Why do so many people mistake language for reality?

I Ratant said:
Because even philosophers can see the problems with philosophy.
That is, some of them.
And discuss them without getting all riled up and snitty and knickers-twisted when contrarion views are posted.
After all, the subject is merely words, which need words to discuss any problems.
We're stuck with only words, as philosophies themselves are toothless without someone taking an idea and trying (usually fruitlessly) to make it work, without reality rounding off the sharp edges to make the idea even remotely possible.
"tpm" does that in a "lively and friendly" atmosphere.
Hacker again...
"...scientists... can show you libraries full of well-established facts and well-confirmed theories....a philosopher cannot produce a handbook of well-established and well-confirmed philosophical truths, there's nothing to show."
Click to expand...

And why is this a problem?
 
I Ratant said:
"...scientists... can show you libraries full of well-established facts and well-confirmed theories....a philosopher cannot produce a handbook of well-established and well-confirmed philosophical truths, there's nothing to show."
Click to expand...

hehe... well... sometimes things are not as clear as you believe, or as simple as you imply... this is a naive position. Think about this, Ptolomeus was able to show you WELL stablished FACTS that confirmed his THEORY (he even made a mechanical model which was able to accurately predict phenomena like eclipses, confirming, once again, that his model was an "accurate depiction of how reality really is"). This is a recurring problem here at the JREF, full of naive materialists, as I call them. Now there is even an article in WP, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
hehe... well... sometimes things are not as clear as you believe, or as simple as you imply... this is a naive position. Think about this, Ptolomeus was able to show you WELL stablished FACTS that confirmed his THEORY (he even made a mechanical model which was able to accurately predict phenomena like eclipses, confirming, once again, that his model was an "accurate depiction of how reality really is"). This is a recurring problem here at the JREF, full of naive materialists, as I call them. Now there is even an article in WP, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism
Click to expand...

You're making the same error in the other thread. You yourself have said it: he provided FACTS to support his theory. Without those FACTS, his theory would be useless. It was because of those FACTS, that his theory became scientifically accepted.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
You're making the same error in the other thread. You yourself have said it: he provided FACTS to support his theory. Without those FACTS, his theory would be useless. It was because of those FACTS, that his theory became scientifically accepted.
Click to expand...

Do you realize what you just said? The implications of it? if you do, then you would be able to understand what I'm telling here (and in the other thread). Think about it... What are the implications of this?
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Do you realize what you just said? The implications of it? if you do, then you would be able to understand what I'm telling here (and in the other thread). Think about it... What are the implications of this?
Click to expand...

You know, it's getting just plain annoying this tendency of yours to constantly hint that you're "implying something more" but you never just say what the hell is it you actually want to say. So why don't you just... say it???
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
You know, it's getting just plain annoying this tendency of yours to constantly hint that you're "implying something more" but you never just say what the hell is it you actually want to say. So why don't you just... say it???
Click to expand...

Excuse me, it is maybe that I'm used to dialogue, not giving lectures... that said... It is important that you see the implications for yourself. Paradigm shifts are never easy... Again, sorry if you find this annoying, sometimes, explaining something to others is not enough, "you have to see it for yourself". If you don't want, thats fine, but don't accuse me of anything, please.
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Excuse me, it is maybe that I'm used to dialogue, not giving lectures... that said... It is important that you see the implications for yourself. Paradigm shifts are never easy... Again, sorry if you find this annoying, sometimes, explaining something to others is not enough, "you have to see it for yourself". If you don't want, thats fine, but don't accuse me of anything, please.
Click to expand...

Don't expect me not to accuse you of anything when you are incapable of simply saying what is it you have to say, but rather, dance around by playing these "If you cannot guess, I can't tell you" type of silly games. So yes, I am accusing you of not knowing what the heck you are talking about, until you prove me wrong by simply saying what is it you have to say. I'm not interested in these silly hidden meaning games, and this is not the way we have arguments in these forums. In here, if you have something to say, say it and in a clear, explicit way. Otherwise, we are entitled to assume you have nothing to say.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Don't expect me not to accuse you of anything when you are incapable of simply saying what is it you have to say, but rather, dance around by playing these "If you cannot guess, I can't tell you" type of silly games. So yes, I am accusing you of not knowing what the heck you are talking about, until you prove me wrong by simply saying what is it you have to say. I'm not interested in these silly hidden meaning games, and this is not the way we have arguments in these forums. In here, if you have something to say, say it and in a clear, explicit way. Otherwise, we are entitled to assume you have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

It is not a game, seriously, I have write it in detail, but you don't connect the dots. That, I cannot do it for you, its like when you are learning math. Again, I have stated what I believe, and the implications. Here:

sometimes things are not as clear as you believe, or as simple as you imply... this is a naive position. Think about this, Ptolomeus was able to show you WELL stablished FACTS that confirmed his THEORY (he even made a mechanical model which was able to accurately predict phenomena like eclipses, confirming, once again, that his model was an "accurate depiction of how reality really is".

In bold, the relevant words. This is what people still do, believing that if the facts match their model, then their model is an accurate depiction of how reality really is.

