philosophy guff (2 Viewers)

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

It's more the concepts than the language I'm referring to really. And how can coming up with a new way of viewing things that removes contradictions be nonsense?

That's not what I said, dude
I said that attempting to create a language that you can't speak nonsense with is probably futile

And - as if language "evolved" all by itself, without human intervention!

Em ... I don't know what you mean here by 'human intervention'. I mean, sure, people make up words for new things like 'boson' or 'television', but the basic structures of languages (nouns, verbs, sentences and what have you) weren't deliberately chosen.

 

[egg_]

Absolutism v relativism isn't an ethical debate. It's a debate about what ethics is

Aha! I guess you're right
So, on absolutism vs relativism ... if there are absolute values, and they're not "out there", then where are they?

 

[egg_]

i will hereafter maintain a distinction between "facticity" and "truth" ... blah blah blah

Actually, Richie, if you can invent a language in which it will not be possible to talk shite like this, I would be delighted

 

[Dixer]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

That's not what I said, dude
I said that attempting to create a language that you can't speak nonsense with is probably futile



Em ... I don't know what you mean here by 'human intervention'. I mean, sure, people make up words for new things like 'boson' or 'television', but the basic structures of languages (nouns, verbs, sentences and what have you) weren't deliberately chosen.

Nor did it evolve as an independent, organic 'thing in the world'.

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Nor did it evolve as an independent, organic 'thing in the world'.

Independent of what?
Obviously language hasn't evolved independently of those who use it.
So what? Does that mean that if there's something we don't like about it we can re-structure it?

 

[Dixer]

Actually, Richie, if you can invent a language in which it will not be possible to talk shite like this, I would be delighted

You serious here?
I think Bongo was maybe making more sense than anybody on here.

 

[Dixer]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Independent of what?
Obviously language hasn't evolved independently of those who use it.
So what? Does that mean that if there's something we don't like about it we can re-structure it?

"C'mon dude, language isn't 'architected', it evolved like everything else"
Language didn't evolve like everything else, is all I'm sayin'. It evolved in a manner but in a distinct way, predicated on.... (something I cant quite put my finger on right now).

 

[egg_]

You serious here?

Yes

i will hereafter maintain a distinction between "facticity" and "truth". both are states of things, however, they are subtley distinct. note, a kettle has facticity - it is a kettle, or rather, it is a thing that exists. this kettle, however, is not "true", nor does it have "truthfulness". it may point to the truth of the kettle's being, qua Being, the truth being a state of understanding of the being of the thing. the kettle is a thing, but the truth of the kettle (that lies outside the kettle) is its kettleness.
the simple way to achieve the truth of a kettle, is to sit and think about it for a month. also, read the nature of the work of art, by heidegger. aleitheia, he calls it, or coming into openness.

The above is simply the coining of the word "facticity", and a definition of the word "truth". What's the point?

next, to say "there are no absolutes" is not an absolute statement. for one, it is a normative statement, one in which the "i believe that..." is unsaid.

Now this is sensible.

next, a possible argument against rigid relativism. a subjective value judgement is in the mind of the individual, yet, it can be said to be existant. all things that exist, exist objectively, therefore subjective value judgements are objective (the objectively exist)

But this is silly. Playing with words again

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Language didn't evolve like everything else, is all I'm sayin'.

Ok. It didn't evolve like frogs evolved, I guess

 

[Dixer]

Yes

The above is simply the coining of the word "facticity", and a definition of the word "truth". What's the point?

But it's not like Bongo coined the word. It was Sartre or Heidegger. And it is very useful to distinguish between 'fact' and 'truth'. Fact being somewhat mathematical and 'truth' being ethical?

 

[egg_]

Truth is ethical?
I don't understand
Neither can I see how the distinction between the two could be useful

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

That's not what I said, dude
I said that attempting to create a language that you can't speak nonsense with is probably futile

Ah - apologies. No, nonsense is of course often desirable. But not this sort of nonsense (if that's what it is). I don't actually think the absolutism v relativism debate is nonsense, but I don't think either way of looking at things really holds up. What the best way of looking at things is, I dunno...but I will some day.

