Because we count by rote, we don’t know when to count:
There are no single objects in the world. Objects, just normal objects like a tree or a cup, are not counted, neither singular double or many.
So
The mathematical idea that the number 1 is one object, or one anything-whatever, is silly mathematics.
The idea that God is one, when he is counted, is a non-starter.
The idea that the universe began, as a single object suspended in an uncountable medium, is on the shelf in the emporium of disturbed counting methods.
Can we count? The truth is this:
We loudly proclaim a number to any thing, when no assignation is evident. We don’t know when to count. This is because the how of a count we do by rote.
I think the better place for this post is as a reply within the thread about ‘totals’ and ‘wholes’—from which I can’t help but think it derived. Sometimes a single thread can take a twist and a turn, but it’s better not to create new threads for each twist and turn.
We can reduce the act of counting to consider totals and wholes. But I wanted to get across the idea that counting per se is done by rote, and so we do not know when to count (nor, in that case, can we differentiate between wholes and totals- because we don’t know when to count).
I wouldn’t want to subsume everything mathematical under totals and wholes. There’s a connection but it’s not that close I think.
Regarding the post onn totals and wholes - the replies got many, and because there is no tree view, I eventually gave up organising responses. I can’t keep reading a topic if its more than two pages long - there is no tree view and it becomes impossible to organise. But that’s not why I started this post.
You do realise phenomena are subjectively constructed? And that the fact of this subjectivity does not refute the existence of said phenomena, any more than we would call refuted the existence of the subject qua subject, right?
You are coming from a perspective of critiquing a position that no one is claiming to hold. Well, no one with one minute of real philosophy background, that is.
Yes, there’s nothing about the way the world is that tells us either (1) when to count, or (2) what designation of number fits some mash of sense-perception we’ll eventually call “object(s)”. Considering the ontology of numbers is a bit like walking through a haunted house of horrors, where you’re never sure whether what jumps out at you is a real thing or a ghost. That said, I get the impression that you’ve been thoroughly ensconced in Wales for a lifetime, and the sort of philosophy you encounter there—which, if true, has been to your benefit—that much is clear. However, in this instance, I think a healthy dose of American pragmatism would do the trick. I mean; settle the issue. We are beings that dream according to a kind of rule, whether awake or asleep. We slice and chop reality into manageable theoretical categories, which originate in our head, and have application only to things in our head. —But somehow this works. It’s not always obvious where some ‘thing’ ends and another thing begins. But, as you said, it’s all by rote. Nevertheless, we know when to count, and the person who doesn’t is being slapped by a ruler over the hands and wrists. If this is what you were saying before, I agree.
We decide “when to count” based on our desires, what we want, what utility exists in the moment for us. This utility factor is of course deeply complex - we ‘care about’ things for numerous reasons, some known, others unknown to us.
If we are products of the world, then the fact that we count things is a fact about the world at large. “The world” tells us “when to count” based on our perception of a given situation from within our own subjective biological-psychological context of desires/needs/impulses/etc.
There is nothing magical about counting. Its just, well, counting. Grouping perceived objects. Do these objects have object-existence as we see it, outside of the human frame? Nope. But, well, so what? Are we in the human frame? Of course we are… so…
It does, really.
I see three books on my table here. 1-2-3. Based on my definition of what a book-object means, it is correct to say there are three books on my table.
Nothing mysterious about it.
Now, if you want to sink below this level of human-ascribed meaning of subjective experiential creating, then sure, that’s fine – but that’s a different topic altogether. The fact is that we live in this surface phenomenal world. It exists, it is real. Real, for whom? For us. Is it all there is? Of course not. Can we critique it? Certainly.
But you argue straw men when you assume that the mere existence of a position from which such critique comes is somehow a refutation of what which it critiqued. You can argue that counting is meaningless or flawed or whatever all you like, but at the end of the day, you still count things, you still apportion out categories of perceived objects. This is what we do. It’s called being human.
Like JJ, you come from the perspective of critiquing a position that no one is coming from.
Nope. If this were true, man would have died out long ago.
You think organisms can survive if all they do is live in total unreal fantasies all day? Human fantasies sufficiently correspond to conditions of human environments.
I don’t think you said anything different than what I’ve already said, despite what you seem to think. What I don’t like is that you managed to gurgle acerbic bile and disgust while you said it.
The ontology of numbers has always been difficult in philosophy…
But I should have said more.
When I said that we don’t know when to count I was also intimating that objects aren’t naturally pre-counted, and also, that there are some “single” objects that cannot be counted at all, like the universe.
But we go ahead and count anything in front of us, and assume that anything in our perceptual purview can be counted, and is in fact, precounted. Well, no.
The problem is, his mind is black and white objective, he has trouble with the analogue world. Anything that isn’t definitively this or that, all or nothing, is non sensical to him, he has trouble with it. I could say to him, it’s an objective fact there is 1 apple in my hand, not 10000, not 8, 1. He’d probably say something like, what makes an apple an apple, that’s a human construct. An apple is made of water, there is moisture in your hand, therefore there is an infinite/0 amount of apples in your hand, or something to that affect. Apples are red, there are microscopic particles of red blood in your hand, therefore, why do you say only 1 apple, how do you distinguish apples from blood, or put it this way, when is a table a table? Is a table a table if it has three legs? What about two? Well, it’s arbitrary, in an objective sense, how we choose to define tables, but not in a subjective, pragmatic sense. We can’t expect words to accurately reflect the world with pin point precision, they’re utilitarian, how else can we communicate? I can’t download the image of a table into your head exactly as I see it, so I just say table. No two tables are entirely the same, it’s a case of more or less, not entirely this or that, same with numbers.
In JJ’s world, there is only a zen like indistinguishableness, a monistic whole, mysterious, enigmatic, undifferentialed and ultimately unknowable. A Parmenidean 1, or not even a 1, just being, that’s it, being. He’s completely let go of all logic, words, categories and frameworks for organizing and dividing the world. To live like that is to live like a beast, purely phenomenally, with no anticipations, expectations or precedent. Everything that falls before him is totally new, no words can describe it, just a haze, a non-sensical blur. To live like that, to not discriminate, generalize and preconcieve, to not recognize patterns and make connections, is to forsake one’s humanity, to become a beast. Recognizing similarities and differences is critical for navigating this world full of traps and pitfalls. You may be able to get away with it for a while, as you meditate, in the comfort of your living room, your sense of self, ego subsumed into the larger whole, but only for a while.
You can report omn something, and count what it is that is reported, if not the report itself. But these countings and divisions of a report arenot there prior to our making them.
For example, as Witt says, we do not know that we are in pain, we simply are in pain. We can report the fact that we are in pain but that does not mean that pain is something that is recognised and can be counted.
Correction, there was indeed 1 apple in my hand, as I count 1 apple, I am simply recognizing the objective fact there is only 1 apple in my hand, not 2, 3, or an infinite potential.
Wittgy was wrong. We know we are in pain. The proposition “I am in pain” can be verified. The pain can be recognised. In fact, if it weren’t, we would likely not “report” it. And the actual pain exists whether we report it or not.
“An” means “one”.
We cannot do philosophy until we know language. You, JJ, clearly have no idea what language is.
A better way to put this point would be to say that, in this instance, he misspoke—which is what can happen to anyone. That’d be more accurate, and less insulting. I think you’ll find most good philosophers can stumble over pitholes in language, due to language itself; though I think it’s clear that you understood what he intended. Without the count, there’s something like a mash of sense-perceptions in your hand. The count is essential to it’s identity.