Why do so many people mistake language for reality?

Minoosh said:
Mao was a psychopath. Mass murder wasn't a side effect, it was an intentional act. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - they weren't "divorced from contact with reality," they just liked to destroy things. Manipulate people. Inflict pain for the hell of it. It wasn't about philosophy or ideology.

From what little I know of Mao, he probably understood he'd killed 30 million Chinese peasants and got off on the fact. He may have imagined it as a perverse tribute to the peasantry - 30 million down, but so many more left! At any rate he probably had a good idea how ruinous his policies would be.

Are psychopaths emotional solipsists? I can't decide if being oblivious to other people's pain is compatible with enjoying other people's pain.
Click to expand...
.
Or just placing oneself above the unwashed masses and flabbergasting them with the ineffables, like invented words for common things, intended to awe, not communicate.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Or just placing oneself above the unwashed masses and flabbergasting them with the ineffables, like invented words for common things, intended to awe, not communicate.
Click to expand...

Well that describes just about all politicians including many in the U.S. It's a species of evil, for sure, and it sucks, but I don't put it in the same category as Hitler, Stalin et al.

See George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" for a quick read on the subject. I can't recommend it highly enough:

http://http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
 
I Ratant said:
Which in simple terms says one thing is the same as another.
Click to expand...

As we say in Computer Science, a one-to-one relationship.

Philosophy reeks of this type of complication of simplicities.
Click to expand...

At least in mathematics, you can look a word up, and it means something. In philosophy, not knowing what a word means is part of the game. Consider qualia. Or don't.

Anyway, that isn't the main problem with philosophy. The main problem is a kind of meta-problem: inbreeding. 90% of being a philosopher is being a philosopher. The obfuscatory language is a means to this end.
 
I Ratant said:
.
And science shouldn't invent words to explain simple concepts, just because it can.
Like "bijection" a term in math I just encountered here.
Is apparently definable as "A bijection, or bijective function, is a mathematical function which is both a surjective function and an injective function i.e. a bijection is one-to-one and onto. This means that each object in the codomain of a bijective function is equivalent to the application of the bijection on a unique object in its domain. Said precisely, a bijection f from a set X to a set Y determines a one-to-one correspondence between the sets X and Y when for every x \in X there is a unique y\in Y with f(x) = y, and for every y \in Y there is a unique x\in X with y = f(x)."
.
Which in simple terms says one thing is the same as another.
Philosophy reeks of this type of complication of simplicities.
Click to expand...

Well, that's precisely the point: it doesn't actually say that. As a trivial example, f(x)=x3 is a bijection. But f(x) is not the same thing as x, for any sane definitions of "same". Or if you think it means the same, hey, I'll lend you 10 dollars and you give me back 1000, 'cause it's the same, right?

If mathematicians wanted to say identity, they'd say identity, not bijection. Nobody actually invents smart words where exact enough words existed already.

Which is really what gets my goat. Whenever I hear someone getting all smart-ass about how science needlessly uses complicated word X instead of Y, invariably they just reveal their own lack of understanding on the topic, not an actual shortcoming of maths or science or philosophy.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
Or just placing oneself above the unwashed masses and flabbergasting them with the ineffables, like invented words for common things, intended to awe, not communicate.
Click to expand...

Which, actually, starts to sound surrealistic, if we're still talking about Mao or Stalin. Trust me, Stalin didn't bother getting awe for knowing big words or being more l33t in dialectical materialism philosophy. (Which is how that "marxist" philosophy is actually called.) He just wanted power, plain and simple, and kept it by using that power to keep people scared.

And after betraying everyone who had trusted him, apparently at some point he started being scared crap-less at the idea that someone somewhere is planning to do the same to him. You won't find any of that in dialectical materialism treatise, and nobody was purged for failing dialectical materialism, so I'm not sure what connection you see between philosophy and the excesses which actually got those people killed.
 
HansMustermann said:
Which, actually, starts to sound surrealistic, if we're still talking about Mao or Stalin. Trust me, Stalin didn't bother getting awe for knowing big words or being more l33t in dialectical materialism philosophy. (Which is how that "marxist" philosophy is actually called.) He just wanted power, plain and simple, and kept it by using that power to keep people scared.

