Besides the "stitch together" metaphor-which has been clarified-the only example you give of exactly HOW post-modernism intentionally confuses is an example of a computer generated text WHICH IS INTENTIONALLY MEANINGLESS. No one thinks those mean anything, that's the whole point. It's not a post-modernist trying to escape some debate, its a funny little program that pokes fun at how obscure post-modernism can sound. In no way does it DEMONSTRATE that real post-modernism actually is meaningless.
contd. And just because some post modernism does indeed sound this absurd, does not mean it is absurd. Like most philosophy, you have to work to understand it. That means reading again and again until you can unpack the argument and assess it. The only way the generator could argue against post-modernism is if it generated something that was widely celebrated, which it does not. Now, the alan sokol (i think thats his name) scandal did do something of that sort. contd.
contd. And that indeed speaks to a certain trend in post-modernism, particularly in North America. But that one instance doesn't mean that philosophers such as Deleuze and Derrida have nothing to say. It speaks more to how much many readers of post-modernism don't really understand what is being said and so assume its good becuase its complicated (or assume its bad).
PS i just realized this video is two weeks old, my bad.
If one does not know what the "stitch together" metaphor is trying to convey, why is the assumption that it is an escape strategy? Why is the reaction not "Could you please clarify what you mean by this metaphor?" rather than "well since I don't know what is being communicated here it must be an intentional attempt to confuse me." It seems like that reaction-the one that does not seek clarification-is equally escapist in the sense that it shows no desire for actual engagement and understanding.
hi 99s Thx for the response. I will respond soon, but I dont have the time right now, because I just became a father and this takes up a lot of my time as you can imagine. Quickly, let me just say that I really like your way of presenting your arguments, and that you are good at communicating, especially in regards to the form or the discourse... Well done, later :)
The purpose of language is to communicate. When putting things literally doesn't quite do the trick, we use metaphors. They're another tool in our language kit for getting our point across. If our point isn't getting across, or if there's no point to be made, language is being misused.
You're doing the same thing as Cropper; asserting a blanket statement that all postmodernist use metaphors to obfuscate meaning and then saying your philosophers are different. You need to actually justify your statement. Claiming that pomo metaphors confuse you is pretty unpersuasive argument, especially when you already seem pretty hostile towards post-structuralist thought. Your whole criticism is asserted, unsystematic, and pretty damn unobjective.
My purpose with these two videos was to clarify what I thought SD misunderstood about MrC's video, not to remake that video. If you'd like more examples of pomo obscurantist use of metaphors, see MrC's recent vid on architecture. If you'd like my full exposition on what's wrong with postmodernism, I'll let you know when my book comes out.
ScientificDiscussion can pull out specific metaphors in the video because he is aware of the misconception about what language qualifies as metaphorical; he is just using examples that are obviously metaphorical to prove his point. This is just contradictory with his other statement. You say there is a direct connection between the signifier and signified, but there is not. The connection is arbitrated and thus metaphorical (otherwise everyone would speak the same language.)
"You say there is a direct connection between the signifier and signified"
I said it refers directly, not that there's something inherent in the thing that produces a word. By refering directly, I mean that we mean the word literally, not metaphorically.
Thats assuming that the hammer was created to hit nails of course.
"but since we only learn language through communication"
I don't understand this point at all. I'm a programmer, and I can take the simplest type of code, and build more complex code on top of it. Just because one has to use the tool to improve the tool doesn't make it limited.
This gets back to your God example. If someone's 'good' is a floating abstraction, it doesn't change the fact that the idea exists.
I for one, base my idea of good on reality though--and it says a lot about you if you base yours on what others call good. I pride myself on the virtue of independence--especially in thought. But I digress...
If I can't jump to the moon, that doesn't make my legs limited. If I can't cure cancer by jumping to the moon, that too doesn't make my legs limited. If someone doesn't have eyes to see me try to jump to the moon, or doesn't have legs themselves, that doesn't make my legs limited.
I stand by my standard, and that language, as a tool to express knowledge, is not limited.
"If I can't jump to the moon, that doesn't make my legs limited."
In relation to language I'd say that the limitation is more flagrant than that: the hammer does allow to nail with all the perfection you might want, language does not allow to communicate as well.
"you want language ...to explain something that you only _feel_?"
Since perception, imagination, thoughts and everything is felt, yes. What would there be else to communicate than feeling? You say knowledge, but this knowledge had to be felt at some point.
Okay, I have no idea what you mean by 'feel' or what you think emotions are caused by and are.
I guess you are talking about 'feel' as in sense perception (I felt the apply, it was cold). But I don't see why this can't be put in words. Once you know what that sensation is, then you put a symbol to it. Obviously one won't understand it if they themselves can't sense it, but assuming they can, its not limited.
If they can't also sense the same things, that means their senses are limited. not L.
"more flagrant than that:" I don't know what flagrant means here. And the following passage I can't seem to find anything more than you disagreeing.
"language does not allow to communicate as well."
This is the main point we are talking about. You haven't given me one example that I agree with. Can you give a 'down-to-earth' example of how and where language is limited?
This question assumes that you agree that an assertion that one can't relate to reality is pointless.
I do not think I could do anything else here than repeat what I already said, therefore if you want I guess you can call yourself a victor, for I do not know what to do else to explain myself. All I bring as a limit to language, you glide as limit to knowledge or feeling.
Maybe something convinces you of objectivity. Ask yourself what standard you have to call it objective and what standard you have for these standards: ultimately it's arbitrary.
Think about people who have made human lives better. I'm not talking about philosophers here (though when they advocate freedom, they also enhance human life).
People like Thomas Edison. Do you think he would say, "how do I know I know this?" "you can't know anything" "I can't be sure my knowledge is knowledge" "The knowledge I used to create new things is arbitrary."?
Your philosophy is destroying America, which is the only reason I have to try to convince you.
If you want to discover my standard of objectivity: pick up an object around you, and ask yourself how it effects your life.
About the victor: I am because others can read this and learn. But I am not because you still remain corrupting human progression, and enhancements to our way of life, by wasting your time questioning whether knowledge is possible.
And thanks for being nicer than jwoodswce. You did not convince me, because I do not believe convinction is anything else than subjective, but you did brought me to the limits of my ability to argue, I'll try to clarify my position for future arguments.
Language is objective in the sense that the information it is a tool to convey information. The human mind can put it to expanded uses, of course, and it is in virtue of the recognition of the fact that a statement can be factual that a metaphor makes sense, something Davidson argued.
"By these standards, we cannot know what others mean because they can only speak to us."
uh, yes that's exactly what I said.