I say it is not, we have the data, which is interpreted from inside a world view, a theoretical model about what to expect. That's it, there is no reality of our models our theories beyond that, there is no truth in our models beyond that. And my first post in the thread:

The earth WAS flat at some point, and the earth was the center of the universe. Both concepts were taken as KNOWLEDGE at the time, and were backed up by (known) facts and observations. Later, better observations lead the way to broader facts (no more real facts, just broader) and this made people to change their beliefs (and keep believing they have knowledge).

Again, the ideas are clearly expressed there. Feel free to ask me anything, but just cease to fight strawmans.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
Oh to be sure a purely linguistic mind screw can be, if nothing else, interesting to mull over and discuss and can at times lead real intellectual growth. I'm not arguing that language and thought don't influence each other.

My issue is more with the arguments to seem to begin and end there, the as I call them "Obi-Wan Kenodi Speakers" that act as if the ability to make a self contradictory statement makes them the wise old man on the mountain.

I can use the English language to make the statement "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" but that doesn't change the fact that there is no intellectual value to that statement.
Click to expand...
I actually knew a kid in school a zillion years ago who could, in fact, clap with one hand. He also ate his own hair and had a bald spot on the top of his head.
 
I Ratant said:
.
I fail here.
We engineers will see a situation, and can come up with a fix.
Getting across a stream.. chop a tree.
Not contemplate the meaning of the stream and did god place it there as a limit to our wanderings.
Click to expand...

Pfft. The engineer will spend all day calculating the optimal blade length and teeth per inch on the saw needed to fell the tree...and then notice that the technician has already finished--using an ax.


I Ratant said:
Because even philosophers can see the problems with philosophy.
That is, some of them.
Click to expand...

Why's this surprising? Scientists can see the problems with science, and politicians can see the problem with politics. Did some rogue philosopher tell you philosophy was perfect?

And discuss them without getting all riled up and snitty and knickers-twisted when contrarion views are posted.
Click to expand...

"Philosophy sucks" being one of your contrary views?

Nobody's panties are getting twisted, it's just funny to listen to adults play the "my profession is better than yours" game. Why don't you go play that with the guys who actually build the stuff you engineer. Ask them who actually gets things done.

We're stuck with only words CAD drawings, as philosophies designs themselves are toothless without someone taking an idea and trying (usually fruitlessly) to make it work, without reality rounding off the sharp edges to make the idea design even remotely possible.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
epepke said:
That would be a great story if it weren't wrong.

From Wikipedia:
Click to expand...

Come, now. If you're going to quote the wiki, you should really not cherry-pick:

One of the most common recorded comments by a teacher on a disciple's answer is: "Even though that is true, if you do not know it yourself, it does you no good."[who?] The master is not looking for a specific answer but for evidence that the disciple has grasped the state of mind expressed by the kōan itself.
Therefore, although there may be "traditional answers" (kenjo 見処 or kenge 見解) to many kōans, these are only preserved as exemplary answers given in the past by various masters during their own training. In practice, many answers could be correct, provided that they convey proof of personal realization.
Click to expand...

(Next time you dismiss someone, make sure you're actually finished.)

About a quarter century ago, I held in my hands a book called something like 99 Zen Koans with Answers. The only one I can remember is "a butterfly" for the sound of one hand clapping. I went excitedly to a friend who was more into this stuff and said, "I just discovered that koans aren't the unanswerable ponderables that people say they are. The student has to get the right answer fast or else the master whups him upside the head with a rattan stick." He nodded sagely and pointed out how many Zen students were enlightened by being whupped upside the head with a rattan stick.
Click to expand...

And you would still get beat upside the head for yelling "A butterfly!". Having the correct answer isn't enough, either. The master has to believe that you have a deep, personal realization of the mindset evoked by the koan.
 
Last edited:
During the French Revolution, a priest, a drunkard and an engineer were led to the guillotine. The officials ask the priest if he wants to face up or down when he meets his fate. The priest says that he would like to face up so he will be looking toward heaven when he dies. They raise the blade of the guillotine, release it, it comes speeding down and suddenly stops just inches from his neck. The authorities take this as divine intervention and release the priest.

Next the drunkard comes to the guillotine. He also decides to die face up hoping that he will be as fortunate as the priest. They raise the blade, release it, it comes speeding down and suddenly stops just inches from his neck. So they release the drunkard as well.

The engineer is next. He too decides to die facing up. They slowly raise the blade of the guillotine, when suddenly the engineer says: "Hey, I see what your problem is..."
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
JoeBentley said:
"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object"
Click to expand...

Easy.

Both objects are simultaneously stopped and in motion, until they're observed, and the act of observation affects the objects, causing them to fall into one state or the other.

On the other hand, an immobile object from one frame of reference will be moving from another frame of reference, so it depends on the observation point!
 
I believe is amazing that we can make such logical games (unstoppable force, immovable stuff, etc)... some people fail to be marveled about that we can design and play with such abstract, entirely conceptual models. I feel sorry for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom