Can agreement about one idea exist?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

Is a philosophical proof something that we can really ever accept?

If i present you with a premise “All dogs will go to heaven”, and another premise “You are a dog”, then one should be able to infer that “You will go to heaven”.

My idea of a dog:

Someone else’s idea of a dog:

Someone else’s idea of a rat:

This obviously begs the question, ‘What is a dog?’

Seems to me like multiple people might have different ideas of a what a dog is.

So I ask the question: What is a dog?

But really, I ask the question - to what extent does agreement about some idea exist?

My suspicion is that exact agreement between two entities on “what is a dog?” cannot exist.

I ask that if someone has more resources on this topic - please send it my way

Thanks

2

You want them to agree, you sync it up, narrow the range. You send a picture of a dog.

Life is a multiplayer online game. How accurate and detailed you want it to be depends on you. You can make it so clients only expose their location, or you can raise the detail so you can see their clothes, what their wearing, even their inner minds.

3

I agree that it is problematic to agree on something because it is difficult to understand what the other means exactly.
So, since I agree with your general thought, it might be possible after all.

It is just hard to be precise enough: what do you mean with your words (explain your definitions), from which perspective are you saying it (an auther, or is it your own position), What is the main point and what are merely examples, what is your own standing point in general outlook on life (religion/political ideal/social standing and what not). But yes, given that all these things are properly explained and discussed, I think people can really have some intersubjective thought between them that is really understood by all. That does not automatically mean that all agree from their own perspectives though:

2 people facing eachother on a crossroads, might be talking about a tree some distance away from them. One would call it say 50 meters to the left, the other 50 meters to the right. But, both can gree on the location of the tree. Similarly, one might call it that lightning-hit-tree, while the other calls it the tree-that-had-that-swing-when-I-was-young. But both can gree that this is actually the same tree. One might want that lightning hit tree on the left to be removed, while the other might want that that tree that used to have a swing on the right to remain as a memory, but both can agree there is a dispute about that tree.

So, a philosophical proof can be accepted by all; simply by understanding what exactly the other means. That does not mean that everyone will adopt that position though, because not everyone has the same position or outlook on life. That is the difficulty, but the ideas can be discussed while understanding what the other means, for sure.

I hope that helps.

4

The English language offers a lot of vaguities and confusion, for instance Greeks had six different words for love, eros, agape, philia, etc. while english just condenses it into one base word - love…adding confusion and ignorance.

English language is not very good at describing things spatially either…for example when describing physical events, such as bus movements, temporal events, etc. the language leaves a lot of ambiguity and double-meanings. Joe was looking at the bus 50 yards from him. The bus turned left. Which way did it turn? Did the bus turn left in relation to Joe, or relation to itself? Dunno, can’t say. That’s English for you.

5

I disagree. It is the way English is jused often; because people are lazy. It takes more effort to be really clear and precise and often it is not needed. Our examples only serve for clarity’s sake, ofcourse, and we both know that in reality nobody gives a hoot where that specific tree is exactly; because pointing at it solves so much problems.

However, what is true is that not all languages are equally good at specifying certain things. I read that Russian has a specific word for a special kind of blue. We all just don’t recognise it so easy; because it is a shade of blue for us which is not so important. But for Russians, this is a specific thing, so they all recognise it clearly. My first language is Dutch; it has simularities with German and English, but Immanuel Kant I like to read in German. The arguments he makes are much clearer in the original language.

Regardless, if enough effort is put in, we can be precise in all languages. The need for this has, after all, made new words appear in languages.

6

Dog is a biological category, a species, and species are defined by being able to breed. That means that a group of organisms that can breed, aka, produce offspring is a species. Keep in mind that this is a general rule, which means there are rare exceptions such as lions and tigers being different species but still being able to breed because they are similar enough. Aside from being able to breed, every species has a specific general pattern of appearance, so some dogs may be small and fat, others may be large and thin etc. which is useful for recognizing species as the more alike the two organisms look, the bigger the chance they can breed (if they’re a male and a female) and thus are of the same species.

And the existence of agreement obviously depends on whether all parties are interested in effective communication, or if they want to obscure language and meaning for their own purposes.

Yes, and the reason that these 2 people agree on the location of the tree is that they understand everybody projects the left/right/front/behind/up/down in relation to themselves, so they understand that from other person’s position the tree may be to the left of him. Obvious, but just wanted to point it out.

Trixie, actually, philia meant friendship, not love. And I don’t think English language is precise - one of the reasons I prefer English over other languages is precisely because it is more precise. You were intentionally vague in your example with the bus - Joe could have simply said that the bus is directly in front of him and is heading towards him, then it turned left. Joe is reporting in this case that the bus turned left, regardless of his own perception of the bus.