I'm not here to debate what is already common knowledge except by the idealist minorities like those who debate creationists. I'll never understand how they have the pacience for that.
I think you forget something fundamental in postmodernism: many, most I think, consider that communication can NEVER be efficient. The use of metaphors is not a way to obscure, it is a way to turn around language to communicate despite this limitation.
The possibility of a metaphor to communicate is obviously disputable, but it follows when you consider that 1.Language is limited and 2. They still want to communicate.
What standard are you going by when you say "language is limited"? What are you comparing it to... what are your premises? I mean, language sure won't travel to my frig and get a beer, but thats a bad standard to go by in the first place.
I suppose the post modernist answer to this is to say that language is too limited to explain?
Your last sentence is insulting, but regardless of language's actual completeness, if it is incomplete, it has great chances not to be able to explain its own incompleteness.
Postmodernists do not say "language is incomplete, but I cannot prove it to you because language is incomplete", they do find reasons to believe that, I'll try to be breve, because it's been discussed before and you can find that much better argued by much better writers.
The way we learn language makes that we cannot ensure that others mean the same thing as you by the same word. Just as Gödel incompleteness demonstrates that some true mathematical statements are unprovable, some meaningful concepts might be unthinkable (this one is obviously speculative). Because we have no way to contact other people's mind, talking about sensations like pain or pleasure as if they were universal is only an analogy between observable behaviours.
When I think of language, I think of that thing created by humans to symbolize knowledge that they have obtained. By this standard, it is only as good as our knowledge. So it wouldn't be language that is limited, but knowledge. Language adequately does a fine job of symbolizing our knowledge.
In fact, the whole standard of your judgment about language is based on something knowing everything in all time.
I compare language to efficient communication of what one means.
"In fact, the whole standard of your judgment about language is based on something knowing everything in all time."
I am not talking about talking of things we do not know, I am talking about talking of something you mean to say and cannot because language is inefficient at communicating it.
what a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can be accounted for by ordinary language. That language is impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, spills over what can be communicated cogently. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all snares tossed in the hopes that the sublime and the ineffable might be caught and shared with others.
What a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can not be accounted for in language. That language isn't impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, can only be communicated by rational cognitive thought. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all valid tools used to better illustrate some sort of position that was explicitly stated already, so that others can grasp a better understanding about some relationship of some concept.
This post was just completely pointless. You restated the argument and added nothing new except, "you poor person for believing this".
YOU foolish soul for believing that! That all you can do is toss "snares" in the hope that someone will understand you. Are you emo or something? "You just don't understand my feelings!!! WHAA"
Go somewhere else if your gonna basically say nothing.
youre a liar, and you know it. your chest thumping bravado is hardly convincing. that the human condition (and, yes, that includes our "feelings") can never be completely spoken for. Am i supposed to be ashamed for admitting that i, we, every normal person, has them? or is it that they are too -gasp- "subjective"!? ehhhh "your sobriety still contains a secret and inextinguishable drunkenness!"... and your tough guy act barely conceals it.
You got me, I know it. I'm a lier. You see, I felt this over bearing sensation of want, this anxiety to express myself, but I couldn't do it. Because language just can't seem to put words to things I don't have knowledge about.
Thats ridiculous. And your assumptions about me are obserd.
Emotions are only subjective if they are based on subjective ideas that one holds. Emotions are based entirely on our subconscious values that we have automatized through habitual conscious thinking.
I have no doubt your emotions are based on whim and completely subjective, but mine are not. And language is for knowledge. So we have to have knowledge of our emotions before language can be made of it silly.
Do you read and think or just kinda skim and feel?
Translation of Maksiiskam2's point, "That language's ability to obscure from others what Maksiiskam2 is thinking or not thinking has limits, because words actually have meanings and references to reality."
If you really think that "words actually have ... references to reality", I suggest that you read about linguistic. If you teach a child to talk about chairs with the word "horse" and about horses with the word "chair", at no point will he feel something wrong with that. No language is superior to others because the link between referents and refered is arbitrary. There is nothing horse-like in the word "horse".
M says "If you teach a child to talk about chairs with the word 'horse' and about horses with the word 'chair'..."
Would you be pointing at references in reality when you explain to the child that they need to sit quietly on their "horse" while they watch a "chair" win the big race?
This switching of the meaning of words from their actual references in reality...is this how you were taught? If so, it would explain your confusion.
This is switching references to you because this is what you heard in use all your life, but if someone is raised hearing about chairs winning races, there will be absolutely no way for this child to feel any "wrong use" of the words, because the words are only learned through examples and all examples will fit.
This is only an implausibl version of how languages actually evolve, implausible because it is inconcieveble that everyone switch chair and horse all time. Language evolves when a generation produces a little mistake, like dropping a sound in some words, and pass it to the other generation: you don't feel anything wrong in not pronouncing the k's in "knight" and "knee", for instance, and they used to be pronounced.
There is nothing horse-like in the word "horse" and it could be anything else, hence the fact that there are thousands of language, with different systems of reference, and that none is better. Reference between morphemes and referents is arbitrary.
"...words are only learned through examples..." And these examples are from? Go ahead concede that I am right and your healing can begin. References to reality?
"...because this is what you heard in use all your life..." Interesting, I ask a yes/no question, then you evade direct response and instead project your own inner-state, while repeating empty bromides that you haven't thought through independently. Such a limited set of predictable responses postmodernist have to stimuli.
As an aside for someone who would understand my esoteric reference, fascinating how similar this postmodernist behavior is to a certain personality disorder that I think has a philosophical, non-biological, cause.
"And these examples are from? ... References to reality?"
Reality does not speak, the examples of language come from people.
What question? "pointing to references" means nothing: reference is the pointing, so to avoid any ambiguity I answered you question without this nonsense. If everyone used consistently these two words switched, it would be as referencial to reality as if it was not switched, like when someone codes their speech by remplacing words.
"Reality does not speak..." Sounds like one of the metaphorical evasions that Cropper identified. You have provided a valuable service in being a concrete example exhibiting the behavior he criticized.
"What question?" Would you be pointing at references in reality when you explain to the child that they need to sit quietly on their "horse" while they watch a "chair" win the big race?
"...to avoid any ambiguity..." So let's cut to the chase then. Do you contend that existence does not exist independent of consciousness? For example, does the Sun exist with a specific identity or is it simply a fungible reference created by an agreed upon social convention (as in the Sun traveled around the Earth until people agreed that the Earth orbited the Sun)?