And after betraying everyone who had trusted him, apparently at some point he started being scared crap-less at the idea that someone somewhere is planning to do the same to him. You won't find any of that in dialectical materialism treatise, and nobody was purged for failing dialectical materialism, so I'm not sure what connection you see between philosophy and the excesses which actually got those people killed.
Click to expand...
.
The powers that were got there by subterfuge, riding on the implied niceties of a philosophy, while being standard human ***** with nice smiles.
Normal human behavior, in other words.
They attract other opportunists who can support the political or religious claims, but who can see personal benefits to being on the winning side, and get popular (for a time) approval, until they get the power to be the ***** they are.
IOW, the impracticality of the communist philosophy, for one, was masked by the verbiage, until the power to control was achieved, and then the verbiage became a bumper sticker..Mao's "Little Red Book" etc, with normal human bestiality going on as usual.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, that's precisely the point: it doesn't actually say that. As a trivial example, f(x)=x3 is a bijection. But f(x) is not the same thing as x, for any sane definitions of "same". Or if you think it means the same, hey, I'll lend you 10 dollars and you give me back 1000, 'cause it's the same, right?

If mathematicians wanted to say identity, they'd say identity, not bijection. Nobody actually invents smart words where exact enough words existed already.

Which is really what gets my goat. Whenever I hear someone getting all smart-ass about how science needlessly uses complicated word X instead of Y, invariably they just reveal their own lack of understanding on the topic, not an actual shortcoming of maths or science or philosophy.
Click to expand...
.
And even the less professions have their jargon.. the auto mechanic's henway, for one.
But the "thinker" types come up with "bijection" when "equivalent" can serve, just to be smarmier.
 
I Ratant said:
.
And even the less professions have their jargon.. the auto mechanic's henway, for one.
But the "thinker" types come up with "bijection" when "equivalent" can serve, just to be smarmier.
Click to expand...

Again, f(x)=x3 is a bijection. I don't see how on Earth implying equivalence between x and x3 can serve at all, much less actually say the same. In any actual practical thing measured, the two won't even have the same units. E.g., if x is measured in feet, then x3 will be in cubic feet.

So is the function between orbital radius and orbit period, for a given star, considering the domain for both to be positive. It's a bijection between a length and a time. I don't see how the two can ever be called equivalent.

The only thing it can serve is to make J. Random Homeschooled feel less bad for not knowing the term, but that's really about it.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Again, f(x)=x3 is a bijection. I don't see how on Earth implying equivalence between x and x3 can serve at all, much less actually say the same. In any actual practical thing measured, the two won't even have the same units. E.g., if x is measured in feet, then x3 will be in cubic feet.

So is the function between orbital radius and orbit period, for a given star, considering the domain for both to be positive. It's a bijection between a length and a time. I don't see how the two can ever be called equivalent.

The only thing it can serve is to make J. Random Homeschooled feel less bad for not knowing the term, but that's really about it.
Click to expand...
.
Again, f(x)=x3 is a bijection....
F(x) says nothing about f(x) except that whatever it may be, its units will be consistent with x3.
The only event where time and length are bijectable is on the Kessel run.
 
I Ratant said:
.
The powers that were got there by subterfuge, riding on the implied niceties of a philosophy, while being standard human ***** with nice smiles.
Normal human behavior, in other words.
They attract other opportunists who can support the political or religious claims, but who can see personal benefits to being on the winning side, and get popular (for a time) approval, until they get the power to be the ***** they are.
IOW, the impracticality of the communist philosophy, for one, was masked by the verbiage, until the power to control was achieved, and then the verbiage became a bumper sticker..Mao's "Little Red Book" etc, with normal human bestiality going on as usual.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, they got there by being politicians. Yeah, now THAT's a profound revelation :p

But we were talking about philosophy, and how on Earth it fits in with killing those millions of people. And Marxism isn't even a school of philosophy per se. Dialectical Materialism is. (Not even strictly used by Marxists, at that, since it's been used for quite a few western scientists too, and it seems to me they didn't manage to send anyone to Siberia in its name.)

