 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
In what way is the nature of snow dependent on my way of thinking about it?
"Snow is white" has a universal quantifier. It applies to all and only snow. That's what the proposition means. It isn't necessarily true that all snow is white, it simply happens to be true. |
What elijah means by out of context is a completely different world. Imagine a world where snow has never fallen. There, since snow does not exist, it is completely out of context. Therefore, snow is white and snow is black are equally valid. However put them into context, into any context where snow exists, and snow is white has more validity (being true). What elijah means by out of context, is without any context at all. When you put it in context, you have what he called "wildcards". Those wildcards determine the validity of anything.
Elijah's form of relativism, as far as I know, is that when taken out of any context, everything is equally valid, however when put in context, 'wildcards' apply, and thus some may be more valid than others.
I may be wrong, but that is what I think he means in the arguments we have.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
All this n dimensions thing sounds fishy to me. |
I know what you mean, it sounded a little fishy to me, however it is just how elijah explains this (being a Physicsy person).
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
It isn't more or less "valid" it is simply true if snow is white and false if it isn't. |
Isn't something more valid if it is true and less valid if it is false?
Just a few thoughts. I don't agree with total relativism, but them I sometimes wonder if that is what elijah is advocating.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
No. You are making a mistake. "Dog" means dog. It doesn't mean you are in a different context. It means you swapped the phonemes
|
From your perspective, as the context that defines dog as being dog! Thats pretty much it.
quote:
It also happens that there is no such thing as an untranslatable language
|
German?
The point where an idiolect/sociolect becomes a completely different language so indecipherable to the original language. I fail to see why language is specifically relevant to this argument.
quote:
You need to specify what a "context" is
|
Two boxers (n dimensions). Two fighters in a ring with a ref = context (n+1 dimensions).
quote:
So called "cultural assumptions" aren't really that fundamental
|
A lexical ambiguity on my part. I use the term loosely to describe the means by which different people can come to speak the same language (in most cases growing up in the same cultural context, the obvious stuff).
quote:
In what way is the nature of snow dependent on my way of thinking about it?
|
As far as you are concerned, it is dependent on your perception of it. A sort of idealism would be applicable, especially since you are actually perceiving to be not only the concept of snow, but also having certain properties, including aesthetic qualities.
quote:
"Snow is white" has a universal quantifier. It applies to all and only snow. That's what the proposition means. It isn't necessarily true that all snow is white, it simply happens to be true
|
Are you arguing it to be a sufficient condition??  Again you are applying the proposition to snow, whereas I am arguing that the proposition and the context are different entities. Think of it in terms of payload and method of delivery.
quote:
But there is never an absence of a context of beliefs and reasons so it is not the case
|
There is if you use the working definition of context as being judged by a psuedo-objective.
quote:
All this n dimensions thing sounds fishy to me
|
On the contrary, I advocate it on the grounds that it is the fundamental principle of logic. Dimensions are simply an abstract way of solving a problem, dont confuse it with spatial dimensions. If you have a problem in n dimensions, you have to go to n+1 in order to solve it, if you think about it, its the case everywhere.
quote:
It isn't more or less "valid" it is simply true if snow is white and false if it isn't.
|
But only necessarily in that context. "All snow is white" context of all snow, position "all snow is white" is true.
quote:
In the absence of any context, they are nothing, not even a set
|
Dont confuse definitions of context, I refer to the situation where there is no psuedo-objective method of judgement.
quote:
Which shows that it's a crazy theory
|
Now where else have I heard that? 
quote:
Consistency, at the basic level I am talking about is merely not transparently claiming the same proposition to be true and false at the same time
|
In other words, something is true, it is true? I find that unsatisfactory because it does not account for hypothetical situations where it is false, unless one includes the actual context as a property of the position, in which case, one has merely created a new position, and the same situation applies, which is why I used the "deck of cards" structure in objectivity.
quote:
I don't understand what this means
|
Disregard it, it was an over-simplified analogy, you're better off reading objectivity for a more concise explanation.
quote:
Reality is not "a context" it is the only context
|
There's your problem. Begs questions of what is reality, and then Platos old one of different realities of different people, which would seem to bore out my position. Also to what degree is it an context and to what degree are hypothetical alternate contexts relevant. Also who is to define reality if one rejects Platonic idealism? It falls back down to my dimensional analysis.
quote:
Fine, it doesn't alter the point
|
On the contrary, unless you can prove there are physical/epistemological/metaphysical ( ) constants, absolutes etc etc, then relativism stands.
quote:
I don't see how this has any relevance to the philosophy of language or epistemology
|
It doesnt, I was merely describing the background to the method of analysis I used that *is* relevant.
quote:
But no judgement, not even a "relativist" one occurs outside of a context
|
YES!!! Precisely!! 
quote:
You need to show just how this is supposed to apply to language and epistemology
|
Its a method of analysis, a means of solving/viewing a problem.
quote:
It just sounds whacked out the way it is
|
You should have seen the state I was in when I thought of it!!