7

I feel the same way in some cases. But, every language has it’s own benefits and problems.

8

This is helpful, thanks

9

You’re welcome.
:slight_smile:

10

The idea as the formal arrangement in meaning, and the content of it ties what gets people confused. The more general the idea gets, by way of simplification, the more it’s structural basis, by way of correspondent ideas get tossed around.

So, in very general terms, we are more prone to feel safe that others understand the conveyed idea, and yet, the specificity, of the exact content(s) get to be
presumed to be one of interpretation, on the receiving end.

The more general terms used, the more the onus of the interpretation falls to the receiver. The idea becomes not only less symbolic, more literal. But the gap between intention of meaning and it’s effect becomes more primitive, in the sense that it relies on the literal, phenomenon, the phenomenological validation of the examples of the ideas exhibited.

Language becomes more histrionic, a search for meaning, while at the same time a compensated affect, for loaded words, and a reliance on the ideal model. The distinct break between reality, and the presumed can take place, and as it is happening nowadays, meaning can break apart into the various modes of interpretation: hermeneutics, linguistics, and sign theory.

Topically, yes, the type of language can effect overall meaning, and that includes ‘private languages’, and that is why a search for a common language has been sought for.

11

This is very true.

For the benefit of the topic starter, a private language is something that everyone has. For example, when someone of the chessclub talks about the winner of the chess tournament, he is considered good, while for a lot of more sprty type, that would mean: nerd. This is just a ver simple example to explain that the words someone uses might be the same, but people actually mean something else with it. Another example is that if a colleague say: ‘good morning’, to me, I might say: ‘Hello’, in return, but that: ‘Hello’, really means: ‘Drop dead’. After my coffee my hello’s mean a much nicer thing.
:laughing:

12

The language becomes the entry point into the conveyance of the meaning. Thereafter, depending on the too generalized, or entropic realization of intended meaning, or, the redundant usage of too many specifics, lead to either of the two other possible ‘modern’ scenarios: 1. Retreat into a hermeneutical interpretation, or 2. Signaling an overburdened specification of options, by changing the internal logic from 'yes I know what you are talking about 'confirmations-inclusions, or excluding certain patterns of meaning by disapproval or 'i don’t know what you are talking about 'type of exclusions.
These type of signals can be expressed by body language, such as shrugging, or nodding, or simply ignoring, walking away,or welcoming by facial expressions approval.

13

I thought it is the other way around - that the more general the idea is, the less language we have at our disposal to precisely convey the meaning, so we have to rely more on symbols/metaphors?

14

I see the problem. As more generality is sought, the symbolism is inherent within more and more inclusive terms of different concepts-words. This is symbolic impoverishment, where less and less symbols mean more and more ‘things’. The ‘tree’ will include all sorts of things, cedar, oak, maple, pine, mohagony, teakwood, etc. (supposing at this stage someornone of these have not been enumerated as of yet.)

The ‘tree’ will be a literal term, the tree will have little substance, because the tree is just a term to describe the figure of different trees- figuratively speaking.

In deconstruction of meaning, and psychological regression, this is what going on , there is a process reversely moving from enrichment of content toward impoverishment, ‘things’ get more literal, less figurative. You can’t figure, or quantify as well, a lot of meaning is lost in this downward spiral. Some say yes, but such a process is need to qualify increasingly marginal and borderline situations created by the increasingly dubious value laden complexity of the world, and this general entropy is beyond the capacity of of individual defenses against psychological regression, because literal interpretation has no longer at some point to identify the variables which effect the process. Hence values become matters of non categorical assessment, and at the critical point fuse with their accountability, or differentiation. The latter paragraph is speculative, ignore it if You consider it beyond the scope, or ambiguous to some extent. (Or incomprehensible)

15

This is why they invented dictionaries with definitions. Agreement in communication (what the words refer to or mean) is essential to a society. Merely by documenting an official version, sufficient agreement is maintained.

Of course during times of forced change, the meaning of words get scrambled so as to scramble minds into the new design and a new “truth”.

16

To clarify my original thoughts, I am thinking more in terms of where the idea of “what is a dog” is physically stored. My brain is separate from yours, and in my brain there exists some (or several) notions of what a “dog” is. I suspect that the same exists in your brain. I also suspect that my exposure to dogs is different than your exposure to dogs. Maybe I’m a dog breeder and know quite a bit a about dogs, an maybe you are a dog trainer, and have some different knowledge about dogs.