But anyway, I don't think Lenin or Mao got people to take up arms and go against the government's troops by quoting Hegel to them. The number of people who took up arms and went to get shot for dialectical materialism, is about equal to how many started a civil war in the name of postmodernism, which is to say: none ever. You don't go get shot over whether Kant or Hume was right. Heck, even among the less violent cafeteria "revolutionaries" on college campuses, let's just say there's a whole business niche in selling Che t-shirts to them, but a bit of a lack of one selling Hegel's mug (in some suitably inspiring pose) on t-shirts.

The whole brouhaha wasn't really about philosophy, and wasn't really justified by philosophy or big words. It was justified by promising equality and a better living to some people whose life had hit rock bottom and started digging. In effect some workers and a few peasants who really were at the point of not being much worse off if they got shot by the Czar's soldiers, than if they continued their life as it was at the moment. You don't motivate those with profound philosophy and big words, you know? :p
 
Last edited:
Philosophies can lead to activities..
Promoting philosophies which aren't thought through, as few of them are, disregarding human nature, can lead to beneficial applications of an idea, like democracy and capitalism, and free enterprise, which promote generally peaceful activities, although normal human greed can direct the societies to excess, or like communism, the ablest rise to absolute control, absolutely.
Gulags for the dissident.
The theme of any philosophy can't be separated from its consequences when applied.
Hefner's "Playboy philosophy"," have fun, don't hurt anyone" is just the Golden Rule.
"From each, etc" sounds nice, but can't work.
Humans can't do that.
The closest it's come to being possible might be in the Jamestown Va colony, infested with gentlemen gold seekers, who expected their status to
exempt from contributing, while using the resources of the colony.
Capt John Smith of Pocohantas fame ruled..."If you don't work, you don't eat."
Nothing about status or privilege, just contribute.
Long before Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Or just placing oneself above the unwashed masses and flabbergasting them with the ineffables, like invented words for common things, intended to awe, not communicate.
Click to expand...

It is funny how those who try to mock philosophy as gibberish speak an awful lot of it themselves. Maybe there is something attractive they see in their strawman.

"flabbergasting them with the ineffables" is a pretty hilarious bit of bovine ordure.
 
I Ratant said:
Philosophies can lead to activities..
Promoting philosophies which aren't thought through, as few of them are, disregarding human nature, can lead to beneficial applications of an idea, like democracy and capitalism, and free enterprise, which promote generally peaceful activities, although normal human greed can direct the societies to excess, or like communism, the ablest rise to absolute control, absolutely.
Gulags for the dissident.
The theme of any philosophy can't be separated from its consequences when applied.
Hefner's "Playboy philosophy"," have fun, don't hurt anyone" is just the Golden Rule.
"From each, etc" sounds nice, but can't work.
Humans can't do that.
The closest it's come to being possible might be in the Jamestown Va colony, infested with gentlemen gold seekers, who expected their status to
exempt from contributing, while using the resources of the colony.
Capt John Smith of Pocohantas fame ruled..."If you don't work, you don't eat."
Nothing about status or privilege, just contribute.
Long before Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought about using paragraphs? Someone earlier suggested you read Orwell's Politics and the English Language but that is clearly something far too advanced for you right now (let's not run before we can walk, eh?). We need to start with the very elements of style.

Here, let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style
 
epepke said:
Anyway, that isn't the main problem with philosophy. The main problem is a kind of meta-problem: inbreeding. 90% of being a philosopher is being a philosopher. The obfuscatory language is a means to this end.
Click to expand...

Okay, this is clearly a parody, right. I mean "90% of being a philosopher is being a philosopher" wouldn't be opined by an intelligent person with a straight-face so presumably this is the sort of silliness that philosophers say. Or else it is the sort of thing that ignorant and supercilious people presume that philosophers say.

Obfuscatory language may be a tool of, say, French post-modern lit-crit idiots but technical language is different. It is simply precise language which the unititiated or the untutored or the ineducable won't understand. Their inability to understand is not the fault of philosophy.
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, this is clearly a parody, right. I mean "90% of being a philosopher is being a philosopher" wouldn't be opined by an intelligent person with a straight-face so presumably this is the sort of silliness that philosophers say. Or else it is the sort of thing that ignorant and supercilious people presume that philosophers say.