So debate it
quote:
There isn't a "reality proposition" there is simply a fact
|
Ah thats another problem. I'll use a slightly unrelated but clearer example. Consider all that can be as your baseline. Then consider all that is, has (and will be? depending on your stance on determinism, its not really important here) in the sense of reality. This second layer of assumption goes on top of the bottom layer. Arguments are then constructed on this. Those that do not necessarily refer to reality use a different assumption to reality.
quote:
It is impossible to understand another person unless one shares the vast majority of their beliefs. Fortunately, it is also the case that there is no such thing as an untranslatable language. Thus relativism is false
|
The latter proposition is something I disagree with, so please explain, also what level of understanding is one referring to, and how is it relevant to relativism. I find your conclusion to be wholly unrelated to the reasoning in that case, please elaborate.
quote:
The reason for this is that since an utterance only makes sense in a context
|
Precisely! Out of context, as you described, it does not, so one has to rely on other assumptions in a different context, for which the beliefs you said are true but only in that context.
quote:
there doesn't seem to be a logical barrier to a being knowing everything
|
I'll spare you on this one , such a statement demonstrates relativist thinking
The absolutist argument therefore depends on omniscient facts/positions/true objectives etc, in order to defeat relativism and scepticism (in the absolutist context, not the relativist context, as the latter can of course always counter them, such is the nature of logic, nothing is beyond refutation).
quote:
If you want to make a case for total relativism you have to make it for simple cases as well - so it is better to stick to them.
|
I dont make the case for total relativism. In a society, after a point, relativism becomes irrelevant to the society (in terms of its consitutuent individuals) as it is forced after that point to impose itself on them. Liberty (as you put it, phenomenological liberty), in the case of the Mill Limit is maximised by rolling that point back as far as it can go without absolutism increasing as a result. However, a degree of absolutism is needed, when, in this case, someone breaches the Mill Limit.
quote:
And agreement most of the time. We only focus on disagreements because they cause trouble
|
An intriguing proposition, in the context of my argument, that would instead of creating discrete positions/subjectives, it would rather create a largely homogenous sea, with figurative "islands" of extraneous assumptions forming the dependent positions (some being indepedent to the dependents of course, i use the term to mean in debate/conflict).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
What elijah means by out of context is a completely different world. Imagine a world where snow has never fallen. There, since snow does not exist, it is completely out of context. Therefore, snow is white and snow is black are equally valid. |
In a universe where snow does not exist, the noun "snow" is an empty term. It is not a term out of context. In that case "snow is white" and "snow is black" are equally meaningless. Just as "Flop is wet" is in ours.
quote:
However put them into context, into any context where snow exists, and snow is white has more validity (being true). |
Since truth value is a binary operator there are no such things as "degrees" of truth. This is also a hideous misconstrual of a technical philosophical term, validity.
quote:
What elijah means by out of context, is without any context at all. When you put it in context, you have what he called "wildcards". Those wildcards determine the validity of anything. |
But this is such a bizarre view, it is hard to know where to start. The terminology is ill-defined. At one point a "wildcard" is said to be a personal disposition to believe something; but it isn't clear what role it is supposed to play.
quote:
Elijah's form of relativism, as far as I know, is that when taken out of any context, everything is equally valid, however when put in context, 'wildcards' apply, and thus some may be more valid than others. |
If by equally valid, you mean "equally true" then this is simply a false claim. Philosophers use the term "logically possible world" to describe what elijah means by context (or at least what he seems to mean some of the time). A world where squares are round is logically impossible, but a world where snow does not exist is perfectly possible.
But none of this has, on the face of it, any interesting connection with alethic relativism, which is the claim that "a man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, of those that are not, that they are not" as expressed by Protagoras, or the claim that the truth of a proposition is relative to an individual.
As it stands there is no compelling reason to believe either of these.
quote:
I may be wrong, but that is what I think he means in the arguments we have. |
But it needs to be explicated in plain language. As it stands it seems confusing.
quote:
I know what you mean, it sounded a little fishy to me, however it is just how elijah explains this (being a Physicsy person). |
There's a book called "Intellectual Impostures" which MtG mentioned a couple of weeks ago. It is written by two scientists who complain about French (pseudo) philosophers using scientific concepts in philosophy without adequate justification. How ironic that the opposite is occurring here.
quote:
Isn't something more valid if it is true and less valid if it is false? |
It depends what you mean by "valid". No, if that term is being used as philosophers use it.
quote:
Just a few thoughts. I don't agree with total relativism, but them I sometimes wonder if that is what elijah is advocating. |
Fair enough. I don't know quite what he thinks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
From your perspective, as the context that defines dog as being dog! Thats pretty much it. |
The fact that the letter combination "dog" means dog in our language is entirely arbitrary. I can swap letters or sounds and the meaning doesn't change at all. "Hunt"in German means the same as "dog" in English. What determines the meaning of these words is their use in a linguistic community.
I have translated German myself and Greek (which is a much harder language to translate from).
quote:
The point where an idiolect/sociolect becomes a completely different language so indecipherable to the original language. I fail to see why language is specifically relevant to this argument. |
Because it is propositions which are true or false and propositions are expressed in languages. For example, "The man spoke" and "ho anthropos eipon" express the same proposition, but in different languages.
quote:
Two boxers (n dimensions). Two fighters in a ring with a ref = context (n+1 dimensions). |
I find this explanation completely opaque.
quote:
A lexical ambiguity on my part. I use the term loosely to describe the means by which different people can come to speak the same language (in most cases growing up in the same cultural context, the obvious stuff). |
Why does this matter so much. I don't see how it is relevant.
quote:
As far as you are concerned, it is dependent on your perception of it. A sort of idealism would be applicable, especially since you are actually perceiving to be not only the concept of snow, but also having certain properties, including aesthetic qualities. |
First. We dont perceive concepts, they are abstract items. No one has ever seen or physically sensed the concept "Justice".
