if / or / and / not

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Deckard
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@fast,
fast;167032 wrote:
MEANING

The lexical meaning of words is dependent on our collective use of them. That's why no one persons individual use or any one groups stipulative or specialized use alters the lexical meaning.

An important difference to keep in mind: 1) what you mean when you use a word and 2) what a word means when you use a word.

REFERENCE

Just because a word has a lexical meaning, that doesn't mean that a word has a referent. The words "if' and "not" are words with lexical meaning, but they are what we call non-referring terms, so not only don't they have referents, they're not even the kind of words that could have referents.

An important difference to keep in mind: 1) What you are referring to when you use a word and 2) if the word even refers to anything (and if it does, does it refer to the same thing you are).


(I'm not fluent in the jargon but am trying to pick some up on this thread.) The fact that "if" is not referential is very clear.
"If" has lexical meaning or lexical purpose. (I'm not fluent in the jargon but am trying to pick some up on this thread. So correct me if it bothers you. For example is "lexical purpose" allowed?) Would it be correct that the lexical purpose of "if" (in most cases) is to designate the phrase that follows it as a hypothetical?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;166992 wrote:

1. I thought the a priori simply dealt with human knowledge. How does that make it eternal? Granted the structure is unchanging, but that doesnt necessarily mean that the knowledge generated through it is; nor does it mean that human beings in themselves are eternal. It is simply a constant for human beings: our consitution is to think in such an such a way.
1.1 Humans continue ad infinitum (through reproduction), but that does not mean that we are eternal, or for that matter that our a priori cognitions are eternal. We are not certain as to whether or not we will encompass an eternity. In fact its absurd to encompass eternity.
2. I will probably read Kojeve at some point; reading the philosophers themselves is infinitely more enriching however. Schopenhauer for instance has helped me understand Kant far better than any other professor has. I would rather stick to reading the players, than reading the spectators.
3. Threads always get of topic. So lets try to stay on topic. Maybe we should create a Kant/Hegel thread. Have you read all of Kant's Critique's? That would be the best start for all of this.

1. What other knowledge is there, for us? Therefore the human "eternal" if it exist at all would presumably be whatever element of his experience does not change.
2. Sure, we might die off.
3. Kojeve is a philosopher himself, of course. And he writes in a clearer style than Hegel. He was hugely influential in France once but is largely unknown these days. No, I haven't all of Kant's critique. As much as I love the guy, there are many many books out there. However, I mentioned his name to make it clear what kind of investigation I was after here. Ultimately it's we who are alive and in a far different age. I admit it's a difficult decision, decided how to spend one's study time. Does one put all one's eggs in one basket? Or does one try to get a more general view?
4. Yes, we should stick to the topic. But admittedly the topic is difficult, somewhat vague. I view this as ideally more a brainstorm than a debate.
5. You and I like the same philosophers. This is good. I hope I haven't in some way put a thorn in your side. I feel a little annoyance in your response here. Like I say, sorry if I have come across in a bad way, or as to eager to mention kojeve. It's just that we all at least know of Kant, but I've learned much from Kojeve and I often feel when I'm misunderstood that it's related to this largely unknown influence. I do intend to read more Kant. I just find myself here, instead of reading. Smile
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 10:34 pm
@fast,
Ding_an_Sich;166992 wrote:
It is both. You have given a possibility under a conditional. It is as such:

1. If I paint the bathroom wall blue, then it be either wonderful or atrocious.
1. (if P, then (Q or R)).

There is indeed the possibility that this is the case or not the case. However, being that we are finite, we cannot determine that it will be actual, as we are dealing with something that is a future event. Possibility and actuality are two totally different categories of the understanding. I grant you that we do assume in this situation (that it WILL be this or this), but that does not take away from the possiblity of the proposition. We are using both logic and assumption, not merely assumption; logic is always constant. Maybe even a priori.

The word "if" for the most part deals with conditional (the if...then), but its not limited to them. You have biconditionals as well (if and only if) which use if.
Yes, I was responding to this:

Ding_an_Sich;166659 wrote:
I do not think there is a mystery here per se; we have words to express the logic of what we want to say. The words themselves function according to our thought, as they are representation of thought. Our thoughts are logical, at least from Kant's Transcendental Categories (Reality, Negation, Limitation), and also others who would assent to our thought being logical (Wittgenstein for example). We can only think in terms of logic. Negation is just another form or thought that we use . Do not see a whole lot of mystery there. Logic is a priori. We cannot think of it being otherwise.

But then again maybe Im wrong haha.
I didn't mean that logic isn't involved in thought, but that logic is the dance steps... the dancers are assumptions. Logic involves operaters... if, and, either, or, neither, nor and so on.

Without the assumptions that form the basis for any conception of the possible, there would be nothing for logic to operate upon. Therefore logic would not exist without the basic assumptions. Assumptions are the bedrock. The assumptions about the possibility of my actually painting a wall abound. A little doubt goes a long way.

You can say that possibility and actuality are "different categories of understanding", yet don't we imagine that a possibility somehow becomes an actuality? There are those who suggest that an actual electron is a point of significance in a possibility field.

The foundation of our assumptions about causally related circumstances isn't obvious. I agree with those who say the foundation is intuition. I don't think I really explained or described anything by saying that, though. I think I may have just given a word to the mystery.

Reconstructo;166689 wrote:

Nice post. While reading it I couldn't help notice the questions. What is the difference between a question and a statement? In that last sentence, for instance, does "What" function like the "x" in a math equation?