Obfuscatory language may be a tool of, say, French post-modern lit-crit idiots but technical language is different. It is simply precise language which the unititiated or the untutored or the ineducable won't understand. Their inability to understand is not the fault of philosophy.
Click to expand...
.
Paragraph the onest:
We go to the field of philosophy after a gentle winter storm and observe the footprints of the philosophers; Milne, Kelly, Adams, Twain.. and see only those.
Paragraph the twoest:
Yet we know from the sagging shelves in the libraries there have been many more. Looking at the footprints of the greats, we see other footprints also there, but never stepping outside the depressions of the first.
Paragraph the threest:
Looking at philosophy as a genre, that is what we see. A few take the time to collect and write their thoughts, and the follow-oners don't/won't/can't deviate from the graven "truths". And endlessly repeat only those graven truths, without considering that there could be alternatives, but fear mightily any misstep from the ex-cathedra gospels, lest their pee-eers laugh at them.
Paragraph in the fourth position:
That is why the world owes its improvements to the engineer, who while the philosophers are sitting in caves debating the edibility of rocks, the engineer is out hunting and gathering and farming and manufacturing the things that make life outside the cave liveable.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Paragraph the onest:
We go to the field of philosophy after a gentle winter storm and observe the footprints of the philosophers; Milne, Kelly, Adams, Twain.. and see only those.
Paragraph the twoest:
Yet we know from the sagging shelves in the libraries there have been many more. Looking at the footprints of the greats, we see other footprints also there, but never stepping outside the depressions of the first.
Paragraph the threest:
Looking at philosophy as a genre, that is what we see. A few take the time to collect and write their thoughts, and the follow-oners don't/won't/can't deviate from the graven "truths". And endlessly repeat only those graven truths, without considering that there could be alternatives, but fear mightily any misstep from the ex-cathedra gospels, lest their pee-eers laugh at them.
Paragraph in the fourth position:
That is why the world owes its improvements to the engineer, who while the philosophers are sitting in caves debating the edibility of rocks, the engineer is out hunting and gathering and farming and manufacturing the things that make life outside the cave liveable.
Click to expand...

You think we'd have engineers without philosophers? How would that happen?
 
I Ratant said:
.
Paragraph the onest:
We go to the field of philosophy after a gentle winter storm and observe the footprints of the philosophers; Milne, Kelly, Adams, Twain.. and see only those.
Paragraph the twoest:
Yet we know from the sagging shelves in the libraries there have been many more. Looking at the footprints of the greats, we see other footprints also there, but never stepping outside the depressions of the first.
Paragraph the threest:
Looking at philosophy as a genre, that is what we see. A few take the time to collect and write their thoughts, and the follow-oners don't/won't/can't deviate from the graven "truths". And endlessly repeat only those graven truths, without considering that there could be alternatives, but fear mightily any misstep from the ex-cathedra gospels, lest their pee-eers laugh at them.
Paragraph in the fourth position:
That is why the world owes its improvements to the engineer, who while the philosophers are sitting in caves debating the edibility of rocks, the engineer is out hunting and gathering and farming and manufacturing the things that make life outside the cave liveable.
Click to expand...

I am quoting this post to say that it is far, far too difficult and quite clearly not worth the effort to read. Really, really awful style. Try again or I will put you on ignore. The only people I have on ignore right now are Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers and weirdo pseudo-scientists so you will be in an exclusive club.
 
Twiler said:
You think we'd have engineers without philosophers? How would that happen?
Click to expand...
.
Who's gonna do the work?
Nattering on and on and on about how something should be done, without having a clue as to how or even if it could be done leaves us in those caves, fondling rocks.
It wasn't no philosopher that built those big things outside Cairo.
Or found out that bread could be sliced.
 
angrysoba said:
I am quoting this post to say that it is far, far too difficult and quite clearly not worth the effort to read. Really, really awful style. Try again or I will put you on ignore. The only people I have on ignore right now are Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers and weirdo pseudo-scientists so you will be in an exclusive club.
Click to expand...
.
Geez, youse guys is a tough crowd.
Yes ast fer paraumagraphs, and ya gots 'em, even numbered in sequence, and yer still not satisfied.
Oh well.
BFD.
Taking any of this crap seriously will ruin your day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom