Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Manored,
Too be honest, I think jgweed's response has a good deal of merit compared to mine. He underlines a very essential element in language and philosophy. Lewis Carroll (real name Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was of course the author of "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," but he was also a mathematician and logician and shed light on this issue.
But one of his sub stories is a must for students of philosophy in regards to language? namely Humpty Dumpty. Many people understand humpty Dumpty from the nursery rhyme, "Humpty dumpty sat on a wall, humpty dumpty had a great fall, etc." But the real story of Humpty Dumpty is far more complex and encapsulates your thoughts well I think.
In the story, Alice meets Humpty sitting on a wall, and they have a conversation that eventually leads to the concept of the un-birthday. Alice is puzzled by the concept of an un-birthday, which Humpty describes as 365 - 1 = 364 un-birthdays. Alice finally gets it, and Humpty states his famous words "that's glory for you." Alice is confused because that is not the context in which glory is used. Humpty replies "I meant there's a nice knock down argument for you!" Of course, we know that that's not what glory means. But Humpty basically replies "glory means whatever I mean it to mean."
Here is where this all addresses your comment. Alice states "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." That's the underline issue, which is not resolved as Humpty continues to use words that do not follow their accepted use and Alice gets flustered and leaves. But basically, Humpty Dumpty claims that the meaning of the words he used (i.e. un-birthday, glory, pay-it-forward, etc) are not constrained at all. If you compare that to Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels, where Gulliver goes to the academy, we understand the meaning of an expression by understanding its use.
So jgweed I think underlines a problematic account of semantics and perception.
But see the problem is in what the official meaning of a word is. I think the example of Humpty dumpty swings both ways, both in regards to how words can be unconstrained and at the opposite end of the spectrum constrained.
One of my favorite neo-feminist philosophers has a very good argument for the constrained meaning of a word. Stephanie Ross in How Words Hurt underlines the concept of a dead metaphor. Take for example the word "hysterical." To say, we use the term hysterical to refer to people that are funny, non-sensical, and people that make us laugh (as well as people that are a little nuts, so there is a double meaning in there). But etymologically, hysterical comes from the Greek word hystia, which basically means "women's ovaries." Now as time went on, the hurtful word hysterical lost its edge because it became ingrained and thus became a dead metaphor. But doesn't the meaning of the word still hurt? We have many words to day that are like that, words that are turning into dead metaphors? look at the term B!tch. So what is official does not always the true meaning of the word.
Juxtapose that with humpty dumpty or even peanut. Was Alice wrong to say to Humpty "How exactly like an egg you are!" when we say things like egg-head, etc. Could it not be construed as hurtful? Same for peanut, only the phenomena is reversed. We are developing a bad stigma when we call someone a peanut. Ironically, in post #21, I jokingly put up "Dr. George Washington Carver researched and developed more than 300 uses for peanuts in the early 1900s; Dr. Carver is considered "The Father of the Peanut Industry" because of his extensive research and selfless dedication to promoting peanut production and products." But there has been a bad social stigma attached to peanuts for the past few hundred years because peanuts were given to black slaves in the indies, not fit for civilized consumption? like fish heads, etc. Peanut is a reverse metaphor because it may be racially motivated.
I think that's an interesting point. But that in itself brings up a huge problem? essentially the biggest problem of modern philosophy. How do we come to know things, is it through experience or is through innate ideas? A-priori or a-posteriori knowledge? Descartes for example is a rationalist who supposes that knowledge comes from innate ideas, that is, ideas which are imprinted in us from birth. John Locke on the other hand is an empiricist who supposes that our knowledge comes after the senses, from experience.
But if the peanut has the ability to receive knowledge before or after the senses, we might as well call it a man. A person above all things is a cognitive creature. It then seems more of a semantic twist to convince a peanut he is a man and a man a peanut. Peanut then seems more of a labeled identification rather than a classification of capabilities.
That's a good one. Francis Bacon (quoting from saint Thomas Aquinas) said "Man doth like an ape that the higher he climbed the more he shown of his behind."
Thats what I meant.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to put forwards here. In one way you basically state that it doesn't matter if the peanut has more cognitive abilities (modus of thoughts) than the great thinker?if you cannot communicate with it (it doesn't matter???). In another instance, you refer to the "deep thinker." Do you refer to the visage of the statue deep thinker or some computer named deep thinker? Or do you refer to the deep think visage as a computer?
In the first instance, I would think that if anything possessed cognitive abilities, regardless if it were to obtain knowledge a-priori or a-posteriori, there is some communicable opportunity. Keep in mind that even peanuts (though not of cognitive abilities as humans) still possess the ability to communicate. Peanuts (or in fact their plants) react with light in photosynthesis and act accordingly. Are they unintelligent in their own way because they cannot converse with humans. What if we were contacted by an alien species whose communications were vastly different yet superior to ours? Because we cannot communicate with them, are we any less cognizant?
In the second instance, the reference to Rene Descartes "I think, therefore I am" falls in line with the a-priori dogmatisms. One could argue that both the peanut and deep thinker (if it were the computer or the person/statue) have the potential to possess knowledge gained before the senses, the peanut with pre-programmed information in its cellular makeup as well as the thinker, in both sense of the identification.
Also, this is hilarious? the deep thinker by encyclopedia dramatica, Deep thinker - Encyclopedia Dramatica
Manored,
I've been meaning to look into "the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" because it is referenced quite a few times here on the forum. I'll probably see the movie though.
Memester,
Sorry about that, mixed you and manored up. I think since you didn't enter the conversation until post #28 and the statement was formed in such a way that it seemed to continue another conversation, I mixed the two of you up. I know I probably shouldn't start another delineation, but what would be the nature of your view that would cause so much difficulty in it being changed?
He has some other less famous books that are as good though.