What about "Are you working late tonight?" It takes a statement "You are working late tonight" and adds the possibility of a negative sign?
I'm not sure what in mathematics corresponds to asking a question. Asking means positing a blank in knowledge.... expecting a change in knowledge. Expecting the self to change... which is contradictory? The self is supposed to be unchanging.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 11:23 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;166689 wrote:

Nice post. While reading it I couldn't help notice the questions. What is the difference between a question and a statement? In that last sentence, for instance, does "What" function like the "x" in a math equation?

What about "Are you working late tonight?" It takes a statement "You are working late tonight" and adds the possibility of a negative sign?


A question is a request for information. A statement is a reply to that request.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 04:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;167125 wrote:
1. What other knowledge is there, for us? Therefore the human "eternal" if it exist at all would presumably be whatever element of his experience does not change.
2. Sure, we might die off.
3. Kojeve is a philosopher himself, of course. And he writes in a clearer style than Hegel. He was hugely influential in France once but is largely unknown these days. No, I haven't all of Kant's critique. As much as I love the guy, there are many many books out there. However, I mentioned his name to make it clear what kind of investigation I was after here. Ultimately it's we who are alive and in a far different age. I admit it's a difficult decision, decided how to spend one's study time. Does one put all one's eggs in one basket? Or does one try to get a more general view?
4. Yes, we should stick to the topic. But admittedly the topic is difficult, somewhat vague. I view this as ideally more a brainstorm than a debate.
5. You and I like the same philosophers. This is good. I hope I haven't in some way put a thorn in your side. I feel a little annoyance in your response here. Like I say, sorry if I have come across in a bad way, or as to eager to mention kojeve. It's just that we all at least know of Kant, but I've learned much from Kojeve and I often feel when I'm misunderstood that it's related to this largely unknown influence. I do intend to read more Kant. I just find myself here, instead of reading. Smile


I understand that Kojeve is a philosopher, but he has nowhere near the magnitude of the giants Im referring to: hes a spectator to me.

I dont put my eggs in one basket. I read everything. I just finished locke and now im moving to schopenhauer for the second time, following it up with plato and aristotle.

Ill read Kojeve at some point to see where youre soming from but not now. Hes not worth it. I need the foundation.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 05:45 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding_an_Sich;167428 wrote:
I understand that Kojeve is a philosopher,
.


Even that is jumping to a conclusion.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:39 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;167187 wrote:

I'm not sure what in mathematics corresponds to asking a question. Asking means positing a blank in knowledge.... expecting a change in knowledge. Expecting the self to change... which is contradictory? The self is supposed to be unchanging.


In math, a variable is often solved for. This variable would be the question. For instance "x * 5 = 54." Of course the information is there already to solve it. Sometimes one just has a relationship, "y = 2 * x", and of course there an infinite number of paired "solutions" to this relationship.

But in the case I mentioned we are dealing with a binary answer. Yes or no. We can ask "is it raining?" These same three words are used in the statement "It is raining." I'm suggesting that when we ask a question we use reversed word order and voice tone to add a possible "not" to the statement. It is raining(yes/no?). A floating not operator. One is not making a statement but rather stating one's curiosity as to the truth value of the presented statement. The listener is invited to affirm or deny. 1 or 0. T or F. Or of course the listener can say "I don't know..."Smile

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 09:41 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;167428 wrote:
I understand that Kojeve is a philosopher, but he has nowhere near the magnitude of the giants Im referring to: hes a spectator to me.

I respect that. I must add that philosophers generally comment upon past philosophers, and that Kant was showing the limits of certain meta-physicians. As to the magnitude of giants, I respect this as well. Of course we are all forced to take their giantness on credit, are we not? I mean until we read them or of them, we must simply assume they are worth the hype. I feel they usually are. Now as far as the "spectator" line goes, you are commenting on a philosopher you say you have not read. This is always risky as far as accuracy is concerned. Obviously what you read is your business.:Glasses:

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 09:46 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;167428 wrote:

I dont put my eggs in one basket. I read everything. I just finished locke and now im moving to schopenhauer for the second time, following it up with plato and aristotle.

I hope you don't feel I was implying that you were. I was just sharing a dilemma I assumed was universal. So many great books. Do you like Schopenhauer? I think he's pretty great. I haven't studied either Plato or Aristotle in their own texts thoroughly. That's my confession, to make it clear I'm not a fan of the erudition olympics.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 09:47 PM ----------

Ding_an_Sich;167428 wrote:

Ill read Kojeve at some point to see where youre soming from but not now. Hes not worth it. I need the foundation.


That's all you, man. I still think you can't say whether some one is worth it or not until you read them. But I do salute your pursuit of the foundation, and sometimes wish I had more patience. I tend to swoop in for the marrow...at the risk of missing important details. There's no simple way, as far as I can tell, for any of us to know if we are "doing it right." I wish you well and I'm glad to share the forum with someone who cares about this stuff at all. Smile
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;167440 wrote:
Even that is jumping to a conclusion.

Ah, so you've read him? Or not? As far as I know, no one on this forum has truly given him a close look. Which is fine. :flowers:

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 09:49 PM ----------

kennethamy;167195 wrote:
A question is a request for information. A statement is a reply to that request.


Surely. What's fascinating is that some (or all) questions are statements held in suspension. Is it raining? If it is raining... If it is raining and I do not have my umbrella, then...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 12:48:38