Second. Idealism and Phenomenalism are philosophical old hat. No one has ever seen a sense datum or a sense perception and they can't be detected empirically. They are really philosophical inventions invented to solve certain puzzles (which they turned out to be really bad for).
quote:
Are you arguing it to be a sufficient condition?? Again you are applying the proposition to snow, whereas I am arguing that the proposition and the context are different entities. Think of it in terms of payload and method of delivery. |
That doesn't make it any clearer. In a possible world where snow doesn't exist "snow is white" either isn't a proposition because "snow" is a meaningless word, or it is false since an enumeration of the white objects in said possible world would yield no snow.
quote:
There is if you use the working definition of context as being judged by a psuedo-objective. |
No - if you believe in semantic holism, actually.
quote:
On the contrary, I advocate it on the grounds that it is the fundamental principle of logic. Dimensions are simply an abstract way of solving a problem, dont confuse it with spatial dimensions. If you have a problem in n dimensions, you have to go to n+1 in order to solve it, if you think about it, its the case everywhere. |
It has nothing to do with the formal logic I've done. And in any case formal logic is independent of a theory of truth. You can embrace formal logic whilst holding a coherentist or correspondence or identity theory of truth.
This just seems to me to be the use of a scientific theory without argument in a philosophical context where it doesn't belong.
quote:
But only necessarily in that context. "All snow is white" context of all snow, position "all snow is white" is true. |
"All snow is white" is true in all possible worlds where all snow is white. In those where all snow isn't white it is either false or meaningless (depending on further theoretical constraints).
But none of this has anything to do with relativism since in our world snow is white (except for the stuff drunk skiers piss on) and people who believe otherwise are entertaining a false belief.
quote:
Dont confuse definitions of context, I refer to the situation where there is no psuedo-objective method of judgement. |
Whatever that means.
quote:
Now where else have I heard that? |
You would also hear it if you presented this as a paper to a group of philosophers.
quote:
In other words, something is true, it is true? I find that unsatisfactory because it does not account for hypothetical situations where it is false, unless one includes the actual context as a property of the position, in which case, one has merely created a new position, and the same situation applies, which is why I used the "deck of cards" structure in objectivity. |
It does account for hypothetical situations where it is false. I can perfectly well imagine that Asher is the prime minister of Canada, even though he isn't. I can't imagine that Tassadar is both a man and not a man in the same respect.
Again, our ordinary objective notions of truth and meaning can handle all these so called "problems", it doesn't entail relativism.
quote:
Disregard it, it was an over-simplified analogy, you're better off reading objectivity for a more concise explanation. |
More concise?  You need a longer and more detailed explanation. It is opaque as it stands.
quote:
There's your problem. Begs questions of what is reality, and then Platos old one of different realities of different people, which would seem to bore out my position. Also to what degree is it an context and to what degree are hypothetical alternate contexts relevant. Also who is to define reality if one rejects Platonic idealism? It falls back down to my dimensional analysis. |
I warn you now. Don't ever attempt to tell me what Plato means unless you want to be severely embarrassed, or unless you have read the relevant texts in Greek and are a competent translator of Plato's work (I can send you a rough copy of the majority of my translation of Plato's Sophist if you like). 
Plato's dualist (or trialist if you count the Timaeus) view of reality doesn't really affect my point. One could make such a case, but it would require an implausible reading of Book 5 of The Republic and problems with parts of the Sophist.
As Wittgenstein put it. "The world is all that is the case. The world is the totality of facts, not of things."
Unless you are David Lewis (which would be hard, since he's just died) possible worlds are abstract constructs not real things. So since we are stuck with ours there is a set of propositions which accurately reports every single fact (i.e. are true) and their negations are false.
Nothing you have said so far, except idealism which is a non starter, implies relativism at all. Philosophers have a well developed vocabulary for discussing the issues you seem to be indicating and they don't have these problems.
quote:
On the contrary, unless you can prove there are physical/epistemological/metaphysical ( ) constants, absolutes etc etc, then relativism stands. |
Nope. You can prove that relativism is senseless by reducing it to absurdity. Compare: I don't have to prove that there is not a God if I can prove that the symbol "God" is meaningless.
quote:
It doesnt, I was merely describing the background to the method of analysis I used that *is* relevant. |
But not how.
No - because I'm referring to semantic holism, which you aren't.
quote:
Its a method of analysis, a means of solving/viewing a problem. |
Or creating more.
quote:
You should have seen the state I was in when I thought of it!! |
I'm not interested in local relativisms. They may well have some merit. But global relativism about truth seems to me to be mistaken.
quote:
Ah thats another problem. I'll use a slightly unrelated but clearer example. Consider all that can be as your baseline. Then consider all that is, has (and will be? depending on your stance on determinism, its not really important here) in the sense of reality. This second layer of assumption goes on top of the bottom layer. Arguments are then constructed on this. Those that do not necessarily refer to reality use a different assumption to reality. |
Presumably all this means is that there is a set of propositions (infinitely large) which properly describe the world at every instant of time. Theologically minded theologians have been saying for years that this is what God knows, so it's hardly a new idea.
quote:
The latter proposition is something I disagree with, so please explain, also what level of understanding is one referring to, and how is it relevant to relativism. I find your conclusion to be wholly unrelated to the reasoning in that case, please elaborate. |
If you understand how everyday interpretation works then you'd understand why there are no untranslatable languages. Read the papers "Radical Interpretation"; "Belief and the Basis of Meaning"; "Truth and Meaning" and "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" by Donald Davidson in his volume "Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation". You should be able to find this volume in any university library.
