You cannot use a combination of words to attack the very system from which the combination of words is derived. It is an impossibility (like a rock being thrown at itself). For to communicate language is to draw a sequence from such systems and any attempt to dismantle such systems, by use of that which is sequentially drawn from it, requires a continual sequence of extraction from the very system your are attempting to challenge. Furthermore if one should use language to challenge another person use of language; that is not language being used to attack language, but rather, it is language being used as an observational reference instrument to challenge another reference of observation. The same thing is applied to math. No one has every used math (the functional system of quantity) to disprove math, for to use it to disprove it, is to prove it through the method used in disproving it. Thus, it is an impossibility. And again math is simply used as an observational reference instrument to challenge another reference of observation.

I agree with you, Truth is not what we have, but it is what has us. That is the original purpose of this topic. Language does not contain the Truth, but rather the Truth contains language and conveys itself through such systems. This is why we use linguistic symbols to refer to objects yet the objects themselves use no such symbols. And because our symbols exclusively refer to such objects, the symbol itself is restrained to the reference of which it is used to refer.

I think it is a paradox that 'the truth is ineffable' is logically true.

A convenient misreading. I'm not attacking language in general. I'm only contending the following:

1) language has no inherent truth value
2) the existence of language has no bearing on ACTUAL truth, only assumed truth
3) language is so fraught with inconsistencies that it fails to have innate logical coherence

If you're still going to insist on this utter nonsense about my inability to use language to critique language, then a) consider that EVERYTHING we critique boils down to language, and b) you can regard me to be offering a non-linguistic hand gesture as an alternative form of critique.

Nomadic, are you saying (much more elaborately) that a person can not use language to say that language does not say anything? That makes sense to me.

Aedes, are you saying (much more elaborately) that we have no proof that language is tied to reality? That makes sense to me as well. Though it seems to assume the existence of a reality, even if it is completely removed from our understanding of it.

Just trying to follow the conversation... it's been very interesting reading!

It's not so much about "proof of whether or not language is tied to reality". It's more that it's pretty self evident that language corresponds to human cognitive and communicative needs and capacities; and therefore language is rooted in human assumptions of truth, not ACTUAL truth (whatever that is).

As you say, language sort of assumes the existence of a reality, insofar as it requires that two interlocutors be somewhat on the same page when they're talking. In other words, for a language to have mutual intelligibility, any two interlocutors need to share the referential and conceptual content of language for it to work at all.

But that doesn't mean that they're right, or that their ideas partake of some objective truth. I mean can't we be wrong?

Hello Ogden,



Good to hear from you again. Below is my answers to your questions.




WORDS IN BLUE WERE QUESTIONS ASKED BY OGDEN.


1. What if the computer was set up with the ability to evolve by way of random mutation into something that it was not at its origin? How would the unknown result be then predetermined by the maker?


The result would be based on an input variation of probabilities, which are pre determined reference inputs, that uses an underlying systematic code to generate the end result of the random sequence. In other words, the premise upon which such "mutations" should occur would be based on an all ready existing variation of codes that are pre established by the intermediate. The computer is thus created with the ability to select, by reason of this underlying code, from the spectrum of probabilities which are represented by the pre determined inputs. A good example of this would be the code information stored in the human genome sequence (which is far more advance than any artificial process); which harnesses an almost unlimited sequence of information yet uses the underlying code of 4 nucleotides to generate such sequences. The 4 nucleotides are the pre determined inputs upon which all possible sequences can occur, thus the end result of any sequence is contingent upon this platform. If a mutation occurs in the genome sequence, the mutation is predetermined by the sequence that generated it. Therefore I must conclude (although contrary to science fictional scripts) that the end result of the computer's sequential evolution will always be a pre-determined one, for the initial variation that determined the end result, was predetermined.

2. What if the computer maker did make the computer but has subsaquently gone out of buisiness? Does the intermediate still need to exist in order for the computer to exist? Could the intermediate be absent?

No, but as long as the computer exist, its existence is synonymously linked to the intermediate. That is because every established characteristics that constitutes its function, descends from the characteristics that was determined by its intermediate. Therefore the existence of the computer itself is a perpetual representation of the intermediate.

3. Assumeing the above questions are possible could the computer ever reach a pount that it could deduce it's purpose for itself?

I don't believe it's possible, in actuality, for that which is created to self assimilate the intention that preceded its initial conception. Any attempt to do so on the computer's part would signify error. For error is a condition represented by a deviation from the original code. That's what generates error messages from your computer. Since the internal system failed to sequence upon the predetermined premise of its input variation codes, thus it in essence, deduces it own purpose, which will always be expressed as error.

I think, getting back to the crux of this discussion - the truth - that if we take one 'truth', however void its linguistic definition may be, we may be able, as humans, to achieve some notion of honesty. My theory is that 'existence exists' is the single unutterable truth.

If we take this honesty to be the direction in which philosophers should travel, that is (in my mind) interpretable in two fashions; the first is that philosophical truth endeavors are a waste of time and that philosophers should create outside of language, the second is that philosophers should treat philosophy as ineffable and cease the attractive yet retarded polemical nightmare that follows those such as Nietzche, Mao or Hitler.

Surely Judeo-Christian doctrine has a point; that we should go forth and multiply, except my inference is to create what? We could create buildings, artworks, babies or inventions. Or we could create nothing in favour of the creative genius that is the natural world.

This might seem like some unrelated rant, but I see it as conclusive that philosophy is never going to achieve truth, only lies and war - whether that war be as the battles engaged in on this philosophy forum, the mass oppression by any means neccessary of nations, or general war between cultures. So I put it to you that philosophy should remain ineffable and that philosophers should leave their desks and attend to real creation, not the linguistic farting about that we people seem to have spent thousands of years in awe of.

Nomadic, hello. Once again your answers are so clear and concise, thank you.
Again I express my appreciation for your stooping to my level for I am just a toddler in philosophy. The age old arguments are as fresh as yesterday to me and I suspect that it is more the questions that provide value above their illusive answers; as if to say how you know is more important than what you know.

Responding to your answers to my questions?
1.) (predetermination) I do understand that all that man is or will ever become is somehow set by the underlying rules that determine our current state and anything we may become. There is nothing we can become that is not already in us even if it is yet dormant. So if you subscribe to evolution as a source of life (and I do) then all life was contained in the simplest beginnings. When you think that the origin of life was perhaps some chemicals that formed the first amino acids. The unfathomable set of variables makes the idea of predetermination all the more fantastic. This profound set of variables in flux with random mutation does not mean that all possibilities are expressed but all are possible so would it be predetermination to set the playing field of possible outcomes? That is like saying the three of a kind in my hand of poker is predetermined by the dealer? Is not selection pressure the force that guides the random outcome and not the intermediate? Inferring the intermediates knowledge of a random outcome is to give the intermediate the quality of omniscience, yes? That intermediate is the creator of all matter is unarguable because it is a true tautology.

2.) The possible absence of the intermediate leaves us only the computer (creation) to determine the lingering characteristics of the intermediate. To make these determinations then necessitates inference and the errant human mind is not up to this task. So (using your example) the computer can only truly indicate the intermediates existence.

3.) Any attempt of the computer to self assimilate its purpose would most likely yield an errant result. I agree, however, If the computers code was to use available data to make inferences and draw conclusions then it would not be deviating from it's code, even if those conclusions where about its own predetermined purpose. The obvious next question is why would this predetermined computer be programmed to seek an answer it can never find?

In general, your original post freely interchanges the terms truth and reality. One definition of truth is reality, but another definition of truth is conformity to actuality or conformity to reality. It is the latter definition that throws me off when I read your post because if truth is reality it doesn't need to conform to itself so then what is it that is conforming? It is our sometimes errant concepts that act as symbols of realities. I think that for words to be true they must conform to reality. So then the diverse concepts we have witch are all expressed with words ARE subject to in-cohesiveness even when reality is totally cohesive. I do agree that our incapacity and error do not change reality, only our perception of it. So reality is not defined by us, it is the conformity of our concepts that define our perceived truth. Reality certainly existed before man but it had no meaning until man existed, and now that we do exist it certainly is up to us to interpret realities meaning.

I don't know if any of this adds up. It is difficult to avoid circularity.

That you have just uttered. And how do you know?

How do you POSSIBLY put Nietzsche in the same sentence as Hitler? Hitler was one of the few who actually thought they had something in common -- but Nietzsche wouldn't have thought so.

I think you and I may be on a similar page regarding the ineffability of philosophy. But at least in my case I think it's not because there are ineffable truths, but rather because philosophy as a human project is a construct born out of language and human psychology. And for as long as we have psychology and language, we will philosophize.

