) because the word is being used as semi-definite. There cannot be a nowhere (noun) because the word modifies the manner of how it negates the finding (in the case of billy) or negates the state of being of other verbs through means of space/time from the speaker.

Yet it as a proform (something that stands for something else) think pronoun but with something that is not standing in for a noun but for another part of speech, it must have an antecedent, direct or implied. That is how language works universally, and all your whining about how the argument doesn't stand up to logic, itself doesn't stand up to logic because if you were being logical you would bother to figure out how language works instead of crying foul because it doesn't make sense to you. If in fact if I were making an argument about a specific place and the argument were material from the beginning, you would be right, yet the argument is that this is a question about language, and a question that was misunderstood from the beginning by some one who does not understand the function which the word nowhere plays in their question. The argument as it concerns your example is that everywhere we searched is the only possible antecedent for the term nowhere given the language sample provided. That everywhere/nowhere is not a place (noun) it is a negated modification of the verb [to find].
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:13 am
@kennethamy,
Kenn, I invite you to revisit every post in this thread, and list the terms that elude you. Goshisdead has used not a single term that the contemporary linguist will find ambiguous. I'm sorry that you find these terms confusing. Perhaps you might view this thread as an opportunity to inform yourself about areas of English of which you are obviously ignorant, rather than proclaim your ignorance as a virtue.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 11:22 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Kenn, I invite you to revisit every post in this thread, and list the terms that elude you. Goshisdead has used not a single term that the contemporary linguist will find ambiguous. I'm sorry that you find these terms confusing. Perhaps you might view this thread as an opportunity to inform yourself about areas of English of which you are obviously ignorant, rather than proclaim your ignorance as a virtue.


Ambiguity is not the only way of being obscure or making no sense. The way in which something is written may do the job. Vagueness, and academese is enough. What he need to do is to translate what he says from academese (even if it is the kind of academese linguists use) to English. And get rid of the jargon which permeates what he writes. Read what a famous linguist writes about this kind of thing, as follows:

"I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of; those condemned here as 'science,' 'rationality,' 'logic' and so on. I therefore read the papers with some hope that they would help me 'transcend' these limitations, or perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count.

True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed."

Noam Chomsky
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 11:39 am
@Razzleg,
Isn't it cute how he claims that usage of terms like adverb and explaining how they work is academese. But I suppose it is if someone stapped learning grammar in the 5th grade. I have written grammars on previously undocumented languages, designed for people who have not graduated highschool that were more technical than anything written here. Those people took a little time to familiarize themselves with the terminology and were fine. This level of 'academic explanation' would have been laughed out of an undergrad lingusitics course. The he brings in a Chomsky quote, out of context, and completely off the topic that Chomsky was referring just because the name should hold credibility with linguisitcs. Sorry to inform but just because B.F. Goodwrench is talking about growing corn, doesn't mean mechanics should take his advice.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 11:55 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Isn't it cute how he claims that usage of terms like adverb and explaining how they work is academese. But I suppose it is if someone stapped learning grammar in the 5th grade. I have written grammars on previously undocumented languages, designed for people who have not graduated highschool that were more technical than anything written here. Those people took a little time to familiarize themselves with the terminology and were fine. This level of 'academic explanation' would have been laughed out of an undergrad lingusitics course. The he brings in a Chomsky quote, out of context, and completely off the topic that Chomsky was referring just because the name should hold credibility with linguisitcs. Sorry to inform but just because B.F. Goodwrench is talking about growing corn, doesn't mean mechanics should take his advice.


The above is a fine example of what I mean. Not only is it almost impossible to understand, but it is written so clumsily it is painful to read. My criticism has nothing to do with the use of technical terms. It has to do with the use of jargon and impossible syntax.

The he brings in a Chomsky quote, out of context, and completely off the topic that Chomsky was referring just because the name should hold credibility with linguisitcs.

Ignore the usual mistakes. How is what Chomsky writes off topic and out of context? Just asserting it is so, does not make it so. And then, of course, the usual ad hominem. Ascribing evil motives with no evidence.

GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 12:06 pm
@kennethamy,

To Mr. Kettle,
No evil insinuated. No evil implied. Your motives are yours, and Ad Hominem, give me a break.
Mr. Pot
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 12:08 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:


To Mr. Kettle,
No evil insinuated. No evil implied. Your motives are yours, and Ad Hominem, give me a break.
Mr. Pot


I don't see you explaining how what Chomsky says is off topic and out of context.
0 Replies
 
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 02:54 pm
The answer to the original question is no - "nowhere" does not exist, because the word does not refer to a thing, or even the absence of a thing. The word is an adverb meaning "not in any place". (Not a pronoun meaning "not any place".)

Are we all agreed on that?

kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 03:11 pm
@ACB,
ACB wrote:

The answer to the original question is no - "nowhere" does not exist, because the word does not refer to a thing, or even the absence of a thing. The word is an adverb meaning "not in any place". (Not a pronoun meaning "not any place".)

Are we all agreed on that?

I don't imagine so. But if you were to ask whether we all ought to agree about it, the answer is, yes. What we do think, and what we ought to think are very different. Psychology studies the first, logic the second.


0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 03:39 pm
Yes nowhere exists, because nowhere by definition has ill-defined coordinates and by the same token everywhere has ill-defined coordinates. Thus nowhere is the same as everywhere and since everywhere exists, nowhere must also... being that they are one and the same.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/29/2020 at 02:26:56