the iconoclastic spirit of philosophy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Deckard
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:50 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;138721 wrote:
[CENTER]There is no Human or[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]God who can match my Cube Wisdom[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]as a Cube Phenomenoligist - The Cube[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]God Measurer. While the Circle of Earth[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]rotation is a perpetual enbodiment as it[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]is void of the Corner Time notches that[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]accumulate as aging Life for the 4 corner[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]residents. Have you mentality to know 4[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]Days rotating simultaneously on Earth?[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[CENTER][CENTER]***********************************************************************************************************[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]


I love this last part. It's so precious.
Nice example Jeb! That stuff is hilarious.

There is also a question of sanity here. That's a whole other can of worms but I think we should open it.

I used to write stuff kind of like that while stoned. Just free association and channeling demons and gods. Pure right brain with no left brain moderation. Occasionally there was something in it that was still interesting when I sobered up but rarely so.

I think in the case of your example it is a question of psychological state. That particular psychological state is not very conducive to communication. The meaning is not communicated. Does that make it meaningless? It is meaningless to me but I can't say that it is meaningless to everyone. The author, for example, possibly finds it meaningful or did while s/he was stoned.

However, I do judge it to be not worth my time.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:55 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;138738 wrote:

But prejudice is not, or should not be, the test; it is just an anticipation of the likely outcome of the test. On an anonymous, moderated forum, the stakes are low: we are not going to get mugged if we unwisely give some malicious lunatic the benefit of the doubt.


Well, neither am I going to get mugged if I stare at the wall instead of reading a book. If the stakes are low then the decision to ignore someone can be made lightly, unless you take that as prejudice and don't want to commit such a wrong. But it is more like heuristics. I read a post, and automatically compare it to others I have memories of. If it is a question I'm particularly interested in I will have thoughts of my own regardless of the quality of the OP.

Quote:
I still say - I hope I'm not being a bore! - that the actual test should lie in dialogue. No-one should face censure for talking "rubbish"; but they can reasonably be censured for not talking in a way which respects their listeners (assuming that the listeners are themselves showing respect).
What if, as proposed in that great essay Kenn posted a link to (thanks for that by the way) most human thought is flawed? Why spend effort looking for diamonds in the rough when they are so rare in the first place that it is hard to find them looking in the most promising of locations?

This is a separate issue from respecting people as people you understand.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 07:04 PM ----------

Deckard;138758 wrote:
I love this last part. It's so precious.
Nice example Jeb! That stuff is hilarious.


It's a whole website. Time Cube

Quote:
There is also a question of sanity here. That's a whole other can of worms but I think we should open it.

I used to write stuff kind of like that while stoned. Just free association and channeling demons and gods. Pure right brain with no left brain moderation. Occasionally there was something in it that was still interesting when I sobered up but rarely so.
I think the value of that kind of thing is purely as a jolt. Seeing a new perspective. The process of reviewing it when sober is some people don't do. They just run with it, lol.

Quote:
I think in the case of your example it is a question of psychological state. That particular psychological state is not very conducive to communication. The meaning is not communicated. Does that make it meaningless? It is meaningless to me but I can't say that it is meaningless to everyone. The author, for example, possibly finds it meaningful or did while s/he was stoned.

However, I do judge it to be not worth my time.
Can't you have the illusion of meaningful? I have had epiphanies before that had a bright glow of certainty and knowledge, which soon faded when I thought about it for a time.

If we compare it to painting, you might say that an ugly painting is still beautiful in some way to it's creator. And thus we can claim that it's ugly. But in a math problem, that kind of subjectivity doesn't exist.

But the main point is that if you can't clearly express the meaning that you feel something has, you yourself can't know that it is actually meaningful. I am perfectly comfortable saying that some of my own thoughts are meaningless.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:34 pm
@Deckard,
But we needn't wander far from this forum to find superb examples of nonsense. This forum is littered with it. But I am still not sure whether these are meant to me taken seriously, or whether they are leg-pullings.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:50 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;138761 wrote:

Can't you have the illusion of meaningful? I have had epiphanies before that had a bright glow of certainty and knowledge, which soon faded when I thought about it for a time.

Yeah, I've had that feeling once or twice. Sometimes it's hard to let go of that epiphany and I just file it away for future reference. This may be an insight into the psychological state of the Time Cube author. I can imagine one of those epiphanies you described at the root of it but the author just couldn't bring himself to let it go of it or even file it away. He just "ran with it" like you said. He just put all his chips in, bet it all on the Time Cube. Reminds me of Don Quixote somehow and Quixote is not the most unlikable character. Still, I wouldn't want to get stoned with the Time Cube guy - I think he'd get in my face too much. I wouldn't want to get stoned with Don Quixote either for the same reason but knowing more about chivalry than the Time Cube I could probably handle Quixote better.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 07:05 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;138779 wrote:
Yeah, I've had that feeling once or twice. Sometimes it's hard to let go of that epiphany and I just file it away for future reference. This may be an insight into the psychological state of the Time Cube author. I can imagine one of those epiphanies you described at the root of it but the author just couldn't bring himself to let it go of it or even file it away. He just "ran with it" like you said. He just put all his chips in, bet it all on the Time Cube. Reminds me of Don Quixote somehow and Quixote is not the most unlikable character. Still, I wouldn't want to get stoned with the Time Cube guy - I think he'd get in my face too much. I wouldn't want to get stoned with Don Quixote either for the same reason but knowing more about chivalry than the Time Cube I could probably handle Quixote better.


But it is very easy to have the illusion of meaningfulness. Here is a notorious example. The Sokal Hoax.

Sokal's Hoax
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 07:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138785 wrote:
But it is very easy to have the illusion of meaningfulness. Here is a notorious example. The Sokal Hoax.

Sokal's Hoax


You may like this short story by Borges somewhat tangential but similar to what might have happened if Sokal's Hoax was never exposed.

http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-tlon.html
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 07:24 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;138788 wrote:
You may like this short story by Borges somewhat tangential but similar to what might have happened if Sokal's Hoax was never exposed.

http://www.coldbacon.com/writing/borges-tlon.html



Thank you. I'll read it. But let me remind you that Emile has a program which lets him write all sorts of plausible sounding nonsense. At least plausible at some level of plausibility.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 07:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138792 wrote:
Thank you. I'll read it. But let me remind you that Emile has a program which lets him write all sorts of plausible sounding nonsense. At least plausible at some level of plausibility.


...and sensible at some level of sensibility.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;138792 wrote:
Thank you. I'll read it. But let me remind you that Emile has a program which lets him write all sorts of plausible sounding nonsense. At least plausible at some level of plausibility.


Here is Emil's link:

The Postmodernism Generator Communications From Elsewhere

If you read the text below the essay, you will find a link to generate more such essays. The essays are generated by a computer program, not by a thinking being. Draw your own conclusions from that.

As for examples of nonsense, aside from the controversial ones, one can look at excellent benign examples of nonsense by reading the Alice books by Lewis Carroll (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland [aka Alice in Wonderland] and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There). In those books, Lewis Carroll playfully manipulates language for the purpose of amusement. And although they are entertaining, they also teach an important lesson about language use, that it can go awry while still having some semblance of being intelligible. It is well worth reading the Alice books to help aid one in spotting nonsense when one sees it. This ability is essential for anyone who wants to profit from reading many famous philosophers, as some of them have gone amiss occasionally, and still others have gone amiss almost exclusively.

What I am writing ought not be controversial, as I am not giving any controversial examples, but simply saying what pretty much everyone knows to be true. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is obviously nonsensical, and anyone can generate obvious nonsense if one has any imagination and puts forth a small effort. Since nonsense is obviously possible, it then becomes a legitimate question, when looking at any new sentence, is that sentence meaningful or not? Of course, defenders of some piece of nonsense often resort to an ad hominem attack and say that the person who fails to understand the sentence is simply not smart enough to understand it, very much like the defense of the beauty of the nonexistent clothing in The Emperor's New Clothes. If a sentence is meaningful, it can be explained. The burden of proof, if you will, is on the person who makes a statement and claims it is meaningful. Whenever there is any serious doubt about the meaningfulness of a statement, if they fail to explain it satisfactorily, then their statement may be dismissed as nonsense. If they themselves know what it means, they ought to be able to explain it and say what it literally is, and not simply hide behind obscure metaphors.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:45 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;138804 wrote:
...and sensible at some level of sensibility.


Very minimum level of sense, and a much higher lever of plausibility. At least to some.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 01:39 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;139043 wrote:
Here is Emil's link:

The Postmodernism Generator Communications From Elsewhere

If you read the text below the essay, you will find a link to generate more such essays. The essays are generated by a computer program, not by a thinking being. Draw your own conclusions from that.

The same be done using jargon from the analytic school and random quotes from analytical philosophers.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/07/2022 at 09:11:01