It was not a metaphor, its a plain statement. Come back when you hear reality speak but not through people and when you read what I just said of your question.
Wow, that Earth-Sun example must be to a postmodernist what garlic is to a legendary vampire! I'll need to keep that text handy for future use.
The only person talking about reality speaking is you. Your elevation of words, a characteristic that you "state" is lacking when you attempt to personify reality, is symptomatic of the primacy of consciousness, which you lacked the honesty to confess as your metaphysical basis when I asked you directly.
The Earth-sun example had not appeared by the time of my last post, and its yours so why do you call it postmodernist?
I talked about reality speaking after you said "And these examples are from? ... References to reality?"
I just said no: reality does not speak so the example through which we learn language do not come FROM reality, maybe they are ABOUT it, but they are not FROM it.
And I do not believe in the primacy of consciousness, which I don't remember you asking.
"The Earth-sun example had not appeared by the time of my last post..." Fair enough, but you again evade a direct question, which again exhibits the behavior identified in Cropper's original video.
"...why do you call it postmodernist?" I didn't. However, one of the responses would indicate agreement with the primacy of consciousness in metaphysics, which is part of postmodernism as well as other philosophies.
"...the example through which we learn language do not come FROM reality, maybe they are ABOUT it..." Actually, via induction, language does come from reality; for example, see the changing meaning of stomach ulcer based upon evidence induced from reality about its actual cause. Can you teach a child that a horse is called a chair without them experiencing through their senses the essential characteristics of that entity? What about onomatopoeias?
"...I do not believe in the primacy of consciousness..." Of course you do not believe in it, because as a postmodernist you don't consistently believe in anything. Yet, the primacy of consciousness remains your fundamental metaphysical premise, even if you chose not to introspect and understand that.
I do not see what you mean with your example: I am not saying that reality is a convention, but that language is. And I had misread your garlic-vampire reference so I thought you had said that postmodernists loved it, sorry.
"changing meaning of stomach ulcer based upon evidence induced from reality about its actual cause."
That's language changing to agree with the world, but that is not what I am talking about. I say that you do not learn language by looking at the world, you learn it by listening to people and associate words with referents:
if each time you experience a horse, you hear "horse", this is the meaning you will assign to the word horse. If you grow hearing "cheval", "caballo", or "chair", you'll assign this meaning to these words.
"Can you teach a child that a horse is called a chair without them experiencing through their senses the essential characteristics of that entity"
No, the same with teaching him that it's called a "horse", you have to show it to him. Vocabulary is a convention.
You do not know anything about what I believe and I am not the subject of this conversation: the subject is your belief that there is something horse-like in the word "horse" and chair-like in the word "chair" that makes you think that there is a reason else than randomness why a horse is called a "horse" and a chair a "chair". Do you also think that Spanish people are wrong when they talk about horses with the word "caballo" instead of the word that reality dictates to us?
"I am not saying...that is not what I am talking about."
Exactly the point, Cropper makes the point that postmodernist attempt to use language to avoid actually saying anything of substance that refers to reality.
"I say that you do not learn language by looking at the world, you learn it by listening to people and associate words with referents"
So is your point that those people and the referents do not exist in the world?
Also, personally, without your permission and say so, I do learn language by looking at the world.
Your point that some people avoid induction, forsake the virtue of independence, and live spoon feed second-hand off of others does exist as a choice, but I neither respect nor participate in such evasions.
"No...you have to show it to him."
Show him what? An entity with a specific identity that exists independent of consciousness in reality.
So you are contradicting the postmodernists and conceding that valid knowledge of reality is acquired by an individual through the senses?
"you are lumping all postmodernists together...you presuppose the very possibility of consistent belief..."
The postmodernist attack on conceptual integration is so pervasive within their ideas that they actually believe that it is impossible for anyone using their own mind to simply identify and diagnose the postmodernists' pathology.
"You do not know anything about what I believe..."
Actually, as I stated in my first comment, the limits of language to obscure what you are thinking makes your underlying ideas evident to the casual observer. When you open your mouth or type your thoughts, you expose your naked mind to anyone with the stomach to look at it.
Does anybody ever fall for that trick of yours, or is it simply repeated second-hand as a pacifier? My actual understanding is that entities possess the characteristics through their identity, that this information is available to man through consciousness and perception, and organized by his conceptual faculties.
No, the only reason I answered to your comment in the first place IS because you said "words actually have... references to reality" when they are arbitrary.
Arguing about linguistic with linguistic illiterates is quite boring, at least horvay seems to actually think about what he writes. I begin to understand what Thunderf00t means when he talks about VFX...
Exactly the point of Cropper's video. You don't actual say anything that is relevant to reality. Further, as you believe nothing consistently, it provides no differentiation from anything else for you to say what you don't believe in something in particular.
"I am not talking about postmodernism with you..."
You avoid the examination of your premises, because to do so would expose your errors.
Another one of the issues, Cropper id'd in his video with ill defined terms. Attempting to shift the context from modern referring to the ideas of the intellectual period following the medieval to it simply being a contemporary fad. Were you even aware that you were doing that, or was it regurgitation again?
"Happy to know that you read thoughts in writings."
Actually, you express your premises in your ideas. Anyone can see it, but most consider themselves too polite to rub your nose in it as I do. I consider such "politeness" cruel; if they are going to take the time to make fun of you behind your back, the least they can do is identify your error to you so that we will have an opportunity to correct yourself.
That was the cause of my first comment. I was in a private conversation where you were the butt of my joke, so I communicated the essence to you so you could introspect and self-corect.
"...you said 'words actually have... references to reality' when they are arbitrary."
In deference to your self-professed vast knowledge I language, I didn't understand it to be necessary to explain to you the term definition.
Perhaps you could extricate yourself, or dig your hole deeper, by explaining the relationship between definition and reality.
"Arguing about linguistic with linguistic illiterates is quite boring..."
True, but I have attempted to tolerate you anyways for the benefit of my own experimentation and observation. You have been tagged, catalogued, and are free to go as your repetition indicates that you are of no further value to me.
I am having technical problems with youtube. For this reason I started a new comment line. Please look for my comment going on about what you said about God.
Not digression, its called conceptual integration, and works wonderfully for me as a tool in life.
"Keep learning about linguistic..."
I have secured an interesting, intelligent, and beautiful tutor. My interrogation of you is part of my studies, and you are behaving as predicted so I must be doing very well.
"Am I a postmodernist? Yes, but not in linguistic..."
Always, the anti-integration PoMo. Your philosophy's ideas are so impotently wrong that you claim that you don't integrate them with other fields of knowledge. Way to stovepipe!