I agree with this

So lets say there is a dictionary that has a definition of what a “dog” is. I read the definition of “dog”, and when I rehearse/memorize this definition, I’ll naturally map it against what my conceptions of a dog are. When you rehearse/memorize this definition, the same thing will occur.

From google:

Lets suppose that I don’t know much about pets, but you know quite a bit about them. Maybe you have a cat already and know that it is also a “pet”. Lets say that I have never heard of the concept of a “pet” before. This concept could be applied to every word in the definition of “dog”. Doesn’t this indirect association have an implication on our understanding of “what is a dog?” upon learning what it is? This is part of why I suspect that exact agreement cannot exist on “what is a dog”.

Furthermore, lets say there is an authoritative definition of “what is a dog” in an authoritative dictionary. Lets say neither of us have heard of the term, but we both know where the dictionary lies. In terms of a physical reality, lets say the dictionary is closer to your house than mine. Does your physical proximity to the dictionary have any implication on our concepts of answer to “what is a dog”? Let’s say you have read more definitions from this dictionary, and know how to use the dictionary better than I do. Does your learned skill at using the dictionary efficiently, have a direct implication on our relative abilities to learn what a dog is? And by extension, would it make sense to say that ability to learn about a dog faster than another’s, has direct implications on the answer to the question “what is a dog?” - in the here and now?

What I’m getting at is, is that it seems to me that no matter how we break down the problem, we will eventually get to some inconsistency in knowledge about the simple question “what is a dog?”. We can continue to resolve these differences to attempt to get on the same page, and we will slowly and eventually have the same answer to “what is a dog?”. But is this exact agreement? I think that it is in our nature to resolve these differences to agree on “what is a dog?”, but there may always be some additional information, perhaps indirect, that subtly informs our understandings of the original question, even after a general consensus has been reached.

17

More common is the wrongful use of language.

The thing is that the meaning of a word is decided by the majority. That means that everyone can read up on what the words ‘bad ass’ mean; even though originally, it meant something else. It is just that people enjoyed using these words and it got more and more popular. I am not sure if it is in a dictionary now, but I would not be surprised if it will be included soon.

The evolution of language correlates 100% with the wrongful use of language. Be it purposeful or not.

It is very hard to agree exactly because some things are not spoken of out loud. I always use the example of my girlfriend. If I tell you about my girlfriend, you will understand what she is to me. However, you will never know her like I know her. So, the details will never be completely clear. If you suggest me to bring my girlfriend biking, for example, I know beyond a doubt that she will not come. You would never have been able to guess. So, there is a part in this that is private. I will go even further: I am not her, so at times, what my girlfriend is to me, is not what she really is.
Anyway, the reason why you understand what my girlfriend is to me, is because we are both the same kind of creature. All males have more or less the same thing in mind when they speak of a girlfriend and all females know more or less what their boyfriends want/expect from them. This is because our species is like that.
So, we see that the more simularities, the more is ‘intersubjective’. If we are from the same country, we have more cultural things in common, if we are from the same city, we have more experiences about jobs and food choices in coomon. If we went to the same highschool, we will have more friends (and therefore more social experiences) in common. The same family is ofcourse even more close. However, different species do everything differently. To us lettuce is food, but to a lion it is nothing.

This is why Ludwig Wittgenstein said:

18

On top of that, or below, depending, there are the dual meaning systems to language, the de noted and the con noted .A de notation occurs when the general language describes the genus or the root meanings of things, or the connotative, where all possible associations are noted. The dictionary will note the genus or origin of the word. The original usage , however is hard pressed to describe meaning within it’s original context. This is why the confusions arise between different brains’ interpretation.

19

Doubt it, he would probably just talk about hunting deer and his mane.

20

I’ve always thought this was problematic, must as I like W. I feel like I can already understand lions, in many instances, and this includes when the lion makes noises and sometimes just through body language. There tends, these days and for a while now, to be a model of reality which is autistic. Selves as discrete boxed in consciousnesses, disconnected from the other boxes, all things mediated through, well, media (in the broadest sense not in the sense of radio and newspapers, though these also). That just ain’t the reality I find myself in. There are direct connections, not that these need to necessarily be called in on the issue of understanding lions.

Sure, a lion’s language would be built up around the lion’s body, needs, sensory apparatus, priorities and so on, and thus the same sentence uttered by the lion and uttered by me might mean very different things…buuuuut
we overcome that sort of stuff all the time with each other - even if we also fail often also - and then mammals share a lot. And there are certainly experts who can read lions and other species, and most of us would be right about when to start running.