The upshot of Davidson's view is that meaning is holistic (is spread over groups of sentences rather than atomistically divided by individual sentences). Beliefs are also holistic, they do not occur singly, but in groups (think of how many other beliefs your belief that "the cat is on the mat" presupposes).
What this means can be shown by a thought experiment (not mine). Say I want to translate a heretofore untranslated language. I meet a native and observe his verbal and somatic behaviour. I take along a pad and write down what he says and my translations next to it.
So say a rabbit runs past and the native says "Gavagai!". I write "Lo a rabbit!" as my translation. But he could have meant "Lo a collection of rabbit parts", or "Lo a collection of rabbit time slices". I take him as saying "Lo a rabbit" because that is the simplest translation for me. Note that since I don't have access to the native's background of beliefs I have to impose my own on him. Why? Because I can't have him holding true "Lo a rabbit" unless he holds lots of other beliefs true as well. Without this belief imposition, translation could never proceed since an infinite number of translations will fit the observed facts.
Say eventually I seem to get a good handle on the native's language and manage to communicate effectively with him and get him to do what I want. That's all I want to do. As long as communication is effective translation serves its purpose.
But if all I do is write down what I think the native means I will be writing down what he thinks is true (excepting lying which is a special case). But occasionally I may have to revise my translation manual to make him consistent. But on some occasions the revisions may be so radical as to be impractical. All I do in that case is assume the native has a false belief.
Cont...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
Continued... but there is no one way of assigning the false belief. I choose the way that makes communication easiest.
For example, if I have the native saying "Cats are the most common domestic creatures" and "Cats can fly" then I can either make horrendously complex alterations in my translation manual (e.g. the term cats used in this context means that and in that context this and so on), or I can assume that he believes (falsely) that cats can fly.
In no case can I have the native as systematically deceived about everything since I have to hold most of his beliefs to be true and the same as mine) in order to have him mean anything or to express a false belief.
I can cash out the division between what he believes and what he means in an infinite number of ways, but I am always going to choose the most practically useful one for communicating.
The same goes for the native with regard to me and everyone with regard to everyone. You might think that this means that relativism goes wild since an infinite number of translations is theoretically possible for every utterance. But all are under the constraint that I can't find the native systematically deceived about everything (since then I wouldn't have any idea what he meant and no translations).
What relativism tells us, is that I could meet a person who I could understand whose belief set was almost wholly false from my point of view. And that is impossible because in order to understand him at all I have to assume that most of his beliefs are true. Hence, if we can understand any speaker then relativism is false. And we can understand any speaker since there is no theoretical limit on the production of a translation manual that will be effective in communication and predicting the creature's behaviour.
The omniscient interpreter is just a way of bringing out the implications of Davidson's semantic holism.
quote:
Precisely! Out of context, as you described, it does not, so one has to rely on other assumptions in a different context, for which the beliefs you said are true but only in that context. |
You misunderstood what I meant by "context". I mean holism.
quote:
I'll spare you on this one , such a statement demonstrates relativist thinking. |
It does not.
quote:
The absolutist argument therefore depends on omniscient facts/positions/true objectives etc, in order to defeat relativism and scepticism (in the absolutist context, not the relativist context, as the latter can of course always counter them, such is the nature of logic, nothing is beyond refutation). |
Nope. The very fact that relativists can understand us and we them disproves it.
quote:
I dont make the case for total relativism. In a society, after a point, relativism becomes irrelevant to the society (in terms of its consitutuent individuals) as it is forced after that point to impose itself on them. Liberty (as you put it, phenomenological liberty), in the case of the Mill Limit is maximised by rolling that point back as far as it can go without absolutism increasing as a result. However, a degree of absolutism is needed, when, in this case, someone breaches the Mill Limit. |
That's ethics. It has nothing to do with general alethic relativism.
quote:
An intriguing proposition, in the context of my argument, that would instead of creating discrete positions/subjectives, it would rather create a largely homogenous sea, with figurative "islands" of extraneous assumptions forming the dependent positions (some being indepedent to the dependents of course, i use the term to mean in debate/conflict). |
It doesn't "create" anything. It's a simple observation of what actually happens.
It's late.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
Agathon, fundamentally your argument stems from the principle that because you believe "cat's cant fly", and taking that as the truth, but you (as the proponent of that point of view, not you personally) provide no evidence for why that is the case out of the context of your own perception, and the paramaters in which cats can't fly. Excepting of course the statement that "cats cant fly for a given context", but then I have dealt with that.
quote:
Nope. The very fact that relativists can understand us and we them disproves it
|
How so? Assuming my position on pseudo-objectives to be true, it is precisely the latter notion that destroys it!
quote:
since I have to hold most of his beliefs to be true and the same as mine) in order to have him mean anything or to express a false belief
|
I find a strawman in your argument there. You do not in relativism have to hold his beliefs to be true, whereas you can hold yours to be true. You do however have to recognise that his beliefs are true for him, and yours are not necessarily so. The pseudo-objective judgement condition that I explained is the precise reasoning behind that.