"...you still did not answer this: what is horse-like in the word 'horse'?"
Interesting...so Cropper identifies that PoMos use undefined terms, then you can't understand definition as the link between reality and a word. So, in general, is definition as concept that PoMos can't understand?
Another aspect of your unspoken idea, do you expect horse-like to be in the sound of the word "horse," or its written representation? If the word horse was neigh then would it be horse-like?
Or if instead of phonetic characters, the written symbol for horse was a picture of a horse then would it be horse-like?
Is that it? Is this horse-like argument really part of an attack on phonetic characters for written language? How nefarious! If so, all of your future comments must be in pictograms or you are a hypocrite using a stolen concept.
and you too... what a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can be accounted for by ordinary language. That language is impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, spills over what can be communicated cogently. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all snares tossed in the hopes that the sublime and the ineffable might be caught and shared with others.
I agree with what you said here, but lets think about it some more.
Words are basically symbols for certain things in reality. Without the existence of a horse, the word 'horse' would by a symbol for nothing.
When I said 'horse', I am not referring to the word horse however (unless explicitly saying so), I am in fact, referring to those things in reality. Like when I say 'car', I am referring to all those things I've experienced in reality that _are_ cars.
So, words, and language in general, are symbols for our knowledge. If we don't have the knowledge (concept), then how can we put a symbol to it? We can't.
By this standard, in order to make use of language, we must know what we are talking about, and understand it (sometimes completely understand it!).
Lets go further down the cause and effect chain here:
If one can not fully explain something with words, what does this mean? No, it doesn't mean language is limited, it means one knowledge is
So by my standard of judgment here, one should never say language is limited. Language is just a tool to express our knowledge. A man-made tool that we can expand as needed. Language is not limited.
This is what I was getting at with my first questions I asked you.
There are words that exist without a referent, take God for instance, but I see what you mean.
I agree with the fact that the limit of knowledge limits language, but when I said that language was limited I talked about the communication part, the fact that it is not possible to be sure of what someone understands by a particular word
and the fact that talking about personnal experiences (like feelings) as if they were shared is basically a behavioral analogy, because we have no way to know what others mean by, say pain or pleasure.
Maybe it would clearer this way: I mean that communication is limited, but since we only learn language through communication, language is consequently limited.
this is what is commonly meant by limit of language: when we try to identify WHAT are entities through HOW they are used is impossible, because a how is nothing but a how.
Because it makes absolutely no sense to say two actions that differ in no natural property should differ in their moral properties. Merely trying to deflect this to speak of examples here or there does not change it.
"The way we learn language makes that we cannot ensure that others mean the same thing as you by the same word."
What abject, batty nonsense. Knowing "that others mean the same thing as you by the same word" is exactly what is required when learning a language. What do you think you're doing right now?
By these standards, we cannot know what others mean because they can only speak to us.
"Knowing 'that others mean the same thing as you by the same word' is exactly what is required when learning a language."
No, I suggest you read more about language aquisition. When someone learns to speak, he will learn to use a word in the contexts they have heard it used, but language teaching can never be exhaustive in showing examples.
"many, most I think, consider that communication can NEVER be efficient."
Efficient... compared to what? Not communicating? Compared to some Platonic ideal of "communication"? Gimme a break. This is exactly the kind of obscurantist nonsense I'm talking about.
The purpose of language is to communicate. If there is no communication, what is the sound I hear? Probably that which was heard at the old Bedlam hospital.
Besides the "stitch together" metaphor-which has been clarified-the only example you give of exactly HOW post-modernism intentionally confuses is an example of a computer generated text WHICH IS INTENTIONALLY MEANINGLESS. No one thinks those mean anything, that's the whole point. It's not a post-modernist trying to escape some debate, its a funny little program that pokes fun at how obscure post-modernism can sound. In no way does it DEMONSTRATE that real post-modernism actually is meaningless.
pantiesinauproar 3 years ago
contd. And just because some post modernism does indeed sound this absurd, does not mean it is absurd. Like most philosophy, you have to work to understand it. That means reading again and again until you can unpack the argument and assess it. The only way the generator could argue against post-modernism is if it generated something that was widely celebrated, which it does not. Now, the alan sokol (i think thats his name) scandal did do something of that sort. contd.
pantiesinauproar 3 years ago
contd. And that indeed speaks to a certain trend in post-modernism, particularly in North America. But that one instance doesn't mean that philosophers such as Deleuze and Derrida have nothing to say. It speaks more to how much many readers of post-modernism don't really understand what is being said and so assume its good becuase its complicated (or assume its bad).
PS i just realized this video is two weeks old, my bad.
pantiesinauproar 3 years ago
If one does not know what the "stitch together" metaphor is trying to convey, why is the assumption that it is an escape strategy? Why is the reaction not "Could you please clarify what you mean by this metaphor?" rather than "well since I don't know what is being communicated here it must be an intentional attempt to confuse me." It seems like that reaction-the one that does not seek clarification-is equally escapist in the sense that it shows no desire for actual engagement and understanding.
pantiesinauproar 3 years ago
hi 99s Thx for the response. I will respond soon, but I dont have the time right now, because I just became a father and this takes up a lot of my time as you can imagine. Quickly, let me just say that I really like your way of presenting your arguments, and that you are good at communicating, especially in regards to the form or the discourse... Well done, later :)
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
btw, why do you claim that the proper use of metaphors is to clarify? that seems pretty arbitrary.
36stylesofdanger 3 years ago
The purpose of language is to communicate. When putting things literally doesn't quite do the trick, we use metaphors. They're another tool in our language kit for getting our point across. If our point isn't getting across, or if there's no point to be made, language is being misused.
nine9s 3 years ago
You're doing the same thing as Cropper; asserting a blanket statement that all postmodernist use metaphors to obfuscate meaning and then saying your philosophers are different. You need to actually justify your statement. Claiming that pomo metaphors confuse you is pretty unpersuasive argument, especially when you already seem pretty hostile towards post-structuralist thought. Your whole criticism is asserted, unsystematic, and pretty damn unobjective.
36stylesofdanger 3 years ago
My purpose with these two videos was to clarify what I thought SD misunderstood about MrC's video, not to remake that video. If you'd like more examples of pomo obscurantist use of metaphors, see MrC's recent vid on architecture. If you'd like my full exposition on what's wrong with postmodernism, I'll let you know when my book comes out.
nine9s 3 years ago
not contradictory*
36stylesofdanger 3 years ago
ScientificDiscussion can pull out specific metaphors in the video because he is aware of the misconception about what language qualifies as metaphorical; he is just using examples that are obviously metaphorical to prove his point. This is just contradictory with his other statement. You say there is a direct connection between the signifier and signified, but there is not. The connection is arbitrated and thus metaphorical (otherwise everyone would speak the same language.)
