»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Probably a stupid question...
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Probably a stupid question... |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
Does definition of language affect the nature of reality? Be gentle with me folks--my brain got outta the gate again.  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
"definition of language" ....? Kangaroo...an animal to some Kangaroo...to aboriginal people means "I don't know" or self-interest...Sir Ron, sir Balladeer, sir Brad and sir Grinch are all have different definitions  "nature of reality".....anything not yourself, right??? including other human's thinking, behaving, other animal's thinking, behaving and mountains and rivers and stars and universe, of course poems. I say, yes by my understanding of your words...the definition of your language. AM I understood?  |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi SB! Yes. It's all we got to work with. Jim |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Drauntz! "AM I understood?" Not all the time, but that's part of life. Jim |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
misunderstanding drives me crazy, ya know. And Poems can't flow out of a crazy person!!!! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, I was wondering if, as language evolves, than does reality also evolve? (I was reading an article by Edward Schiappa...) He uses some examples that are politically provacative, so I chose not to quote him. But in case you are wondering where my stupid question came from, you can read it here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2342/is_1_38/ai_n13504343/pg_1 On a personal note, I'm called "crazy" (quite often by myself, too) but as I read this, I thought of The Little Prince, specifically the little prince's rendering of a snake, digesting an elephant. He would show this to people, and if they congratulated him on his accurate rendering of a hat, he'd fold his artwork and put it back in his pocket. If the person would remark about how imaginative his drawing of a snake swallowing an elephant was, he would know he met someone who would understand him. So I'm not so certain if language is all we have to work with... And "here" is still "here", but yours is over there, and that's understood. Equal and seperate and decidedly different "realities" and neither is less true (or even more true) than the other. Then we have the oxymoron-- as Ron pointed out: quote: I know I'm not the only one here who has had a vaguely memorable night. But oh, reality...now there's a tough one. What's crazier? Calling an apple an orange, or starving to death while you argue over the proper terminology?  So...I dunno. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Not reality but the perception of reality. David Ignatow once remarked that he saw it as a mark of maturity that he could look at a mountain as a mountain and not a comment on his life. . |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
My dear sir YI Huan I can't believe that a poet can be so mature that he refers a mountain as a mountain, a bird as a bird!!!! A poet is, after all, a poet. A great poet, particularly in my view, is a muse if not a mountain of my heart! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Um...the original phrasing of my question was indeed "perception of reality"--I just figured that it was understood, since that is really all we have. I thought that if I said "perception of reality" it would be akin to explaining, say, the mechanics of the human eye as a camera, and how we actually see everything upside down but the brain perceives it right side up--I thought it unnecessary, but I guess not. So yes, amend that to perception of reality. And I like Drautz's comment as well--because I was indeed hoping to get around to the employment of language and definition as craft of writing. But I do ask you, how do you not personalize all that you see? I'm not buddha, I'm not Christ. I've got this brain with faulty wiring, that has been programmed by personal experiences. Would you mind expounding on the mountain thing for me, HJ? |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
Commonly held definitions by words may AFFECT the descriptions of physical reality but not EFFECT the substance of that reality. The affect of a change in acceptable definition may effect a change in the perception of reality, but not in its substance. So, get enough people to call an apple an orange and it will be known as an orange; that will not change the substance, taste, color, texture, etc. of the fruit. After World War II, the swastika has generally been seen as a symbol of an unacceptable collection of social, economic and/or political theories and beliefs. In some parts of the world this affect has even made the display of the swastika a violation of law. Prior to the rise of the German Third Reich, the swastika in any one of several forms (and in either rotation) for over three thousand years in many cultures was a positive symbol of luck, a symbolic force of "good" energy. The affect of hatred was to change the belief in acceptability of the symbol's use. The effect is that this symbol of positive life force is seldom seen today in a positive light. Similarly a society, or its ruling power structure, might promote an affective change in that society's history in the hope that the effect will be to change history itself. This is in one way reflected in the old saw that "history is written by the winners." In this case if the revision is thorough enough, in time when all those living at the time of affect are dead and replaced by generations who hold as real the affective bit of historical fiction, then effect takes over, the fiction becomes the only known reality, and any decision leveraged by that point of information will be effected by the original intentional affect. This is not the case with the apple; after a thousand generations the apple (at some point only known by its affective name "orange" ) will still have the same physical properties that it had when it was known as an apple, and when one of those future people thinks of an orange they will be thinking of what is today called an apple. See, my soul wandering Witch? It is simple. *grin* |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Charly. For your insight. mmmmhmmm. You are going to make people think I had some sort of agenda here.... *laughing back atcha* Or withya.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
