To hell with society and the good of humanity

[objective_observer]

i’m back

the explaination for the previous post (this post) will require an explanatory third post relating to it, but here it is anyway:

sophisticated language is not near to being fully capable of managing philosophical thoughts, which is why we always run into infinite regresses, paradoxes (philosophical, mathematical, and literary), common contradictions, and those other little reflexively unexplainable headaches.

this is due in large part to the fact that the language (assuming everyone is monolingual, for simplicity) one speaks is not a direct reflection of one’s own knowledge of the world around them, but a collaboration of all others’ knowledge - in essence, “too many chefs spoil the broth.”

it can then easily be explained why we cannot comprehend these things: we think in language. language is our window into the world, so to speak.

i could (and will, later, in some other thread) go on and on about the questions arising from language (which i will contemplate and communicate using language).

the explanation is simply the obvious: we cannot understand it (using what we currently have).

[objective_observer]

{the on-topic part of these posts is that the thread is irrelevant because there is no free will}

[continued from previous] . . . for example: the statement “the world does not exist,” if meant to contradict “the world does exist,” fails. if the world doesn’t exist, how can it perform the action of not existing?

thus, we must say: “there is no world to exist”

part of the point of the previous post: it’s all semantics.

[meddler]

Perplexingly insanetresting, inssspires one to evaluate all range-ohs les concepts-la la like liberal abuse of conventional uses of “language,” ven especially vee no what peoples mean what we say yet are sometimes so quite pushed into the direction of established “rules” we “must” follow regarding communication tecniques when I understand about this collaboration, these chefs we are.

Descriptions of philosophical concepts often appear to become strangled within the very medium which sets out to define them (language). This is both the curse and the beauty of philosophy.

But beyond this difficulty and game, or perhaps as part of it, ther lurks an energy which appears to transcend these trivial matters and why? Well, first, what?

It feels as if truth has a voice in all this, it gets muffled, or “spoiled”…

Certainly not everyone will know what everyone means to the point of brain-scan (beyond that-- total self-scan, whatever).

Yet, the delivery of a message, one message being that language is limited, for example, appears to occur, even if the packaging is torn or alterered by the time it reaches a recipient. The core is the same, even if the message was sent more to show off the packaging than anything else.

This is a controversial position.

How do we know that it is the same for me as it is for you?

Where is the absolute truth?

Yet, watch how these very questions instantly obtain an identity that, although we can’t use language to nail down definitively (unless one is liberal enough to appreciate the way our languages proudly and seductively celibrate this mysterious element in a manner that arguably comes as close as humanly possible to an actual symbol of the Unspeakable) feels universal or at least so extremely profound to such a degree of feeling I can’t help but imagine it be universally felt by philosophers.

Of course, I could be mistaken, but then this would be another objective paradox.

The question is Is Truth Real (Absolute), or Subjective (There is no Truth), right? (Don’t answer,… you can’t. (O philosophy, you wait!))

I cannot be truly mistaken in a claim that there is Absolute Truth. It cannot be false that there is truth, there would be no false without it.

So we may conclude that I am not mistaken, and that there is Absolute Truth. To say that I am wrong would create a paradox. Against what standard would my accuser be measuring the Truth value of my “mistake”? Why, The Truth, of course!

Or… we may conclude that I am mistaken, and that there is no Absolute Truth. This means now that it is again possible that I am not mistaken, simply because there is no truth to assert that I can’t be both things. To say that I can’t be both establishes an Absolute Truth of the way things are. Without such truth…free reign, baby!!! To hell with rules of logic-- take me down to the Paradox City.

In such a world we cannot make any assertions that are true. This gets some pretty crazy “realizations” happening. Among others, this very notion of Non-Truth (that there is no truth) which appears to obliterate the very floodgates of Absolute Truth and logic, is itself without truth-value. This can’t help but inspire, for me, questions like, "How, then, does it have this power to do something so effective as like, “[size=200]SHUT DOWN TRUTH[/size]” , if it’s not even true itself?

How else?

[objective_observer]

first off, your arguing against my paradoxical explanation for the non-contradiction of paradoxes by pointing out that it’s paradoxical, which i pretty much allready admitted.

you fallicious <insert any insulting noun> !!

also (with no uncivil intent, seriously), i would like to know how the fact that truth must exist (which i agree appears to be true, for if there were no truth the statement “there is no truth” would be true) even remotely affects my argument. just because we cannot truly agree on it, as i feel your post implies i argue, doesn’t mean it’s not in existence.

when you think, is it in a language? is it not by words from a language that you refer to the subjects of your knowledge, which you have gained through your own observation and by hard-writing others’ such knowledge to your compendium no matter how many times it has been translated from person to person?

yes, you think in language. no matter what system is used to locate, retrieve, use, and re-store information, that system is based on at the lowest level a binary-logic-based language.

while it cannot be mathematically or biologically, it can be psychologically and medically proven that language begins to develop before a human being begins to be taught, even without hearing it. that’s just common sense.

we use thought to philosophize. naturally, everyone believes that their ‘thought-language’ is accurate. and, naturally, no two people gain knowledge (by the above methods) the same way. we might as well each be speaking a different alien tongue (when discussing philosophy).

oh, and the point i tried to make originally: the ‘logically unexplainable’ thought-based road-blocks we run into in life are made possible (i believe) by ‘inter-subjective observer’ developed language.