36stylesofdanger 3 years ago
"You say there is a direct connection between the signifier and signified"
I said it refers directly, not that there's something inherent in the thing that produces a word. By refering directly, I mean that we mean the word literally, not metaphorically.
nine9s 3 years ago
"take God for instance"
God exist as an idea, as a floating abstraction, but exists in that form nonetheless.
"to be sure of what someone understands by a particular word"
Remember language is a tool. If I have you right here, you said if someone doesn't know the tool, then that makes the tool limited?
Thats like saying a hammer is limited in its use because I don't have a hammer or don't know how to use it.
Language is only useful if the person you are talking to understands the tool.
horvay 3 years ago
This is why when you said,
"...you said 'words actually have... references to reality' when they are arbitrary.",
it is false, if both people involved understand the relationship of the symbols to reality.
"about personnal ... say pain or pleasure."
So let me get this right, you want language--which is a tool to communicate our knowledge--to explain something that you only _feel_?
To go back to my hammer analogy: this is like saying some hammer is limited because it can only hit nails.
horvay 3 years ago
Thats assuming that the hammer was created to hit nails of course.
"but since we only learn language through communication"
I don't understand this point at all. I'm a programmer, and I can take the simplest type of code, and build more complex code on top of it. Just because one has to use the tool to improve the tool doesn't make it limited.
horvay 3 years ago
"limit of language ... 'what is the good?'."
This gets back to your God example. If someone's 'good' is a floating abstraction, it doesn't change the fact that the idea exists.
I for one, base my idea of good on reality though--and it says a lot about you if you base yours on what others call good. I pride myself on the virtue of independence--especially in thought. But I digress...
horvay 3 years ago
If I can't jump to the moon, that doesn't make my legs limited. If I can't cure cancer by jumping to the moon, that too doesn't make my legs limited. If someone doesn't have eyes to see me try to jump to the moon, or doesn't have legs themselves, that doesn't make my legs limited.
I stand by my standard, and that language, as a tool to express knowledge, is not limited.
horvay 3 years ago
"If I can't jump to the moon, that doesn't make my legs limited."
In relation to language I'd say that the limitation is more flagrant than that: the hammer does allow to nail with all the perfection you might want, language does not allow to communicate as well.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"you want language ...to explain something that you only _feel_?"
Since perception, imagination, thoughts and everything is felt, yes. What would there be else to communicate than feeling? You say knowledge, but this knowledge had to be felt at some point.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Okay, I have no idea what you mean by 'feel' or what you think emotions are caused by and are.
I guess you are talking about 'feel' as in sense perception (I felt the apply, it was cold). But I don't see why this can't be put in words. Once you know what that sensation is, then you put a symbol to it. Obviously one won't understand it if they themselves can't sense it, but assuming they can, its not limited.
If they can't also sense the same things, that means their senses are limited. not L.
horvay 3 years ago
apply = apple
horvay 3 years ago
"more flagrant than that:" I don't know what flagrant means here. And the following passage I can't seem to find anything more than you disagreeing.
"language does not allow to communicate as well."
This is the main point we are talking about. You haven't given me one example that I agree with. Can you give a 'down-to-earth' example of how and where language is limited?
This question assumes that you agree that an assertion that one can't relate to reality is pointless.
horvay 3 years ago
I do not think I could do anything else here than repeat what I already said, therefore if you want I guess you can call yourself a victor, for I do not know what to do else to explain myself. All I bring as a limit to language, you glide as limit to knowledge or feeling.
Maybe something convinces you of objectivity. Ask yourself what standard you have to call it objective and what standard you have for these standards: ultimately it's arbitrary.
I am tired of this game.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Think about people who have made human lives better. I'm not talking about philosophers here (though when they advocate freedom, they also enhance human life).
People like Thomas Edison. Do you think he would say, "how do I know I know this?" "you can't know anything" "I can't be sure my knowledge is knowledge" "The knowledge I used to create new things is arbitrary."?
Your philosophy is destroying America, which is the only reason I have to try to convince you.
horvay 3 years ago
If you want to discover my standard of objectivity: pick up an object around you, and ask yourself how it effects your life.
About the victor: I am because others can read this and learn. But I am not because you still remain corrupting human progression, and enhancements to our way of life, by wasting your time questioning whether knowledge is possible.
horvay 3 years ago
And thanks for being nicer than jwoodswce. You did not convince me, because I do not believe convinction is anything else than subjective, but you did brought me to the limits of my ability to argue, I'll try to clarify my position for future arguments.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Language is objective in the sense that the information it is a tool to convey information. The human mind can put it to expanded uses, of course, and it is in virtue of the recognition of the fact that a statement can be factual that a metaphor makes sense, something Davidson argued.
Moragauth 3 years ago
"By these standards, we cannot know what others mean because they can only speak to us."
uh, yes that's exactly what I said.
I'm not here to debate what is already common knowledge except by the idealist minorities like those who debate creationists. I'll never understand how they have the pacience for that.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"ScientificDiscussion gets a bit sarcastic..." Would that be the infamous postmodernist argument by sneer?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
Bingo! Gold star for jwoods. (We seem to keep trading those, don't we?)
nine9s 3 years ago
I think SD knew all this and is just was trying to give Cropper a hard time.
Rorshak1313 3 years ago
I think you forget something fundamental in postmodernism: many, most I think, consider that communication can NEVER be efficient. The use of metaphors is not a way to obscure, it is a way to turn around language to communicate despite this limitation.
The possibility of a metaphor to communicate is obviously disputable, but it follows when you consider that 1.Language is limited and 2. They still want to communicate.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
What standard are you going by when you say "language is limited"? What are you comparing it to... what are your premises? I mean, language sure won't travel to my frig and get a beer, but thats a bad standard to go by in the first place.
I suppose the post modernist answer to this is to say that language is too limited to explain?
horvay 3 years ago
Your last sentence is insulting, but regardless of language's actual completeness, if it is incomplete, it has great chances not to be able to explain its own incompleteness.
