GENIUS FORUMS

If every time we make a statement it appears to be absolute, then is this a flaw in language?

Let me try to illustrate what I'm saying because I think it's not such an easy thing to understand. If I say, "This is a statement.", the implication is that it's a statement for all time and places, that it's never not a statement. It's stating an absolute, at least it appears to be.

If we wanted to get around this absoluteness, we could turn it into a question, "Is this a statement?" I think that's a surefire way to remove all implications of absoluteness from the statement. I don't think there are any logical implications associated with questions. I don't even think it follows that the asker doesn't know the answer, he's just asking the question for some reason.

But what if we still wanted to make a statement without absolute implications? We could say, "This might be a statement." If you look at it carefully, though, we've taken the absolutivity off of the fact that it's a statement and placed it on the word "might" instead. I'm not sure how I can explain this but it's saying that it's absolutely true that it (a) either is a statement or is not a statement, that (b) the possibility of statementhood is there. The alternative is what? That (a) it leaves room for the possibility that it's both a statement and not a statement, or that (b) it's not really saying anything about the possibility of statementhood? I don't think those alternatives are compatible with each other, but maybe someone could rectify them. But anyway my point is that "This might be a statement." is still describing some sort of absolute, it just places it on possibility instead of the actual subject of the sentence.

Another thing we could try is saying, "I think this is a statement." This places the absolutivity on "I think": "It's absolutely true that my opinion is that this is a statement." The alternative is that maybe that is not really my opinion but I just think it is. Haven't gotten around absolutivity there, either.

Okay, I'm out of ideas at the moment, but it seems that we can't get around this absolutivity of statements, so there are two solutions that I can think of. One is to construct a language that gets around this limitation, and the other is to just live with this limitation of the language we have and assume that no statements are really absolute but they just look like it. After all, we do that for science, when we say, I don't know, "Jupiter is friggin' huge." We don't mean it's absolutely huge (or huge absolutely, I should say, so I don't mistaken say that it fills up the universe), but that it's huge in comparison to human affairs, like sending a probe to it or whatever. That's understood when I say, "Jupiter is friggin' huge." We make a concession for that for convenience and just interpret it as "Jupiter is friggin' huge as far as we know." or something to that effect. Any empirical observation falls under this rule, so you can substitute a more serious scientific observation there and see if the situation isn't the same.

So, is absolutivity a flaw in our language? Why does it have this flaw? Could a language be constructed that doesn't have this flaw?

Matt Gregory wrote:So, is absolutivity a flaw in our language?

No, it's not a flaw, because we can tell from the context how we are to understand a statement.

For example, we know that "Jupiter is a large planet" is uncertain, whereas "A=A", or "All things are appearances" are certain. This is because the former is an empirical statement and the latter two are purely logical.

Kevin,

we can tell from the context how we are to understand a statement.

Are you sure about that? Is that an absolute truth or an empirical observation? The reason I ask is that there are a lot of borderline cases that make it difficult. I think that statement you made is one.

A simpler one I can think of "This is a statement". It seems to me you could interpret that either way. A statement could be defined as the pixels on the screen, or it could be defined as the meaning of the pixels. So how do you decide?

We (humans) create all words/concepts. We put everything into them. At first they all came directly from the empirical world ('natural' world that we live in). Deductive reasoning is the process of getting conclusions out of them words/concepts, inductive reasoning is the process of putting things into words/concepts based on empirical observations.

To think that we can ever get something out of our words/concepts that we never put into them is stupid. You must believe some mind/body duality or idealism to believe this, which you guys say you don't.

So any "absolutes" are only as "absolute" as we have made them. We put the meaning behind words/concepts, we shift it, sometimes we try to take it beyond its practical application, sometimes we try to extrapolate. But the bottom line is that our words/concepts are only as "absolute" as we have made them. And when I look at myself and you guys (other humans) we don't look very "absolute".

And to add something to this -- the human concepts are all dualistic. As Nietzsche says, to believe there is some "other world" or "real world" just because our world is an "illusion world" is not valid. We really cannot accurately say anything beyond our empirical world. We don't know whether logic holds there and to what extent. We don't know if we could survive without the world of illusions that our minds create for us. Etc.