{<{also, i never proof-read my posts, some times i look back and realize some of the stuff i said was just crazy, stupid ranting and raving}>}

[ch_sitting_full_of_b (ch sitting full of bull)]

“7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”

So language sucks. What’s the alterantive?

[objective_observer]

that’s the point: there is no alternative.

because ‘‘language sucks,’’ there are concepts and ideas born of human thought and language which humans cannot comprehend. i am simply proposing that instead of automatically labeling such things as ‘‘impossible’’ or ‘‘incorrect,’’ (of which there is no evidence (we can’t think through them that far)) we make an equally ignorant assumption and treat them as valid, so we may see where that gets us.

since i do not belive in free will, my existence is one of these fore-mentioned ideas. i have accepted (my first wording there was ‘‘chosen to accept.’’ obviously that wouldn’t have worked. yeah, language ‘‘sucks’’) it as valid, which allows me to exist.

---

also: symantix is not the only reason language falls short, just the only one that’s happened to have examples of itself pop up in my posts.

[ditto]

How can you claim that language falls short of anything when you are using language to express that thought? Are you suggesting that you can conceive of realities beyond the power of language to describe? At a fundamental level, physics-math can describe any phenomena in nature that is perceivable to humans, and what cannot be described in this way can be using metaphor. It is true that the collective consciousness of humankind is more a reflection of our minds than the universe, however the “ultimate” objective reality is absolutely meaningless and useless to us.

[objective_observer]

@ditto

How can you claim that language falls short of anything when you are using language to express that thought?

thank-you for making my point for me. language falls short of allowing me to convey what i believe to be true effectively.

this is mainly because (i’ll say it again) we each not only think (and speak) in different languages, but those languages are not even entirely our own.

[rob_9942]

At a fundamental level, physics-math can describe any phenomena in nature that is perceivable to humans, and what cannot be described in this way can be using metaphor.

firstly, if you think human perception is language dependent then your statement becomes a tautology…

like “language can describe anything that we can articulate linguisticaly… and if that fails we’ll use some language.”

there are concepts and ideas born of human thought and language which humans cannot comprehend.

are there really? tell me about them lol

i am simply proposing that instead of automatically labeling such things as ‘‘impossible’’ or ‘‘incorrect,’’ (of which there is no evidence (we can’t think through them that far)) we make an equally ignorant assumption and treat them as valid, so we may see where that gets us.

since i do not belive in free will, my existence is one of these fore-mentioned ideas. i have accepted (my first wording there was ‘‘chosen to accept.’’ obviously that wouldn’t have worked. yeah, language ‘‘sucks’’) it as valid, which allows me to exist.

that first statement seems quite sensible… that we (rather than concerning ourselves with these presumed unexpressable expressions you have decided exist) just get on with fasionsing useful ways of speaking for whatever purposes we might have at whatever time and situation…

but then I have to ask, why not believe in free will? do you have some justification for not believing in it? is to not believe in it a useful way to speak? (i tend to think that it really isnt, for most purposes… perhaps in physics it would prove itself useful at a partical level…)

it seems to me that it is fairly useful to think of oneself as being “free” in 99% of life… so why not treat that (intuitive would you agree? most people these days seem to think they have it) as valid?

[objective_observer]

observation: you’re a f-cking smart -ass without enough respect for others’ ideas to have any of your own.

first: i never said anything about physics-math. ditto did.

as far as human perception being language dependant, i never said that either. i said humans thought in language. {see my post from Fri Sep 24, 2004 4:37 am for the full explanation}

the concepts and ideas you want me to “tell you about” are simple (kinda): paradoxes, infinite regresses, and each others’ thoughts (assuming my beliefs about language are valid)

these concepts and ideas are unfairly automatically (save the latter, with which we think for a nanosecond, then continue) labeled as invalid.

true, it is equally unfair to label them as valid. if we do both, all is fair.

as for free will:

objective observer said (in a different thread):

on the note of human free will, i provide an extreamly over-simplified version of one philosopher’s view:

human beings cannot observe their environment “fast” enough to even observe anything “in the present,” much less make choices based on it, or that affect it. since the “past” is all human beings “see” (remember), and “past” is influenced solely by “present,” human beings also cannot affect the “past.” the “future” is also obviously out of the question by this reasoning.

[Pope_Lanky_Wanky_KSC]

elusive language
cannot quite say what it means
only in haiku

[diebose]

The first thing Im tought is the last I believe thus an overdue process of learning is achieved should man live by laws man does whether they believe to live a lawless life.there society of mortals are common bound bye law and reason / beliefs plague there minds slow there thoughts make them use a chossen languge. Coralled the masses start to look for answers to beliefs. Beliefs religeon family and public schooling have plagued them with. So my answer is yes man has to live by laws. If you dont believe you are living bye these laws what is the label you have in society? can society label you can you label yourself. Your doing what you want are you sure you still believe in travelling in quick sand?