and btw? Not to quibble a point--it actually emphasizes what you say about history being written by the "winners". President Bush redefined "wetlands"--and now, it seems we are gaining ground, instead of losing it--amazing. A few strokes of an assistant's keyboard and he just undid 75 years of erosion. But I wasn't gonna go there. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, I'm not interested in responding to this right now. But I did want to say ... you could have picked a better title for this thread. No genuine question is stupid. It's stupider not to ask. And yes, stupider is a word. S |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I know. But I got tired, so I just shrugged. That ever happen to you? It happens to me--ALOT. *laughing* but not without love...  g'nite good people. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
My dear SB, how are you? You asked a question and you got tired of the answers?!!!! every thing will be affected by our language, from beginning to end and in between. you know, Mars can't mind his own business because of the language of NASA. Have a good night and many hugs and kisses. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"A few strokes of an assistant's keyboard and he just undid 75 years of erosion." *nod* you know I work for the gov. right? I have seen this type of thing from time to time...meh.. and dang I wish I had Icy right next to me all day, every day, educating me.. and I have often had similar thoughts..the first of which was probably when I was around the age of 6/7 and said the "F" word and got into a bit of trouble...I remember thinking it's just a word, who attached the bad meaning to it?? (maybe not in that specific context but the thought process was the same). So I guess my simple answer is yes. My more (just a tad) complex answer is; even that is a matter of perspective. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I'd have to say no. Language just aids, and sometimes hinders, understanding but doesn't affect reality at all, rather language is a tool used in the attempt to reflect reality. Schiappa's argument, put simply, is this: Definitions should be treated less as questions of “is” and more as questions of “ought.” Instead of “What is X?” he suggests that questions regarding definitions should be “What should X be in relation to Y?" (Y being the context of X viewed pragmatically according to needs and interest). The problem is that reality is .. well relative so definitions tend to be subjective which is why my definition of something complex like self-interest differs from Ron, Michael and Brad's. If you don't believe me try defining "a summers day" then compare it to someone else's, they'll both be valid definitions but they're not likely to be exactly the same. Schiappa's rhetorical argument as outlined above is very similar to Rand's Objectivism though on a smaller scale and, in my opinion, suffers from the same stumbling blocks, the biggest being that you can't automatically get from an "ought" to an "is" (Hume's Guillotine) especially when individuals are deciding the "oughts". That's not to say that Schiappa's ideas aren't useful, the re-definition of rape for instance is an example where types can be clarified by using the system for legal interpretation but as soon as you try the same trick on something a little more vague such as "a summers day" the results aren't so clear cut. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
1. In the beginning was Word. 2. How Eve got talked into eating the fruit? then came the human fate. 3. Tower of the Babel. the different language. 4. But no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (James 3:8) ....can determine the future. too deep a philosophical question. Dear SB. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Language, human or bird, is for communication of life activity. Life, as food, shelter, entertainment, war, all related to nature of reality. AM I right? Dear SB. Sir Grinch, how do you understand "definition of Language" and " nature of reality"? (hope you had a good trip to Spain.) |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Drauntz, Do you mean how do I know what both terms mean? If so my understanding of the terms is based on context. In this case I used Schiappa's explanation of the definition of language, Karen's definition of reality and my brain to connect the dots. Which seemed sensible as Karen referenced Schiappa and clearly defined the reality she was talking about. Spain was fine thanks. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes. Language is a little mote of reality when compared to reality as a whole. But when we specifically refer to living beings, it becomes monumental. It is a monumental part of our behaviour and affects it monumentally as well. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Bad analogy, you need to choose two dissimilar subjects to understand where definition becomes important, try this: What's crazier? Calling a rock an orange, or starving to death while you argue over the proper terminology? The definition of a rock and an orange is vital to avoiding starvation; you can't even start the meal without selecting the right ingredients. Take the recent Rand debate; it's vital that the definition of self-interest is clear before Objectivism can be understood, using the selfish definition would be like choosing the rock to make a meal. Rand attempted to re-define selfish using a version of Schiappas template, which isn't particularly wrong it's just downright confusing, it's like having an orange and an unknown item and deciding to call the unknown item an orange as well. You end up with two oranges but only one will satisfy your hunger. I said that Rand used a version of Schiappas re-definition, that's not strictly true; Rand used the re-definition in reverse. Schiappas premise is that terms should be split by re-definition when the need arises, take death for instance, death was fine as a definition of the absence of life until transplants came along. At that point death needed a little re-defining because only one type, or sub-set, of death is conducive to a successful transplant - brain death. Rand however needed a type of selfishness without the negative connotations but instead of creating a subset she chose it re-define selfishness itself and re-defined it to make it fit. Like I said that isn't inherently wrong it just makes it hard to understand and even harder to explain. Schiappa himself has used this