Would you agree with the statement that "In the absense of something to judge, all is equally valid"?
quote:
And that is impossible because in order to understand him at all I have to assume that most of his beliefs are true
|
Again, not true. You don't have to assume they are true, only that they are true for him. In your personal experience, in mine, I'm sure in everyone's, we all find it perfectly easy to communicate with other people with whom we disagree. The way in which we do this is what is called in psychology a "theory of mind", which is something we develop around the age of 3/4 which enables us to "read peoples minds", or have a part of our intellect emulate their mind, in order for us to understand it. At no point do we have to believe that they are correct.
Even in this debate, we are discussing an issue for which we have clearly different views, mine being the relativist, yours being the absolutist (or objectivist?). We clearly disagree, however, we are able to communicate perfectly well because we have shared assumptions (cultural/lingual/social/logical etc) that are unrelated to the context of our discussion, which in this case is absolutism vs relativism.
quote:
In a universe where snow does not exist, the noun "snow" is an empty term
|
Another problem is the lingual distinctions you are making. While the noun "snow" would not be recognised in such a world, one assumes there to be the same language in that hypothetical world, but the recognition of the concept of snow would be non-existent. In that case, you could describe it as solid water precipitation aggregating on the ground forming a layer of cold slippery **** that causes you to fall on your ar5e.
quote:
That's ethics. It has nothing to do with general alethic relativism
|
Perhaps, but I am not advocating total relativism (just more relativism than absolutism in that context.
quote:
It doesn't "create" anything.
|
It creates a different concept to be slotted in place of the old one in my mind! Cheers!
I won't counter the rest of your arguments because I have already done so, however:
quote:
A world where squares are round is logically impossible, but a world where snow does not exist is perfectly possible
|
It most certainly is possible, just not in this universe (I refer to the region 28billion LY across directly affected by the big bang). In this universe, it is impossible "not" to have snow, and have humanity existing to perceive it. Please dont make me explain, I hate thermodynamics  .
quote:
Presumably all this means is that there is a set of propositions (infinitely large) which properly describe the world at every instant of time. Theologically minded theologians have been saying for years that this is what God knows, so it's hardly a new idea
|
Maybe not, but I haven't had the benefit of official philosophical education, all I know I taught myself, and that was mainly in terms of styles of thinking, so that idea was new to me!. The set of infinitely large propositions, or rather the fractal of contexts and pseudo-objectives becoming that (in n+1 dimensions) is precisely the case, but as one goes into the infinity you refer to, it goes to n+2, and thus we cannot understand it. I assume there is no god to understand it either, however, in the traditional sense of an omnipotent god, I believe that my argument can still stand, because by definition, we will never achieve that state of perception.
quote:
But this is such a bizarre view, it is hard to know where to start. The terminology is ill-defined. At one point a "wildcard" is said to be a personal disposition to believe something; but it isn't clear what role it is supposed to play
|
We're all different, we all have different preferences. This could mean us as individuals, groups or societies etc. When faced with a choice, we are presented with say two points of view. Both are equally valid. However, one of them then appeals to us more, so we choose it. That is judgement by psuedo-objectives, but it is the wildcards, be they a personal disposition, an institutional mandate, the law, or whatever, that causes us to take preference. Note that wildcards are only such when referring to the context in question, the decisions to be made, otherwise, they are contextual and preferences, decided by other wildcards.
Does too
quote:
I don't have to prove that there is not a God if I can prove that the symbol "God" is meaningless
|
Why is that absurd, I can do that now:
Any god to us is a merely a being that is far, far more powerful than us, and therefore to us would appear as being a god (magic cauldron stuff), However, this god is meaningless because his powers are still finite, but as he is a god to us, in relativism we acknowledge that our view is that he is a god, whereas others would take a different view.
Please can you provide a term in place of "context", which I use to mean one or more equally valid subjectives, plus a pseudo-objective to judge them. I dont see that holism has to apply to the word context, but hey I'm open!
quote:
I warn you now. Don't ever attempt to tell me what Plato means unless you want to be severely embarrassed
|
Bring it on Could it be argued that what plato means in that respect is largely irrelevent, largely because of what he actually means, sending you around in circles until you view it in the context of ...contexts for each individuals interpretation, accepting all as equally valid, but yours as valid for you?
quote:
(I can send you a rough copy of the majority of my translation of Plato's Sophist if you like)
|
Go for it, my email is on my site.
quote:
The world is all that is the case. The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
|
Thats not very scientific or logical is it?!?! I would take a more structuralist approach, by instead of analysing a game of chess in terms of the moves that are made, I would analyse them in terms of the moves that could have been made, in the context of each move. You can apply to same thing to the method I use to analyse stuff, and hopefully my (i)"all that can be" -> (ii)"all that is" makes some sense after that.
quote:
I find this explanation completely opaque
|
Love the metaphor! Why do you find it "opaque" and what specifically do you mean by the term?
quote:
But it needs to be explicated in plain language. As it stands it seems confusing
|
To the point where it makes the concepts incomprehensible??
quote:
How ironic that the opposite is occurring here.
|
So either I am using scientific concepts in philosophy with adequate justification, or I am using philosophical concepts in science without adequate justification (which was never the case if I may say so myself).
quote:
But global relativism about truth seems to me to be mistaken
|
Can you summarise your position then?
quote:
I have translated German myself and Greek
|
My foreign languages skill equates to enough French to cause a diplomatic incident. Still I don't recognise languages skill to be necessary to understand such works, especially since there are such competent translators out there .
