The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

@JLNobody,

Quote:

And he not only winced at the sensations that engendered. He defined and described them as "bad."

Could be, I dunno.

But notice that his refutation did not consist of a single "word."

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Fresco's reference to the linguistic basis for meaning comes very close to the general model of the way humans construct and use meaning presented by social anthropology in its examination of the cultural foundations of human behavior.
Anthropology has found considerable empirical support for the realization that we as a species live in symbolic worlds--what we call worldviews. And language is the means by which we universally and automatically translate the objects of sense experience into metaphorical, or constructed, "objects". This is obviously necessary for human survival, but when we accept these metaphorical objects as ontological realities in our philosophical pursuits we become guilty of both naive realism and reification. And I am relieved when I see philosophers, like Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, take this as the reality they must address.
And I suppose it is why I tend to side with the theses presented by Fresco in his efforts to enlighten us to the linguistic nature of philosophical investigation.
The historical expositions presented by Setanta have been undeniably skilled . But because he has been talking about "facts" which, within the context of historiographic convention, have little need for epistemogical justification (except perhaps for some postmodern historians) he seems to see no need for discussion of the tediously subtle issues addressed by Fresco and would simply like us to collectively dismiss them.

What utter sophist babble. There isn't enough language in any language that will alter the fact that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.
Some societies have mistakenly built an entire culture around a sun god.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Fresco, If the meat brought before you by the waiter smelled rancid would you eat it? would you need a consensus to decide?
Despite all the philosophical mumble jumbo how do you live your life in the world you perceive?
If you know of another way, a better way, to access nature other then the Scientific method please let me know?
Do you trust your central nervous system? Do you live as if your senses has giving you as accurate and as best a picture of the world as it can, and there for you respond accordingly?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I see you've added this to your post, JL:

Quote:

His gesture of kicking the rock in that context was a language act, a communication of meaning. (like a wink as compared to a blink, cf. Clifford Geertz)

Say what!?

So, now, EVERYTHING is language? Well, that settles it then, eh? EVERYTHING is language.

When kicking a rock becomes "language," then what isn't? Everything in the universe is now language, I guess. The planet is language. Wouldn't exist without language.

I'm just taking the "point" to the extreme. I know what you mean when you suggest that, in kicking a rock, Johnson was ALSO communicating something, in the context. But that doesn't make the communication the ontologically prior thing here, does it?

If you ask me, the reality is not "in" the language. On the contrary, the language is merely in the reality.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

So, now, EVERYTHING is language? Well, that settles it then, eh? EVERYTHING is language.

Exactly. This is the entire problem with the posts of both fresco and JLNobody. If everything is language, then everything, ipso facto, becomes a semantic argument with no more substance than a discussion over definitions. This is the lawyer's version of philosophy. In a situation such as that it's best to remove the first syllable from the word 'philosophy' and admit that we are, in fact, engaging in nothing more than sophistry. (We're still trying to determine just how many angels could dance on the head of a common pin.)

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

In a situation such as that it's best to remove the first syllable from the word 'philosophy' and admit that we are, in fact, engaging in nothing more than sophistry.

Well, sure, Lustig, but ya gotta admit: It still somehow SOUNDS real brilliant and "insightful," doncha think?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
In a situation such as that it's best to remove the first syllable from the word 'philosophy' and admit that we are, in fact, engaging in nothing more than sophistry.

Well, sure, Lustig, but ya gotta admit: It still somehow SOUNDS real brilliant and "insightful," doncha think?

What? 'Sophistry'?

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

What? 'Sophistry'?

Right. Protagoras, Gorgias, all of those sophists (lawyers) were brilliant orators who specialized in making the weaker argument "appear" to be the stronger.

Unfortunately, Fresco is no "sophist" in that sense, however.

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh, I don't know. He does his best.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

There is a story that Protagoras took on a student with the understanding that the student would not have to pay the tuition until after he won his first (legal) case. After getting schooled, the student refused to pay, because he refused to "practice law." So Protagoras sued him.

In court, Protagoras told the judge: Either way, I win this case. If the court rules against me, and I lose this case, then, by the terms of the agreement, my fee is due, because he has then won his first case. On the other hand, if the court rules for me, then I am entitled, by virtue of court order, to collect my fee.

Sounds pretty good, eh? However, Protagoras "learned" the student a little too well. The student then said:

Either way, I win this case. If the court decides for me, then, by order of the court I don't have to pay. If the court rules against me, then, by the terms of the agreement, nothing is due, because I still haven't won my first case.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The student then said:

...If the court decides for me, then, by order of the court I don't have to pay...

He doesn't pay anything after the first case...