Em ... I don't know what you mean here by 'human intervention'. I mean, sure, people make up words for new things like 'boson' or 'television', but the basic structures of languages (nouns, verbs, sentences and what have you) weren't deliberately chosen.

That's true, fair enough. Anyway, it's concepts rather than language I'm really referring to, and while the two are parallel to some extent, they're not totally isomorphic. It's not sentence structure that causes the absolute v relative debate.

The main reason I guess why I'm dubious about relativism is because I find it hard to believe that someone can actually function as if relativism is the case. It's fair enough that say one doesn't function in everyday life as if Einstein's theory is the case, because in everyday life the more Newtonian system is a good approximation. But whether one believes that truth/morals are absolute or relative determines so much of one's behaviour...

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

But whether one believes that truth/morals are absolute or relative determines so much of one's behaviour...

Aha again!
Now we're into the practicalities of the thing
And ... I'm not so sure about the behaviour thing, but maybe you're right. I'm inclined towards the view alright that if humans all got together and said 'this is how we want to live' we perhaps could come up with a set of house rules for the planet that would make it possible
But in general people behave as if there is an absolute morality which is equivalent to their personal morality

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

I don't actually think the absolutism v relativism debate is nonsense, but I don't think either way of looking at things really holds up.

Actually, the more I think about the more obvious it is to mean that relativism is a fact of life.
It's like the (non) existence of a Christian God ... once you actually accept the possibility that there may not be a god, his existence seems less and less plausible as time goes on
Like, assume for a moment that morality and truth are relative. If, suddenly, an absolute morality came into existence, would there be any difference in what we observe in the world? Or, take it the other way around, assume morals are absolute - would there be any observable difference in the world if they became relative? If not, then Occam's razor goes slash slash slash and bye bye absolute morality (and truth ... even in physics there is no experiment that will give you the same result no matter where you are in space and in time)

 

[potlatch]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
(Wittgenstein, TLP).
Jimmy, where you come across this Cantor guy? Never read any of his stuff.
(Any of you people mates of Fran O'Rourkes?).

Haha, Fran, the sweatiest philosopher guy in all of Christendom.

 

[Alan Remorse]

Maybe I'm coming at this from a different angle or summat...for me absolute v relative doesn't need to refer to some mysterious set of values that are "out there" - the difference is simply whether you think correctness applies to things or not, if it does, it makes sense to debate whether the thing is right or not, otherwise all debate ends.

agreed. im so sorry for starting this whole thing.

 

[egg_]

im so sorry for starting this whole thing.

Hey, well you certainly gave me a lot of enjoyment. Don't be sorry

 

[Jimmy Magee]

agreed. im so sorry for starting this whole thing.

Ah no I wasn't saying this debate should end. I meant that there's a clear difference between thinking stuff is objective or not, in that it only makes sense to debate something if you think it's objective.

 

[Alan Remorse]

Ah no I wasn't saying this debate should end. I meant that there's a clear difference between thinking stuff is objective or not, in that it only makes sense to debate something if you think it's objective.

no, i actually do agree. I wasnt being sarcastic, i think that's the best outlook too.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Like, assume for a moment that morality and truth are relative. If, suddenly, an absolute morality came into existence, would there be any difference in what we observe in the world? Or, take it the other way around, assume morals are absolute - would there be any observable difference in the world if they became relative? If not, then Occam's razor goes slash slash slash and bye bye absolute morality (and truth ... even in physics there is no experiment that will give you the same result no matter where you are in space and in time)

Occam's razor would actually imply there that there is no difference between absolute and relative morality, if the switch between them were unobservable.

I think it's interesting that people are inclined to posit absoluteness when the thing is something everyone agrees on, and more inclined to relativism when people all have different opinions (e.g. people are much more inclined to say whether the table is there or not is a fact, but taste in food just an opinion). Which ties in with your razor point, because it does seem as if we count these things as evidence for one system or the other. Even though strictly speaking either system is compatible with both situations. Maybe we abstract our intutive feeling for something being absolute or relative into too rigid an abstract system in either case. Perhaps something more flexible is required. Apologies for thinking out loud like this. I hope it makes sense.