Postmodernists do not say "language is incomplete, but I cannot prove it to you because language is incomplete", they do find reasons to believe that, I'll try to be breve, because it's been discussed before and you can find that much better argued by much better writers.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
The way we learn language makes that we cannot ensure that others mean the same thing as you by the same word. Just as Gödel incompleteness demonstrates that some true mathematical statements are unprovable, some meaningful concepts might be unthinkable (this one is obviously speculative). Because we have no way to contact other people's mind, talking about sensations like pain or pleasure as if they were universal is only an analogy between observable behaviours.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
These are simple reasons to consider language as impotent.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
You didn't answer my question.
When I think of language, I think of that thing created by humans to symbolize knowledge that they have obtained. By this standard, it is only as good as our knowledge. So it wouldn't be language that is limited, but knowledge. Language adequately does a fine job of symbolizing our knowledge.
In fact, the whole standard of your judgment about language is based on something knowing everything in all time.
Your standard isn't based on reality.
horvay 3 years ago
"You didn't answer my question"
I compare language to efficient communication of what one means.
"In fact, the whole standard of your judgment about language is based on something knowing everything in all time."
I am not talking about talking of things we do not know, I am talking about talking of something you mean to say and cannot because language is inefficient at communicating it.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
what a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can be accounted for by ordinary language. That language is impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, spills over what can be communicated cogently. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all snares tossed in the hopes that the sublime and the ineffable might be caught and shared with others.
0neironaut 3 years ago
What a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can not be accounted for in language. That language isn't impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, can only be communicated by rational cognitive thought. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all valid tools used to better illustrate some sort of position that was explicitly stated already, so that others can grasp a better understanding about some relationship of some concept.
horvay 3 years ago
This post was just completely pointless. You restated the argument and added nothing new except, "you poor person for believing this".
YOU foolish soul for believing that! That all you can do is toss "snares" in the hope that someone will understand you. Are you emo or something? "You just don't understand my feelings!!! WHAA"
Go somewhere else if your gonna basically say nothing.
horvay 3 years ago
youre a liar, and you know it. your chest thumping bravado is hardly convincing. that the human condition (and, yes, that includes our "feelings") can never be completely spoken for. Am i supposed to be ashamed for admitting that i, we, every normal person, has them? or is it that they are too -gasp- "subjective"!? ehhhh "your sobriety still contains a secret and inextinguishable drunkenness!"... and your tough guy act barely conceals it.
0neironaut 3 years ago
You got me, I know it. I'm a lier. You see, I felt this over bearing sensation of want, this anxiety to express myself, but I couldn't do it. Because language just can't seem to put words to things I don't have knowledge about.
Thats ridiculous. And your assumptions about me are obserd.
horvay 3 years ago
absurd*
Emotions are only subjective if they are based on subjective ideas that one holds. Emotions are based entirely on our subconscious values that we have automatized through habitual conscious thinking.
I have no doubt your emotions are based on whim and completely subjective, but mine are not. And language is for knowledge. So we have to have knowledge of our emotions before language can be made of it silly.
Do you read and think or just kinda skim and feel?
horvay 3 years ago
Translation of Maksiiskam2's point, "That language's ability to obscure from others what Maksiiskam2 is thinking or not thinking has limits, because words actually have meanings and references to reality."
jwoodswce 3 years ago
If you really think that "words actually have ... references to reality", I suggest that you read about linguistic. If you teach a child to talk about chairs with the word "horse" and about horses with the word "chair", at no point will he feel something wrong with that. No language is superior to others because the link between referents and refered is arbitrary. There is nothing horse-like in the word "horse".
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M says "If you teach a child to talk about chairs with the word 'horse' and about horses with the word 'chair'..."
Would you be pointing at references in reality when you explain to the child that they need to sit quietly on their "horse" while they watch a "chair" win the big race?
This switching of the meaning of words from their actual references in reality...is this how you were taught? If so, it would explain your confusion.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
This is switching references to you because this is what you heard in use all your life, but if someone is raised hearing about chairs winning races, there will be absolutely no way for this child to feel any "wrong use" of the words, because the words are only learned through examples and all examples will fit.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
This is only an implausibl version of how languages actually evolve, implausible because it is inconcieveble that everyone switch chair and horse all time. Language evolves when a generation produces a little mistake, like dropping a sound in some words, and pass it to the other generation: you don't feel anything wrong in not pronouncing the k's in "knight" and "knee", for instance, and they used to be pronounced.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
There is nothing horse-like in the word "horse" and it could be anything else, hence the fact that there are thousands of language, with different systems of reference, and that none is better. Reference between morphemes and referents is arbitrary.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
"...words are only learned through examples..." And these examples are from? Go ahead concede that I am right and your healing can begin. References to reality?
"...because this is what you heard in use all your life..." Interesting, I ask a yes/no question, then you evade direct response and instead project your own inner-state, while repeating empty bromides that you haven't thought through independently. Such a limited set of predictable responses postmodernist have to stimuli.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
As an aside for someone who would understand my esoteric reference, fascinating how similar this postmodernist behavior is to a certain personality disorder that I think has a philosophical, non-biological, cause.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
"And these examples are from? ... References to reality?"
Reality does not speak, the examples of language come from people.
What question? "pointing to references" means nothing: reference is the pointing, so to avoid any ambiguity I answered you question without this nonsense. If everyone used consistently these two words switched, it would be as referencial to reality as if it was not switched, like when someone codes their speech by remplacing words.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
"Reality does not speak..." Sounds like one of the metaphorical evasions that Cropper identified. You have provided a valuable service in being a concrete example exhibiting the behavior he criticized.
"What question?" Would you be pointing at references in reality when you explain to the child that they need to sit quietly on their "horse" while they watch a "chair" win the big race?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"...to avoid any ambiguity..." So let's cut to the chase then. Do you contend that existence does not exist independent of consciousness? For example, does the Sun exist with a specific identity or is it simply a fungible reference created by an agreed upon social convention (as in the Sun traveled around the Earth until people agreed that the Earth orbited the Sun)?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
It was not a metaphor, its a plain statement. Come back when you hear reality speak but not through people and when you read what I just said of your question.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
Wow, that Earth-Sun example must be to a postmodernist what garlic is to a legendary vampire! I'll need to keep that text handy for future use.
The only person talking about reality speaking is you. Your elevation of words, a characteristic that you "state" is lacking when you attempt to personify reality, is symptomatic of the primacy of consciousness, which you lacked the honesty to confess as your metaphysical basis when I asked you directly.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
I guess if you could have regurgitated a canned response you would not have had to beat a hasty retreat from your own premises.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
The Earth-sun example had not appeared by the time of my last post, and its yours so why do you call it postmodernist?
I talked about reality speaking after you said "And these examples are from? ... References to reality?"