If the court rules in favor of the student on the question of whether the student's decision not practice law entitles Protagoras to a fee, why can't Protagoras just sue a second time on the grounds that the student actually winning a case entitles Protagoras to a fee? So Protagoras collects his fee by losing the first case and winning the second.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

Quote:

If the court rules in favor of the student on the question of whether the student's decision not practice law entitles Protagoras to a fee, why can't Protagoras just sue a second time on the grounds that the student actually winning a case entitles Protagoras to a fee? So Protagoras collects his fee by losing the first case and winning the second.

Well, sure, but Protagoras didn't want to waste time with that. His argument was that the very act of making a (preliminary) ruling that the student didn't owe the money under the terms of the contract (which would give a pyrrhic victory to the student), would compel the court to then, on the spot, to make a "final" decision in his favor.

0 Replies

What was it we were saying about 'semantics' again?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

What was it we were saying about 'semantics' again?

As I recall, we concluded that slimy-ass bottom feeders (lawyers) deal in semantics.

1 Reply

@layman,

It seems obvious to me that "linguistics" is broader than language which is what semantics is about. I was, I guess, talking about the philosophical import of symbols and other forms of meaningful gestures for the conduct of culture. But I don't see how this can be necessarily reduced to "sophistry".
And note that both Fresco and I as well as other A2Kers have declared that "reality" cannot always be grasped by means of language. The mysticism of Eastern spiritual practices is largely language transcendent despite the fact that the rituals, legends and literature accompanying their institutional expressions include linguistic conventions. But "true success" in mystical efforts is generally independent of language and social concensus but Western philosophy, like social action, never (or rarely) is as far as I am aware.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

But "true success" in mystical efforts is generally independent of language and social concensus but Western philosophy, like social action, never (or rarely) is as far as I am aware.

I know what you're getting at there, JL. The "visions" I used to have when I used to eat heavy doses of acid on a regular basis were, or so it seemed to me, anyway, "generally independent of language and social concensus."

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I see you have been having fun . Smile

There are at least three issues with respect to my raising of the issue of language.
1. The relationship between language (in its broadest sense) and "thought" in which grammatical structures and acquired vocabularies tend to delimit thinking.
2. The move by modern philosophers away from attempts at epistemolological and ontological analysis per se and

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

There are at least three issues with respect to my raising of the issue of language...1. .....2....

There are two kinds of people in this world: 1. Monists, 2. Dualists, and 3. Them that don't count so good.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

IGNORE POST ABOVE
I see you have been having fun . Smile

There are at least three inter-related aspects with respect to my raising of the issue of language.

1. The recognition of philosophers and social scientists of the inextricable relationship between language (in its broadest sense) and "thought" in which grammatical structures and acquired vocabularies tend to delimit thinking.
leading to....
2. The iconoclastic move by modern philosophers away from attempts at traditional epistemolological and ontological analysis per se causing the shift (die Kehre) of their focus onto the linguistic tools and process of analysis. The general conclusion being that langauge is constructive rather than representational of what we call "the world".
3. The "system" theoretical movement (Maturana et al) which ignores the contents of language and examines the functioning of "communication" in general in all living systems in which "languaging" is merely one level of processing. This is sometimes called "the deflationary view of language". For human communication (via languaging) this has implications for the neo-pragmatists (Rorty et al) who argue that words like "reality" and "truth" are confined to the particular social needs of communicating individuals.

And a fourth (transcendent/holistic) aspect of this focus on language is the issue of ineffability in which the apocryphal "enlightened" meditator gazes (down) with quiescent neutrality on these first three aspects of linguistic exploration, and sees them all merely as parochial eddies in the flux of human intellectual endeavor ! Smile

Perhaps I should add that the non-meditators amongst us might prefer to reflect on the fact that humans and their language fuelled "logic" have only been around for the blink of a cosmic eye in terms of life on earth. So unless they are religiously inclined and hold that "man was created in God's image" they should at least understand why an examination of human language is philosophically so significant.

1 Reply

@layman,

Stop that muttering on the back row ! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Relinquish,

Social science is a major branch of science, and a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". The main social sciences include economics, human geography, political science, demography and sociology. In a wider sense, social science also includes among its branches some fields in the humanities[1] such as anthropology, archaeology, history, law and linguistics. The term is also sometimes used to refer specifically to the field of sociology, the original 'science of society', established in the 19th century.
Wikipedia

What is social science?
Social science is, in its broadest sense, the study of society and the manner in which people behave and influence the world around us.
It tells us about the world beyond our immediate experience, and can help explain how our own society works - from the causes of unemployment or what helps economic growth, to how and why people vote, or what makes people happy. It provides vital information for governments and policymakers, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and others.

Economics and Research Council: E.S.R.C.

What Social Science Does-Doesn’t- Know
By Jim Manzi
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html

-

0 Replies

The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know