First let me say, that when dealing with statements, the term ‘absolute’ or its complement ‘relative’ do not signify entities, but only relationships. An ‘absolute entity’ is one that is possessed of its own intrinsic elements, that is to say, such characteristics as are essential to the given entity’s being what it is; and is for that reason immutable. An ‘absolute truth’, on the other hand, is a relationship which holds between a subject and its predicate, the relationship being one of ‘identity’; and which holds in all cases and at all times.

Now, a definition, for example, is merely an expression of the essence (elements) of a thing, and as such, this essence (the definition) cannot be altered without that the thing itself (referent) be altered. In other words, if we radically redefine the term ‘bicycle’, then the term will no longer signify the same thing, but will come to signify something else. Therefore, in order that we be able to communicate effectively with others, the essence expressed in the definition of a term, and the essence of the thing that the term signifies, must be identical. Consequently, it may be said that a definition expresses an absolute truth; and so the statement “This is a statement.”, is absolutely true – for it is true by definition.

K: we can tell from the context how we are to understand a statement.

M: Are you sure about that? Is that an absolute truth or an empirical observation?

That depends on whether a man or a woman is reading it. :)

Absolute/relative has as its basis a more fundamental dichotomy, I reckon: abstract/concrete, or even idea/object.

The statement (which, insofar as its statementness rather than abstract content goes, is an absolute statement), “All women are unconscious.” That is, “All women are unconscious” meets the concrete and ideal (rules) requisites of being a statement in English.

As a statement of empirical reality, however, it is certainly not absolute, which is exactly why it has only philosophical and not scientific value as a statement of absolute reality. Course, there's only one way to test its empirical absoluteness, and that is to kill all females, into whom (with such a statement as an absolute truth) men love to cast all their own deficiency as a first and final cause and thus find themselves so preoccupied with and stunted by them.

Where does a man begin and end? With a cunt, obviously.

Matt wrote:

If every time we make a statement it appears to be absolute, then is this a flaw in language?

It isn't a flaw in language. It is simply a consequence of the way the mind works.

We cannot offer any opinion, or affirm any kind of belief or fact, even inwardly, without making reference to what we believe is absolutely true in life, even if just subconsciously.

For example, if we affirm, either in language or more inwardly, that Jupiter is friggin' huge, then at the very least we are affirming that we are experiencing the perception that it is huge. In other words, it is absolutely true in that moment that we are perceiving Jupiter to be huge.

If we then think, in the next moment, that such a perception is misguided because size is relative and that Jupiter is friggin' small compared to the sun, then it is absolutely true in that moment that our perception of Jupiter has changed from the moment before. Moreover, we are affirming the absolute truth that size is relative. It is also absolutely true that we ignored the truth of relativity in the previous moment.

At root, it is the mind's affirmation of what it thinks is absolutely true in life which gives all of its opinions and beliefs meaning. It is how we place everything into context, how we make our judgments. Language is powerless to stop this, no matter how we choose to construct it. If our use of language is to be meaningful, then it requires our minds to continue affirming what it thinks is absolutely true, which it cannot stop doing in any case.

So the real issue for us is not how to stop the mind from affirming absolute truth, which is impossible, but how to ensure that what we do affirm as absolutely true is indeed absolutely true. This is where philosophic skill and ruthless honesty come into play.

-

David Quinn wrote:At root, it is the mind's affirmation of what it thinks is absolutely true in life which gives all of its opinions and beliefs meaning.

Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

David Quinn wrote:It is how we place everything into context, how we make our judgments. Language is powerless to stop this, no matter how we choose to construct it. If our use of language is to be meaningful, then it requires our minds to continue affirming what it thinks is absolutely true, which it cannot stop doing in any case.

The issue is when we go from a language created inductively to try and make deductions about something beyond our empirical world.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

This is the nature of thought. Rationality or objectivity puts thought into perspective.

Matt Gregory wrote:Kevin,

we can tell from the context how we are to understand a statement.

Are you sure about that? Is that an absolute truth or an empirical observation?

That one is an empirical observation, and ultimately uncertain.

We have to guess what other people mean by their words.

A simpler one I can think of "This is a statement". It seems to me you could interpret that either way. A statement could be defined as the pixels on the screen, or it could be defined as the meaning of the pixels. So how do you decide?

When it comes to interpreting the words of others, we are only guessing. The only thing we can be sure of is how we ourselves use language.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

That's the nature of logic.