quote:
It depends what you mean by "valid". No, if that term is being used as philosophers use it
|
Enlighten me  . What I mean by valid is true, holds, relevant or applicable for a given set of conditions forming a context. Out of context therefore, all is equally valid, all is 0 validity.
quote:
Fair enough. I don't know quite what he thinks
|
But that makes it more fun don't you think . In all seriousness, you do know what I think, just realise that I tend to use terms in the familial sense whereas philosophers would use them to mean more specific things. Again I havent had the benefit of training in the "correct" way to do things, but have been told on numerous occasions by numerous people that do know the "correct" way to do things in philosophy, that my thought processes, methods of analysis, and resultant views on the conceptual level, are more than adequate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Agathon, fundamentally your argument stems from the principle that because you believe "cat's cant fly", and taking that as the truth, but you (as the proponent of that point of view, not you personally) provide no evidence for why that is the case out of the context of your own perception, and the paramaters in which cats can't fly. Excepting of course the statement that "cats cant fly for a given context", but then I have dealt with that. |
It doesn't matter whether or not I believe cats fly or do not. All that example shows is how the concepts of belief and meaning are interdependent. A consequence of this view is that relativism is false.
quote:
How so? Assuming my position on pseudo-objectives to be true, it is precisely the latter notion that destroys it! |
But your position is that alethic relativism can be true and presumably that we can understand your statements, although not necessarily agree with them. Unfortunately, the fact that we can understand your statements and you ours shows, with a little argument, that relativism is false. Of course relativists can protest till the cows come home that they are right, but the very fact of protesting undermines their position.
quote:
I find a strawman in your argument there. You do not in relativism have to hold his beliefs to be true, whereas you can hold yours to be true. |
No, you don't understand. You absolutely have to hold that most of his beliefs are true and the same as yours for any interpretation to proceed. When we attempt to translate an unknown language we have to make a guess about the claim the speaker is making, and the paradigm case of making a claim is holding a proposition true.
quote:
You do however have to recognise that his beliefs are true for him, and yours are not necessarily so. |
Unfortunately they are. And his for me. Without large shared belief systems communication is impossible. And as long as the person is actually a language user I can translate what he says. There will of course not be one correct translation, but there will be one that is most useful for communication.
quote:
The pseudo-objective judgement condition that I explained is the precise reasoning behind that. |
But there is no such thing. Objectivity and subjectivity are not extra theoretical givens, but theory embedded concepts.
quote:
Would you agree with the statement that "In the absense of something to judge, all is equally valid"? |
You could say that all is equally invalid. Since the "validity" is precisely nought.
quote:
Again, not true. You don't have to assume they are true, only that they are true for him. |
Yes, but they are your beliefs, they are true for you as well and for any conceivable person I attempt to interpret or every single entity that can be held to entertain propositional attitudes. Therefore, since it is universal, we might as well just say "true".
quote:
In your personal experience, in mine, I'm sure in everyone's, we all find it perfectly easy to communicate with other people with whom we disagree. |
Of course it is. That's not the point. The point is that there cannot be radical disagreement since interpretation requires that we attribute the vast background of our own beliefs to a person in order to interpret them at all.
quote:
The way in which we do this is what is called in psychology a "theory of mind", which is something we develop around the age of 3/4 which enables us to "read peoples minds", or have a part of our intellect emulate their mind, in order for us to understand it. At no point do we have to believe that they are correct. |
I can't see into people's heads for the good reason that there is nothing to see except grey mush. All we have to go on in interpretation is the behaviour of the person we are attempting to interpret. If you agree to that then semantic holism is true.
quote:
Even in this debate, we are discussing an issue for which we have clearly different views, mine being the relativist, yours being the absolutist (or objectivist?). We clearly disagree, however, we are able to communicate perfectly well because we have shared assumptions (cultural/lingual/social/logical etc) that are unrelated to the context of our discussion, which in this case is absolutism vs relativism. |
No. The fact that we are able to communicate shows that relativism is false. Truth, Belief and Meaning are interdependent as radical interpretation shows.
quote:
Another problem is the lingual distinctions you are making. While the noun "snow" would not be recognised in such a world, one assumes there to be the same language in that hypothetical world, but the recognition of the concept of snow would be non-existent. In that case, you could describe it as solid water precipitation aggregating on the ground forming a layer of cold slippery **** that causes you to fall on your ar5e. |
That doesn't matter. Perhaps the natives don't have a single word for snow. That doesn't stop the interpreter. We don't have a single word for "Schadenfreude" yet we can translate that word using an English phrase.
quote:
Perhaps, but I am not advocating total relativism (just more relativism than absolutism in that context. |
You certainly seem to be. Local relativisms are easier to defend since you could say that the truth makers for aesthetic judgements are simply a person's feelings. Global alethic relativism is out though.
quote:
I won't counter the rest of your arguments because I have already done so, however: |
Not... You don't even seem to understand them.
quote:
It most certainly is possible, just not in this universe (I refer to the region 28billion LY across directly affected by the big bang). In this universe, it is impossible "not" to have snow, and have humanity existing to perceive it. Please dont make me explain, I hate thermodynamics. |
But that's irrelevant to relativism. The same statement can have different truth values in different possible worlds or in the actual world (e.g. "It will rain tomorrow"). That doesn't entail that truth is relative to the believer.