I just said no: reality does not speak so the example through which we learn language do not come FROM reality, maybe they are ABOUT it, but they are not FROM it.
And I do not believe in the primacy of consciousness, which I don't remember you asking.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
"The Earth-sun example had not appeared by the time of my last post..." Fair enough, but you again evade a direct question, which again exhibits the behavior identified in Cropper's original video.
"...why do you call it postmodernist?" I didn't. However, one of the responses would indicate agreement with the primacy of consciousness in metaphysics, which is part of postmodernism as well as other philosophies.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"...the example through which we learn language do not come FROM reality, maybe they are ABOUT it..." Actually, via induction, language does come from reality; for example, see the changing meaning of stomach ulcer based upon evidence induced from reality about its actual cause. Can you teach a child that a horse is called a chair without them experiencing through their senses the essential characteristics of that entity? What about onomatopoeias?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"...I do not believe in the primacy of consciousness..." Of course you do not believe in it, because as a postmodernist you don't consistently believe in anything. Yet, the primacy of consciousness remains your fundamental metaphysical premise, even if you chose not to introspect and understand that.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
I do not see what you mean with your example: I am not saying that reality is a convention, but that language is. And I had misread your garlic-vampire reference so I thought you had said that postmodernists loved it, sorry.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"changing meaning of stomach ulcer based upon evidence induced from reality about its actual cause."
That's language changing to agree with the world, but that is not what I am talking about. I say that you do not learn language by looking at the world, you learn it by listening to people and associate words with referents:
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
if each time you experience a horse, you hear "horse", this is the meaning you will assign to the word horse. If you grow hearing "cheval", "caballo", or "chair", you'll assign this meaning to these words.
"Can you teach a child that a horse is called a chair without them experiencing through their senses the essential characteristics of that entity"
No, the same with teaching him that it's called a "horse", you have to show it to him. Vocabulary is a convention.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"as a postmodernist you don't consistently believe in anything"
1. you are lumping all postmodernists together with that, which shows your lack of knowledge of it.
2. you presuppose the very possibility of consistent belief, which some postmodernists effectively doubt and have reason for it.
"the primacy of consciousness remains your fundamental metaphysical premise"
Again, lumping together and presupposing that it is not the case.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
You do not know anything about what I believe and I am not the subject of this conversation: the subject is your belief that there is something horse-like in the word "horse" and chair-like in the word "chair" that makes you think that there is a reason else than randomness why a horse is called a "horse" and a chair a "chair". Do you also think that Spanish people are wrong when they talk about horses with the word "caballo" instead of the word that reality dictates to us?
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Linguists do not believe that there is an intrinsinct link between words and referents since they do not think that language is god-given.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
"I am not saying...that is not what I am talking about."
Exactly the point, Cropper makes the point that postmodernist attempt to use language to avoid actually saying anything of substance that refers to reality.
"I say that you do not learn language by looking at the world, you learn it by listening to people and associate words with referents"
So is your point that those people and the referents do not exist in the world?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
Also, personally, without your permission and say so, I do learn language by looking at the world.
Your point that some people avoid induction, forsake the virtue of independence, and live spoon feed second-hand off of others does exist as a choice, but I neither respect nor participate in such evasions.
"No...you have to show it to him."
Show him what? An entity with a specific identity that exists independent of consciousness in reality.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
So you are contradicting the postmodernists and conceding that valid knowledge of reality is acquired by an individual through the senses?
"you are lumping all postmodernists together...you presuppose the very possibility of consistent belief..."
The postmodernist attack on conceptual integration is so pervasive within their ideas that they actually believe that it is impossible for anyone using their own mind to simply identify and diagnose the postmodernists' pathology.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"You do not know anything about what I believe..."
Actually, as I stated in my first comment, the limits of language to obscure what you are thinking makes your underlying ideas evident to the casual observer. When you open your mouth or type your thoughts, you expose your naked mind to anyone with the stomach to look at it.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"...the subject is your belief that..."
Strawman!
Does anybody ever fall for that trick of yours, or is it simply repeated second-hand as a pacifier? My actual understanding is that entities possess the characteristics through their identity, that this information is available to man through consciousness and perception, and organized by his conceptual faculties.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
I'll be short.
"So is your point that those people and the referents do not exist in the world?"
No.
"Your point that some people avoid induction..."
No it is not.
"Show him what? An entity with a specific identity that exists independent of consciousness in reality."
Yes. I never said that I believed reality not to exist, try and read my comments again.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"So you are contradicting the postmodernists..."
I am not talking about postmodernism with you, but about linguistic and am doing so in the most modern way.
"When you open your mouth or type your thoughts, you expose your naked mind to anyone with the stomach to look at it."
Happy to know that you read thoughts in writings.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"Strawman!"
No, the only reason I answered to your comment in the first place IS because you said "words actually have... references to reality" when they are arbitrary.
Arguing about linguistic with linguistic illiterates is quite boring, at least horvay seems to actually think about what he writes. I begin to understand what Thunderf00t means when he talks about VFX...
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
M,
"I never said that I believed..."
Exactly the point of Cropper's video. You don't actual say anything that is relevant to reality. Further, as you believe nothing consistently, it provides no differentiation from anything else for you to say what you don't believe in something in particular.
"I am not talking about postmodernism with you..."
You avoid the examination of your premises, because to do so would expose your errors.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"...in the most modern way."
Another one of the issues, Cropper id'd in his video with ill defined terms. Attempting to shift the context from modern referring to the ideas of the intellectual period following the medieval to it simply being a contemporary fad. Were you even aware that you were doing that, or was it regurgitation again?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"Happy to know that you read thoughts in writings."
Actually, you express your premises in your ideas. Anyone can see it, but most consider themselves too polite to rub your nose in it as I do. I consider such "politeness" cruel; if they are going to take the time to make fun of you behind your back, the least they can do is identify your error to you so that we will have an opportunity to correct yourself.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
That was the cause of my first comment. I was in a private conversation where you were the butt of my joke, so I communicated the essence to you so you could introspect and self-corect.
"...you said 'words actually have... references to reality' when they are arbitrary."
In deference to your self-professed vast knowledge I language, I didn't understand it to be necessary to explain to you the term definition.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
Perhaps you could extricate yourself, or dig your hole deeper, by explaining the relationship between definition and reality.
"Arguing about linguistic with linguistic illiterates is quite boring..."
True, but I have attempted to tolerate you anyways for the benefit of my own experimentation and observation. You have been tagged, catalogued, and are free to go as your repetition indicates that you are of no further value to me.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
It's astonishing how you are able to digress. Keep learning about linguistic, maybe you'll eventually pass over antiquity and learn how it works.