reverse technique - sort of. He looked at the definition of Rape to try to clarify whether martial rape was actually rape, he created a sub-set of rape called marital rape and investigated the definition of the sub-set. Long story short his new definition ended up being rape by any other name so he redefined the term rape to include it. However like I said earlier defining isn't easy, Schiappa's template is appealing because it works when you look at clear cut black and white subjects like rape and death but it fails when you get to more nebulous terms such as "a summers day". The reason is that the act of defining requires a mix of subjective and objective thinking, similar to how we ascribe morality to ethical choices and decide short and long-term self-interest. I think the answer to the differing nature of ethical choices, defining and self-interest is probably a triumvirate of self (subjective), society (objective) and options (available choices) where combinations with differing emphasis depending on context leads to differences of opinion. I can explain my theory if you're not already bored. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
You are absolutely right--it's a bad analogy. I used two concrete nouns, when I should have used conceptual nouns better suited for discussion of ideas. And I can't believe I spent most of last night looking through Byzantine poets to formulate that thought. (I should have just asked you.) But I'm really glad Essorant showed up, since I'd like his take on this too. If definition of language is so precise as to define our reality, then what are we to make of translations? Or even evolutionary definitions which broaden scope and intent? Can we understand Nietzche without learning German? (Feel free to jump in, Brad.) For that matter, can we understand the Bible without an understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, and Greek? (That would be your cue, Stephan?) If the answer to my question is a qualified yes, does it logically follow that we don't know what the heck we are reading if we don't know the language in which the work was originally written? Interestingly enough, it's been said that mathematics is the only precise language. (I forget who, but I'm sure someone will tell me.) The Hebrew language is also their numerical system. So should scripture be read as a code, deciphered? And just 'cause I ask the questions doesn't mean I have the answers. As someone pointed out, I've a bit of a wandering soul; and in case you guys have not noticed, I am usually more surprised than anyone when my stupid questions end up being long-ass threads. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Sir Grinch, Write more. It is interesting to read your thought. I kind agree with you on most part... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Karen, That's probably true but why do you think that is? Perhaps it's because mathematics is totally closed to subjective definition or preference, because the rules and language are fixed and universally accepted and only ever universally changed if required, leaving no room for ambiguity. I'm sure "a summers day" could be represented by a mathematical formula but I'm also sure that however precise that formula was only one or two people would be able to understand it. Which sort of negates it's usefulness as a language for everyday communication. Whether you can truly understand Nietzche and the bible without knowing the original language is a very interesting question. I'll leave Nietzche and the bible for Brad and Stephanos apart from saying that my view is that one is more likely to be understood than the other. Drauntz, I think it's highly likely I'll write more - I'm pretty much addicted. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Without mathematics, we wouldn't be having this conversation. (That's Ron's cue.) But yes, I'm curious too, as I've studied the Hebrew alphabet a bit, and there is an entire meditative practice involving the mere writing of it! (Much like the Japanese art of....of...heh? the word escapes me.  )And then there is the just the creation of new words--I believe James Joyce gets credit for "epiphany"--and I've been known to make stuff up as I go along too. Like my oxymorons. I like 'em. "Vaguely memorable" describes about sixty percent of my thinking process. And I started this thread, because I thought, if we are always going to quibble over semantics, why don't we just discuss SEMANTICS? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. If you’re a Christian you live in a world of sin, a Buddhist a world of suffering. . |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Which has...what to do with this? (I don't mind discussion on it, I just don't know why it's in this thread.) But oddly enough, I just learned in another forum, that the word "sin" has claim to many beginnings--one of which is an archery term, meaning, "to miss the mark." And in my system of belief the two are not so seperate. According to my belief system, people are not punished for the sin, but by them. This one's for you, John. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_A8kIHNwrM (I couldn't help but notice that she posted that video on my birthday--coincidence? I think NOT.  ) |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
dear SB, you are bad. You just try to irritate Sir John? right? but she is quite pretty!!! What he said is that you defined the world based on how you view it. then you would handle your daily life accordingly. Christian views this world as people's thought and behaving are away from God's words which is called sin. Buddha view the world as how you feel which is suffering. definition and reality. correct me if I am not right, Sir John. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Mz. D? If you listen to her, then what she says applies to this conversation. I would be listening to her even if it were audio only. Listen again. This thread is about definitions of language and semantics--when I wanna be irritating, everyone will know it. Trust me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: And you tell me to quit with the semantics? Seriously though, do you see a reason why these two ideas must be mutually exclusive? Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