quote:
Maybe not, but I haven't had the benefit of official philosophical education, all I know I taught myself, and that was mainly in terms of styles of thinking, so that idea was new to me!. The set of infinitely large propositions, or rather the fractal of contexts and pseudo-objectives becoming that (in n+1 dimensions) is precisely the case, but as one goes into the infinity you refer to, it goes to n+2, and thus we cannot understand it. I assume there is no god to understand it either, however, in the traditional sense of an omnipotent god, I believe that my argument can still stand, because by definition, we will never achieve that state of perception. |
It doesn't matter whether anyone can. This is a statement of logical possibility. There certainly seems no logical barrier to omniscience.
quote:
We're all different, we all have different preferences. This could mean us as individuals, groups or societies etc. When faced with a choice, we are presented with say two points of view. Both are equally valid. |
Why? Perhaps they seem to us to be of equal weight, but that is just a limitation on our knowledge. But who cares? Many true propositions are beyond our capacity to know, but that doesn't make them any less true. For example, the current temperature at the top of Olympus Mons is something I have no physical way of knowing. But that doesn't stop there being a current temperature on the top of Olympus Mons. Say I believed it was -10 degrees and it actually is that. Then my belief is true. I don't know that it's true, but it's still true.
quote:
However, one of them then appeals to us more, so we choose it. That is judgement by psuedo-objectives, but it is the wildcards, be they a personal disposition, an institutional mandate, the law, or whatever, that causes us to take preference. Note that wildcards are only such when referring to the context in question, the decisions to be made, otherwise, they are contextual and preferences, decided by other wildcards. |
You are confusing our justification for believing that a belief of ours is true with the fact of whether it is true or not. The latter is a matter of correspondence with the facts. The former is a matter of the evidence we can marshal. They are two different issues.
How can an expression of transcendent realism entail relativism?
quote:
Why is that absurd, I can do that now:
Any god to us is a merely a being that is far, far more powerful than us, and therefore to us would appear as being a god (magic cauldron stuff), However, this god is meaningless because his powers are still finite, but as he is a god to us, in relativism we acknowledge that our view is that he is a god, whereas others would take a different view. |
That doesn't prove that the concept has no meaning. In fact you just elucidated its meaning.
quote:
Please can you provide a term in place of "context", which I use to mean one or more equally valid subjectives, plus a pseudo-objective to judge them. I dont see that holism has to apply to the word context, but hey I'm open! |
"Background beliefs"
quote:
Bring it on Could it be argued that what plato means in that respect is largely irrelevent, largely because of what he actually means, sending you around in circles until you view it in the context of ...contexts for each individuals interpretation, accepting all as equally valid, but yours as valid for you? |
You obviously have never translated from the Ancient Greek then. Greek has rules of grammar and a lexicon. You can't just make it up (though some professors try).
quote:
Go for it, my email is on my site. |
I'll tidy it up a bit. It was done for a prepared translation exam and is in what we call "translationese" for a large part. A sort of stretching of English to fit the Greek grammar.
quote:
Thats not very scientific or logical is it?!?! I would take a more structuralist approach, by instead of analysing a game of chess in terms of the moves that are made, I would analyse them in terms of the moves that could have been made, in the context of each move. You can apply to same thing to the method I use to analyse stuff, and hopefully my (i)"all that can be" -> (ii)"all that is" makes some sense after that. |
I don't see what this has to do with the quotation. Unless you mean to be using the later Wittgenstein to bash his earlier incarnation.
quote:
Love the metaphor! Why do you find it "opaque" and what specifically do you mean by the term? |
I can't see what it is supposed to mean.
quote:
To the point where it makes the concepts incomprehensible?? |
No, to the point you can explain it to trained philosophers.
quote:
So either I am using scientific concepts in philosophy with adequate justification, or I am using philosophical concepts in science without adequate justification (which was never the case if I may say so myself). |
You seem to be using scientific concepts to make a philosophical point without arguing for their relevance.
quote:
Can you summarise your position then? |
I did. Semantic holism.
quote:
My foreign languages skill equates to enough French to cause a diplomatic incident. Still I don't recognise languages skill to be necessary to understand such works, especially since there are such competent translators out there . |
In the case of Classical Greek you are dealing with a dead language which doesn't have some of the philosophical words we have. Indeed Aristotle and Plato had to coin most of them. Did you know that they had no word for "quality" until Plato coined one. There are also terrible problems trying to understand what Plato's understanding of reality is, since the term he uses are used much more broadly.
quote:
Enlighten me . What I mean by valid is true, holds, relevant or applicable for a given set of conditions forming a context. Out of context therefore, all is equally valid, all is 0 validity. |
You could as well say, all is equally invalid. But without a background of belief there are no claims and no truth anyway. But this does not entail relativism for the reasons I explained at length.
quote:
But that makes it more fun don't you think . In all seriousness, you do know what I think, just realise that I tend to use terms in the familial sense whereas philosophers would use them to mean more specific things. Again I havent had the benefit of training in the "correct" way to do things, but have been told on numerous occasions by numerous people that do know the "correct" way to do things in philosophy, that my thought processes, methods of analysis, and resultant views on the conceptual level, are more than adequate. |
Philosophers use technical vocabulary for the same reason scientists do. It saves time.
I'm not attempting to piss on you in this debate. Philosophy is about debate and defending our ideas in argument. It seems to me that you would do well to read a few real philosophy books to get an idea of what has been tried and what objections might be raised.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
The site could do with direct links at the top of your articles (for example, at the very top of you article on Mill's Limit, there should be links to home, to relativism, to objectivity, etc.), as well as the bottom.
