Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?

Philosophy Forum
» Young Philosophers Forum
» If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?
» Page 9

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;142152 wrote:

You seem confused. I think what I wrote is very clear. The difference between a necessary and sufficient condition is a big difference.

It is very clear, I'm just making a silly joke about it. Thought philosophers also understood humor.

@Zacrates,

It always makes a sound unless it is in a vacuum. A forest does not imply vacuum so yes, it makes a sound.

@Zacrates,

What is a sound?
Are vibrations in the air, a sound?
or when you use the word "hear" does it imply that there must be a sentinent or responsive being to "hear a sound"?

@prothero,

prothero;143326 wrote:

What is a sound?
Are vibrations in the air, a sound?
or when you use the word "hear" does it imply that there must be a sentinent or responsive being to "hear a sound"?

Must it be either the one or the other? Can't it be, for example, what someone would hear if he were in the forest? Which is, of course, the same as what occurs in the forest whether or not someone is there.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;143388 wrote:

Must it be either the one or the other? Can't it be, for example, what someone would hear if he were in the forest? Which is, of course, the same as what occurs in the forest whether or not someone is there.

It seems to me the problem is precisely a problem about the use and definitions of the words "sound" and "hear". It is a language game. Not really a problem in physics or philosophy. It could be I am just not thinking hard enough or it could be we are just playing with words?

@prothero,

prothero;143391 wrote:

It seems to me the problem is precisely a problem about the use and definitions of the words "sound" and "hear". It is a language game. Not really a problem in physics or philosophy. It could be I am just not thinking hard enough or it could be we are just playing with words?

But what does "playing with words" mean? If I insist on calling an elevator a "lift" (as in England) and you insist on calling it an "elevator", that is only a trivial, verbal, dispute. But, is the issue about the tree in the forest like that? Some may have thought so (see William James' essay, "Pragmatism" where a similar issue is discussed, and where James says that is really just a verbal dispute). But it doesn't seem to me that it is just a verbal dispute, as you imply it is. It is a philosophical (or conceptual) issue.

@Zacrates,

Maybe this is one of the problems that can arise from the use of metaphor. I can easily grasp the concept of nonbeing without senses. Does anything really exist from such a state? Wasn't that really his question, not about sound waves or concussion.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;143395 wrote:

. It is a philosophical (or conceptual) issue.

OK, Im all ears (pun intended) tell me why it is a serious philosophical issue and not a play on "sound" and "hear"?

@prothero,

prothero;143417 wrote:

OK, Im all ears (pun intended) tell me why it is a serious philosophical issue and not a play on "sound" and "hear"?

But let me ask you first, do you think it is simply a verbal dispute like the dispute between "lift" and "elevator"? In the forest/tree case, when we ask whether the tree made a sound, what we want to know is whether what happened when no one was there is the same as what happened when someone was there. Is there any reason to suppose that it was not the same? That is, if someone was there, that he would not have heard a sound?

@Zacrates,

All humans are fools. Example is here.

It does not matter things exist in one perspective , it is always about you , if you do not exist , nothing exist either.

you have to think deep. Not superficial like hex hammer... Very Happy

Think Hard!. Hahaha. Monkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

You can always make up your own answer , nothing wrong either way.

But if you want to get out of your bubble , you need to start asking questions.

Every monkey has answer. Nothing is right or wrong.

All depends on observer.

if observer do not exist , nothing exist. Psycho stuff....THINK THINK.

Lowest denomination is you. Everything related to you. You have have billions of univserses ...so many billions of permuation and combinations...

Nothing exist if you do not exist!. Period.

All this are just waste of time mumbling babbling by belief whores.

@pondfish,

I'm begining to fervently wish, that certain tree had fallen on he who had posed the question. Its like an old joke, only good for those who have been incarcerated for a hundred years or like an old bone the mangy dog wont put down. Its down, dead and rotting and before we decide, it will be coal in our fire.

@xris,

xris;143505 wrote:

I'm begining to fervently wish, that certain tree had fallen on he who had posed the question. Its like an old joke, only good for those who have been incarcerated for a hundred years or like an old bone the mangy dog wont put down. Its down, dead and rotting and before we decide, it will be coal in our fire.

"On him". ........

@kennethamy,

If it ends my pain of listening to your monotonous tones, it would be worth the sacrifice.

@xris,

xris;143534 wrote:

If it ends my pain of listening to your monotonous tones, it would be worth the sacrifice.

It is still, "on him", and not, "on he". "On" is a preposition, and therefore, takes the objective case, not the subjective case. You are hyper-correcting.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;143542 wrote:

It is still, "on him", and not, "on he". "On" is a preposition, and therefore, takes the objective case, not the subjective case. You are hyper-correcting.

Colloquial English does not have to follow any set rules. If he be local, you would know that my ansome.

@xris,

xris;143591 wrote:

Colloquial English does not have to follow any set rules. If he be local, you would know that my ansome.

Don't worry about grammar trolls. Your wording sounds better anyways. If I had to choose between these two:

1. The tree falls on he who laughs last.
2. The tree falls on him who laughs last.

I would go with your wording, which is 1.

But in the more formal case:

1. The tree falls on he.
2. The tree falls on him.

I would go with 2.

@Night Ripper,

Well I thank the. He who laughs lasts, laughs last.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;143606 wrote:

Don't worry about grammar trolls. Your wording sounds better anyways. If I had to choose between these two:

1. The tree falls on he who laughs last.
2. The tree falls on him who laughs last.

I would go with your wording, which is 1.

But in the more formal case:

1. The tree falls on he.
2. The tree falls on him.

I would go with 2.

Why is "the tree falls on him" more formal than, "the tree falls on he". What does "more formal" mean here? What native English speaker would say, "the true fell on he" instead of, "the tree fell on him"? If you said the first, people would think you were joking, or that you were hyper-correcting. Like, people who say, "between you and I" instead of, "between you and me". Or, "he went with I" instead of, "he went with me".

@Zacrates,

The tree fell on he whom........

@wayne,

wayne;143613 wrote:

The tree fell on he whom........

Him whom laughs last, gets fell with a tree.

kennethamy;143612 wrote:

Why is "the tree falls on him" more formal than, "the tree falls on he".

I didn't say that. I said the last two examples were a more formal case than the first two examples. If you can't understand such a simple statement then what right do you have to scold others? At least we can manage to end our questions with an actual question mark.

Philosophy Forum
» Young Philosophers Forum
» If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?
» Page 9

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

If A Tree Fell And Nobody Was There To Hear It Does It Make A Sound?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know