Then what on earth are you doing here?

Thanks for the response.

My quick take on objective reality:

I'd personally say that my most basic epistemology is very post-modern (post-moderns might disagree though). So to the question "can't we be wrong?", I would respond with a great big "YES!!" I, and anyone else, (if they exist ) could be totally wrong about almost everything! I think that's where traditional post-moderns and I part ways... From that point I recognize that I operate, and esentially have to operate, under the assumtion that I am a subjective being in an objective reality. So I make it my goal to understand that seemingly objective reality to the best of my subjective ability. Rather than assume no significant truth exists, the fundamental realization that I don't KNOW anything makes me pause and give more thought to what I think I know, and causes me to work all the harder at the task of understanding rather than assuming. But I really think that, just like language, nearly every action and thought we have operates under the assumtion of an objective reality- and must. I see no other reasonable course of action. Our other option is insanity, which I won't choose willingly. That would be my reasoning for my belief in (not necessarily my "knowldege" of) a cohesive, absolute, or objective reality.

They are both polemicists, here's a Nietzche quote "Practice vivisection on the good man", I hold that level to "exterminate the jews", perhaps they are different angles on the same thing - understanding; Hitler refused to understand the Jews, and Nietzche thought that by enslaving somebody he would find out goodness.



It seems like my point that there are ineffable truths is compatible with your idea that philosophy is born of language/psychology and like maths will never connect with reality. I think it might be worth noting that philosophy will to utilize the linguistic tools it is presented with, when in fact the philosophy we really need is found in breaking down the ineffable barrier between us and the reality we exist among.



1. Im bored and depressed so much so that I find philosophy fun.
2. Im preaching my message that people should never listen to polemics.

Nietzsche was not antisemitic. He had objections against the inherited values in Judaism, but he was MUCH more vehemently polemical against Christianity. And he HATED the ideas of good and evil that came out of the judaeochristian tradition, which he found to be manichean and stupid. He was idealistic about the moral schema of ancient Greece (he was a philologist, and studied that period professionally). He railed against Christian morality, which he called slave-like; and he felt that Christian morality was rooted in violence.

And his appropriation by the Nazis was not something he would have ever intended:
Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I think this is compatible. Philosophical questions and discussions are different than philosophical truths. I don't think modernity sees the latter (i.e. truth) as being a necessary goal of the former (i.e. the philosophical question).

My problem, and it involves hypocrisy, is that polemics should not be so prevalent and well respected. Empiricism and logic should govern philosophy, and that is why I dont like Nietzche, because he was a polemicist. He might be funny, insightful, spot-on, or anything, but he is still a polemicist, and I lump polemicists with Mao for example (have you ever read the little red book? Jeez it's complete with "the people should do this or that"). A polemic is never going to be correct because the truth is ineffable, empiricism however serves people fairly well and it might stretch philosophy to ascertain that perception is false, and logic is, like maths, very useful. A polemic is simply one persons opinion, and am deeply suspicious of anybody who manages to get published outside of a university or science journal, especially philosophers.

Basically I am refusing to read Nietzche on the same principal as I refuse to read religious texts, funny that...

Hi all!

Truth, forever and a day will depend upon your own biology in relation to the said object [physical world]. This, is the way of all meaning, truth is found in the relations one has with the world. Truth is not ineffable it is relational, if the experience of the relation is of a hot burning sensation, you know that is the truth, your biology withdrawing from the relation confirms it.

Nietzsche the braveheart!!!

I refuse to read the bible throughly because it is such a bore!

However what is felt as a burning sensation could actually be extreme cold. The human mind is fatally subjective when it comes to truth.

vajrasattva,

:)Truth is subjective, all meaning is subjective, so of necessity so to is truth. Perhaps you think subjective truth has to be infallible to be truth?
That burning sensation which actually may be extreme cold, the truth of it is, its discomfort, and discomfort cannot always locate the object of its discomfort, it is only hot or cold relative to your own biology. The subjective organism is the measure of all things, or life defines its own context, while at the same time being defined by it.

As long as we agree that the truth is subjective

vajrasattva,

:)Your on the money with this statement, for truth is not a property of the object, nor is it solely with the subject. Truth is the experience of the relation between subject and object. The object is hot as it is experienced by subject, truth is then, the statement of the experience of the relation between subject and object-------its hot--its hard, relative, always relative to biology