I've always thought of Arial as much easier to read than Times. Sure, arial is uglier, but beauty doesn't seem to be your page main's concern.
I support the blank background and black writing in the articles. These are long texts, so the clearer the layout, the better.
However, the Home section could be glitzier, as well as the about and the contact sections : keep the italic Times for Melville's quote, and add a nice background color in these pages. The menus in the Home section are perfect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
It doesn't matter whether or not I believe cats fly or do not. All that example shows is how the concepts of belief and meaning are interdependent. A consequence of this view is that relativism is false
|
Ah I see. However, belief and meaning, or rather the specific association between need only apply to that specific context, which can only go up to the size of reality. In that sense, if you are a realist, the relativism would be false, but there are plenty of other refutations of realism.
quote:
Of course relativists can protest till the cows come home that they are right, but the very fact of protesting undermines their position
|
We can and we shall!  jk. In all seriousness, I do not say that relativism should be applied over absolutists, using my terms, it boils down to two subjectives, relativism vs absolutism, both are equally valid as far as the relativist is concerned and so all that remains is debate, whose role is not to force one view over another, rather than to serve as mutual education, at least ideally.
quote:
You absolutely have to hold that most of his beliefs are true and the same as yours for any interpretation to proceed. When we attempt to translate an unknown language we have to make a guess about the claim the speaker is making, and the paradigm case of making a claim is holding a proposition true
|
Agreed, however, I do not see why that association extends beyond the context of the communicating persons, or the "large shared belief systems"
quote:
Objectivity and subjectivity are not extra theoretical givens, but theory embedded concepts
|
Aren't they all. To use your term, I find that opaque. I do not refer to objectivity in the usual sense, I presume you've read my article on my alternative.
quote:
You could say that all is equally invalid. Since the "validity" is precisely nought
|
Precisely
quote:
Therefore, since it is universal, we might as well just say "true"
|
No, thats a misunderstanding. Its precisely not universal because it is true for that context. If you mean "for all intents and purposes", then in the context of realism or pragmatism, I can go for that, however, I subscribe to neither of those doctrines.
quote:
The point is that there cannot be radical disagreement since interpretation requires that we attribute the vast background of our own beliefs to a person in order to interpret them at all
|
You never went to an all boys school did you? jk. As far as my understanding goes, that means that the subjectives are interdependent, and they must interact and share assumptions/beliefs in order to communicate.
quote:
I can't see into people's heads for the good reason that there is nothing to see except grey mush
|
I disagree, when one knows someone, one interprets behaviour (I use that term very loosely), and in the mind, forms something of an "equation" for that person. That allows them to have a priori knowledge of that person, in other words, they cognetively "emulate" that person.
quote:
You certainly seem to be
|
Nope, within a given individual context, absolutism is the only way to do things, however, in the case of divisible contexts, relativism applies.
quote:
You seem to be using scientific concepts to make a philosophical point without arguing for their relevance
|
My bad, I didnt include the thesis on TD in the original relativism article. I'll put up a preliminary essay on TD next time I update my site, I'll say its undated in my sig, you can take a look if you want. I come from a scientific background, I have a tendency to use occams razor rather liberally. In terms of how scientific method relates to philosophy, for the most part, science = reason, philosophy = reason. Of course in the latter case, philosophy is also an art and an exercise in imagination imo.
Holism, the view that accounts of all the constituent parts of a whole and their associations with each other is inadequate as an account of the whole. The question is, are you trying to make an account of the whole, and is relativism an account of the whole?
Semantic, concerned with the meaning of symbols and lingual meanings.
That anywhere close?
quote:
In the case of Classical Greek you are dealing with a dead language which doesn't have some of the philosophical words we have
|
The good old days eh?
quote:
There are also terrible problems trying to understand what Plato's understanding of reality is, since the term he uses are used much more broadly
|
My understanding of Plato (which I freely admit is very limited) leads me to the conclusion that one shouldnt bother understanding what he thought. To me, philosophy is not about men long dead, rather, the concepts they left behind and how they relate to my view of the world. In that case, I feel it is acceptable to take the views of men like Plato loosely, down to the interpretation of the beholder.
quote:
without a background of belief there are no claims and no truth anyway
|
Yes, but with a background of beliefs, individuals forge their own views, and the resultant opinions, in the lack of P.objective judgement are equally valid/invalid. What I mean by that latter term is that it is illogical in the relativist sense to force one subjective over another.
quote:
Philosophers use technical vocabulary for the same reason scientists do. It saves time
|
That is true, but I dont believe it to be necessarily essential. I'm making the effort to learn, I'm reading as much stuff as I can, but I havent been at it for that long, so I'm probably still representative of those who are interested in philosophy, perhaps those with the cognetive ability, but without the training in the "proper" way to do things. Still, I dont think thats all bad, and doesnt necessarily relegate people to "pseudo-philosophers".
quote:
I'm not attempting to piss on you in this debate.
|
I know, I love a good debate, but that doesn't preclude respect for the others point of view  . Indeed, from what I know of your background you've earned the right to be taken much more seriously than me in these matters, but still, what would we learn if such notions were to influence the nature of debates?
Thanks to all the suggestions for my site, I'll try to impliment them for the next update. I'll mention in my sig when its updated, and the date of that, so you can admire my fantastic use of terribly ugly fonts!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-06-2003 05:42
|
|