No. Actually, if you think about "sin" as missing the mark, then the consequence of sin, if you are hunting for food, is hunger, and thus, suffering. They relate. But being aimless? grin--I do sin a LOT. (pun certainly intended) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ah, Hamartia again. quote: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000284.html#6 quote: /pip/Forum8/HTML/000642.html quote:http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=550&C=668 |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
TOTALLY OFFTOPIC: But I have (at least) two guitar builder/players here and need some help. We are looking for a "neck"-- Jackson Kelly J530KE (Non-Inverted Headstock) 24 Fret Neck (Jumbo Frets) Neck Dimensions: 1st Fret: .775 12 Fret, .910 thanks from my son Zachary, and me. Now, return to your scheduled program? *smooches*! |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
My dear SB, I heard her explaining about sin. It was a mini-lecture. I was joking about the 'irritating". don't be upset. love you. have a good sleep tonight. hugs |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
I thought oxymorons were those pills that got Rush Limbaugh in trouble?? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sheesh. Rush Limbaugh didn't get in trouble. He had bad press. I get in trouble for all oxy-shrug-o-morons. (It's just assumed, yanno.  )Now. What was my question?  |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
"Would love to hear the various interpretations. Anybody?" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Which has...what to do with this? (I don't mind discussion on it, I just don't know why it's in this thread.)” It refers to the use of language by religions in forming a perception of reality. As another example, I just finished a book on the 6 Day War and the thing that stands out is how readily the West, including Israel, allowed itself to discuss and act in the crisis before as well as during the war itself in the Arab/Soviet language context of Zionism and Western Imperialism so that Israel was pressured externally and well by as those within concerned by intimidated Western opinion to wait for the first shot to be fired by overwhelming forces on their borders, (who at the same time could and did make no secret of their intentions), and then to pull back from their successes to the perilous state of things as they were before. Think of the “ism” words that can and have so often been used to intimate any debate into silence; that by their use immediately cast opposing views in suspicious light. Here's something else. Think about how one's perception of words is influenced by one's own religion, Jewish for example, or race, black for example. How it is affected by some central event; the crucifixion of Christ, or being raped. PS: What right does the West to inflict itself on any part let alone the rest of the world? Note: in the question lies the condemnation. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (07-15-2007 05:11 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nodding here--I think we're in agreement here. Those "isms" are utilized in politics of religion, (or the religion of politics ) quite deftly by the spin doctors employed by world leaders as well.I'd love to hear more of what you found in your readings too--I'd read it myself, but I'm literally up to my neck in books on my bed as it is. And Reb? Thanks for the heads up on the Jackson neck. Zach says it looks perfect, too--so we're keeping an eye on the auction. (This place is pretty amazing--I can ask just about anything and get answers!) and I'll be around...a stormy Sunday makes for bad internet connection for me. *pout* Like NOW for instance. (submit, damn ye)<--talking to my comp again... |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: ? stupid? Actually, this is a tricky question that requires a lot of thought, because to me language is thought, and without thoughts I'd have no language, so the nature of reality would depend on my perceiving toss of words, subjectively and objectively, with each word as a variable, depending on culture, mother tongue, education, vocabulary-word comprehension, structuring, mechanics, context, stress, characterization, you name it! The magic of language to me, is there is no absolute nature of reality, because it's a cascading matrix of creativity and learning: an experience by experience, whether those feel I'm romanticizing the notion or not. I am a poet that doesn't rely on other's definitions, so what does anyone expect? Here's ya the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis along with a few other schools of thought. Love ya and your question, reg |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ah...thank you very much Reg. A feast for me! And yanno? When I had my babies, I wondered about the language as thought thing--"What are you thinking about?" I'd wonder...(Babies seem to have this wisdom slant in their eyes--or is it that they just look like the Dalai Lama?  )But I appreciate the link--and I just skimmed through Stephenos "Rand" thread--I was avoiding it until I finished the book--and I didn't realized I was duplicating some of the points brought up in that, and for that I apologize. I'm also sorry it's taking me so long to read these days. sigh... Thanks again, Reg. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Arg, the Sabre-Worf hypothesis. Though I don't have any problems with an extremely weak version of it, it just seems to have caused more problems than it's solved. Political Correctness and gender nuetral language all seem to be derived from it, but you begin to wonder if these aren't examples of cultural myopia rather than the first step towards an egalitarian utopia. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Laugh. My Nonna looked like a tiny Betty Boop, but pursed her lips as if she might whistle all the time. I thought that might be due to the music I played while she was still in the womb. Who knows? Yep, the wisdom of babes. Brad~ True, and...truer. I can't even say I fully support "cognitive therapy." I feel weird and weirder about non-sexist language, but ya gotta think utopia before building it. I was pretty happy in an old log cabin out in the woods, though. |
||
|
[StepheN~] Junior Member
since 2007-04-19
Posts 15 |
yes because it is language that we communicate from, it is our essential tool for learning. it is was we put into that definition that makes it what it is. Words were never set in stone, even if your crazy old English teacher went ape-poo because of grammar and misspelling, it was us that created the language and it was us that put to meaning behind the speech. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