Am I a postmodernist? Yes, but not in linguistic, so your alledged premise divining (as if postmodernist shared all their premises) simply fails.
Note that there is no question of yours that I did not answer, but that you still did not answer this: what is horse-like in the word "horse"?
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
I am having technical problems with youtube. For this reason I started a new comment line. Please look for my comment going on about what you said about God.
horvay 3 years ago
M,
"It's astonishing how you are able to digress."
Not digression, its called conceptual integration, and works wonderfully for me as a tool in life.
"Keep learning about linguistic..."
I have secured an interesting, intelligent, and beautiful tutor. My interrogation of you is part of my studies, and you are behaving as predicted so I must be doing very well.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
"Am I a postmodernist? Yes, but not in linguistic..."
Always, the anti-integration PoMo. Your philosophy's ideas are so impotently wrong that you claim that you don't integrate them with other fields of knowledge. Way to stovepipe!
"...you still did not answer this: what is horse-like in the word 'horse'?"
Remember my reference to definition.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
Interesting...so Cropper identifies that PoMos use undefined terms, then you can't understand definition as the link between reality and a word. So, in general, is definition as concept that PoMos can't understand?
Another aspect of your unspoken idea, do you expect horse-like to be in the sound of the word "horse," or its written representation? If the word horse was neigh then would it be horse-like?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
cont...
Or if instead of phonetic characters, the written symbol for horse was a picture of a horse then would it be horse-like?
Is that it? Is this horse-like argument really part of an attack on phonetic characters for written language? How nefarious! If so, all of your future comments must be in pictograms or you are a hypocrite using a stolen concept.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
and you too... what a poor spirit you must be if the whole of your life can be accounted for by ordinary language. That language is impotent simply means that life, in its immediacy and affected engagement, spills over what can be communicated cogently. Hence poetry, literature, narrative, and metaphor... all snares tossed in the hopes that the sublime and the ineffable might be caught and shared with others.
0neironaut 3 years ago
Zero,
"...what a poor spirit you must be..."
Actually, I'm a human being. Welcome to reality, do you come here often? Also, how often do you converse with spirits?
"...life...spills over what can be communicated cogently."
Build up your vocabulary so that you can become better at it. Too early for you to give up, keep trying.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
I agree with what you said here, but lets think about it some more.
Words are basically symbols for certain things in reality. Without the existence of a horse, the word 'horse' would by a symbol for nothing.
When I said 'horse', I am not referring to the word horse however (unless explicitly saying so), I am in fact, referring to those things in reality. Like when I say 'car', I am referring to all those things I've experienced in reality that _are_ cars.
(cont)
horvay 3 years ago
So, words, and language in general, are symbols for our knowledge. If we don't have the knowledge (concept), then how can we put a symbol to it? We can't.
By this standard, in order to make use of language, we must know what we are talking about, and understand it (sometimes completely understand it!).
Lets go further down the cause and effect chain here:
If one can not fully explain something with words, what does this mean? No, it doesn't mean language is limited, it means one knowledge is
horvay 3 years ago
So by my standard of judgment here, one should never say language is limited. Language is just a tool to express our knowledge. A man-made tool that we can expand as needed. Language is not limited.
This is what I was getting at with my first questions I asked you.
horvay 3 years ago
There are words that exist without a referent, take God for instance, but I see what you mean.
I agree with the fact that the limit of knowledge limits language, but when I said that language was limited I talked about the communication part, the fact that it is not possible to be sure of what someone understands by a particular word
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
and the fact that talking about personnal experiences (like feelings) as if they were shared is basically a behavioral analogy, because we have no way to know what others mean by, say pain or pleasure.
Maybe it would clearer this way: I mean that communication is limited, but since we only learn language through communication, language is consequently limited.
(cont)
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
the limit of language also affects things that exist only through language: like when we ask "what is the good?".
Identifying something as "good" is something we learn through examples of people who call things good, not through an essential goodness in things.
For this reason, attempting to the determine "the good" is reifying a word that is learn in no other way than by examples.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
this is what is commonly meant by limit of language: when we try to identify WHAT are entities through HOW they are used is impossible, because a how is nothing but a how.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Right, and how do you deal with moral supervenience then?
Moragauth 3 years ago
Why should one have to deal with that?
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
Because it makes absolutely no sense to say two actions that differ in no natural property should differ in their moral properties. Merely trying to deflect this to speak of examples here or there does not change it.
Moragauth 3 years ago
I do not see what you are talking about, but if you do not mind I am not interested by a moral debate.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
It's a major proposition in metaethics. Anyway, I'll pursue it no further.
Moragauth 3 years ago
How does the one follow from the other? What does it mean to say communication is limited? That one can misinterpret another? So?
Moragauth 3 years ago
I said it in earlier comments.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"The way we learn language makes that we cannot ensure that others mean the same thing as you by the same word."
What abject, batty nonsense. Knowing "that others mean the same thing as you by the same word" is exactly what is required when learning a language. What do you think you're doing right now?
By these standards, we cannot know what others mean because they can only speak to us.
nine9s 3 years ago
"Knowing 'that others mean the same thing as you by the same word' is exactly what is required when learning a language."
No, I suggest you read more about language aquisition. When someone learns to speak, he will learn to use a word in the contexts they have heard it used, but language teaching can never be exhaustive in showing examples.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"...some meaningful concepts might be unthinkable (this one is obviously speculative)."
I can end the speculation right here and now: if it can't be thought, it can't be a concept, meaningful or otherwise. Concepts *are* thoughts.
nine9s 3 years ago
"many, most I think, consider that communication can NEVER be efficient."
Efficient... compared to what? Not communicating? Compared to some Platonic ideal of "communication"? Gimme a break. This is exactly the kind of obscurantist nonsense I'm talking about.
nine9s 3 years ago
"compared to what?"
Compared to make others get what you mean.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
"The use of metaphors is not a way to obscure, it is a way to turn around language to communicate despite this limitation."
I keep having to repeat myself here. Just so no one's confused, once and for all I'd like to say....
THERE'S NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH METAPHORS!
It's all about how they're used.
nine9s 3 years ago
I'll re-phrase: "The use of metaphors in postmodernism".
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
The purpose of language is to communicate. If there is no communication, what is the sound I hear? Probably that which was heard at the old Bedlam hospital.
condonrichard 3 years ago
Perhaps this will clear up SD's confusion... : )
MrCropper 3 years ago
Yeah, but that would destroy his academic career!
qtronman 3 years ago