... some words makes us feel well if we have sides that coresponde to the meaning of it, and some words makes us feel bad if they corresponde to its meaning...

i just think since language is dead and has impact on the soul i think it resembles the way virus change the cells it atacks, the way it changes our selfesteem.

RE language is dead, i beg to differ, language is an ever mutating entity that takes very little credit for itself, first can i ask "what language do you think in?", lets face it of most of the words that "occur" in the next minute around the world, only a tiny fraction will actually be spoken, I find language a vital part of our being & really cannot get my head around how we ever thought of anything without it, it's a classic chicken & egg conundrum & worthy of some respect.:shocked:

wouldnt language live inside us??? Its a human made tool to begin with.

When we consider Plato's forms, we see that notions like Pi, and Pythagorus' triangle, are intrinsic abstract forms of the universe, so precise and perfect that they could never seriously be considered to have evolved out of randomness. How did these perfect ideas arise?



?




'In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.'

concepts are constant

the conceptual world didn't 'evolve' out of randomness

by word do you mean the conceptual world?

the scriptures were written by man

there was never a time when they {forms} didn't exist.

i agree.


couldn't agree more


yes!


No!
Thats like saying that Pythagorus created the Pythagorean triangle, or Newton made the laws of Gravity, or Plato constructed the platonic forms.
The Scriptures describe the Universe. Sometimes in parable, sometimes in ordinary language. Recorded by man, yes, but not formed by man. Was killing and stealing a good way to live before Moses? Hardly.


So we have to ask ourselves, what was 'before' time? I am of course using the concept of time in two quite alternative contexts.
(1) Time as we know it.
(2) Time as another dimension distinct from (1).

In (1), time is limited to that which is embedded in Einstein's space-time. The extent of the universe can be measured as both having a specific size and a specific duration, which cannot actually truly separated from each other.

In (2) we are looking at a second dimension of time (I'll call it 't2me' for convenience) which exists outside of our universe. It is the t2me 'b2fore' the big bang. It could also be seen to be the t2me after the end of our universe.

You say 'there was never a time when forms didn't exist.' This would be true to the forms in this particular universe. But there certainly was a t2me when our local forms did not exist.

How do I know this?

Instead of projecting backward in time, I project forward in t2me.
Imagine a future where biological immortality becomes the norm.
We also, for the sake of argument, assume a purely materialist metaphysic to the mind-body problem.
(Not that this is my belief, its just a default to a worst case scenario)

I do not see why immortality should be that hard to achieve, seeing as though information processing increases to the power 2 every 2 years. In 500 to a 1000 years, we will have computers that can map every atom in the body. Nanotechnology does the rest.

As we progress, thousands of years into the future, the concept of an 'IQ' measuring 1 million becomes normal.

After a while we have masterful control of the very nature of space-time as we know it today. We are now able to slice off a piece of space-time, and create an artificial universe which would start with something like a big bang. (From its own perspective)

Can you see how the serpent bites its tail?

Now of course, the sceptic is going to say, 'how do we control space-time?'
Well if a million IQ is not enough, then how about several Google of IQ? If a few thousand years is not enough, then how about a few billion years of immortality?

What else would there be to do?

You see, one has to really appreciate the 'argument from design' to explain the perfect nature of Pythagorus' triangle. If it cannot possibly be said to originate from randomness because of its perfection, then the only other possibility, is design.

Even time itself would have to have be designed, in another dimension of t2me. And so on, and so forth, until we deconstruct (or reconstruct) the universe into a state of pure imagination. A mystical creative spontaneity of absolute free will. Even if you do not believe this is true of our past, it must be certain of an infinite future, and thus how can we then be certain that our present situation is NOT such an instance from a previous state of development?

If you have read Edwin Abbot Abbot's Flatland, this will be much easier to grasp.

Thinking seems to include (amongst other things) the use of universals, and these universals must have a name, and a name is a part of language. We think, moreover, about objects and things, and these also have names and meanings provided by language. Without our use of language, we would be condemned to have a "knowledge" of particulars in the form of sensations only, but in fact, our knowledge is not at all like that.