The issue is when we go from a language created inductively

Reasonings are "inductive" or "deductive", but language is not a reasoning.

If I write a new computer program and decide to call it "Zed", that's simply a definition. That's how language is created.

To think that we can ever get something out of our words/concepts that we never put into them is stupid.

Words are only pointers. There is nothing "in" them. And words always point to whatever we say they do.

Kevin,

NM: Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

KS: That's the nature of logic.

Disagreed.

NM: The issue is when we go from a language created inductively

Reasonings are "inductive" or "deductive", but language is not a reasoning.

If I write a new computer program and decide to call it "Zed", that's simply a definition. That's how language is created.

We didn't write and define planet earth. We drew concepts/words out of empirical observations and experience. We can't really write anything but with what we've got.

NM: To think that we can ever get something out of our words/concepts that we never put into them is stupid.

KS: Words are only pointers. There is nothing "in" them. And words always point to whatever we say they do.

Buddy not all words are pointers. The ones in question are not. What does "absolute" point to? You can try to list attributes here (what is "in" the word), but it doesn't point to anything real.

Neil,

DQ: At root, it is the mind's affirmation of what it thinks is absolutely true in life which gives all of its opinions and beliefs meaning.

NM: Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

It doesn't need to think this, but the affirmation still takes place regardless. It doesn't really matter what the mind imagines or thinks, it is still operating, in each moment, out of its own belief in absolute truth - whether it knows it or not.

Buddy not all words are pointers. The ones in question are not. What does "absolute" point to? You can try to list attributes here (what is "in" the word), but it doesn't point to anything real.

Or it could be, due to mental blocks, that you are currently unable to see what these philosophic concepts are pointing to.

-

David Quinn wrote:

DQ: At root, it is the mind's affirmation of what it thinks is absolutely true in life which gives all of its opinions and beliefs meaning.

NM: Why does the mind need to think anything that is true to him must be absolutely true?

It doesn't need to think this, but the affirmation still takes place regardless. It doesn't really matter what the mind imagines or thinks, it is still operating, in each moment, out of its own belief in absolute truth - whether it knows it or not.

Then this isn't the same "absolute truth" you are talking about when you talk about causality, etc.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

If I write a new computer program and decide to call it "Zed", that's simply a definition. That's how language is created.

We didn't write and define planet earth. We drew concepts/words out of empirical observations and experience. We can't really write anything but with what we've got.

Something "wrote" (caused) whatever appears to us. It doesn't matter specifically what causes things. Once something appears to us we give it a name, and that's language.

Words are only pointers. There is nothing "in" them. And words always point to whatever we say they do.

Buddy not all words are pointers. The ones in question are not. What does "absolute" point to?

All words are indeed pointers. The word "absolute" must point to something, otherwise it would be meaningless.

In the context of which we are speaking, "absolute" points to ideas that are necessarily true. These ideas are always purely logical in nature, and are always true by definition.

For example, the statement "There are no absolutes" could itself be an absolute, given a certain definition of "absolute" and in a certain specific context.

You can try to list attributes here (what is "in" the word), but it doesn't point to anything real.

Anything that appears to us is "real". That's the only reality we have. There is nothing other than appearances. "The empirical world" is one such appearance.

Kevin,

Something "wrote" (caused) whatever appears to us.

How do you know?

It doesn't matter specifically what causes things. Once something appears to us we give it a name, and that's language.

Yes, it is inductive. We draw up some useful categories based on our experience.

All words are indeed pointers. The word "absolute" must point to something, otherwise it would be meaningless.

It is meaningless. :)

In the context of which we are speaking, "absolute" points to ideas that are necessarily true. These ideas are always purely logical in nature, and are always true by definition.

"Purely logical". What does that mean? That we could come by these truths with nothing but logical reasoning? Don't we need concepts to reason with first -- namely concepts inductively derived from the empirical world?

For example, the statement "There are no absolutes" could itself be an absolute, given a certain definition of "absolute" and in a certain specific context.

You can define anything you like. However we are trying, as philosophers, to understand life/reality, which tautologies don't help do.

Anything that appears to us is "real". That's the only reality we have. There is nothing other than appearances. "The empirical world" is one such appearance.

What other appearances are there?

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Something "wrote" (caused) whatever appears to us.

How do you know?

Because a thing is necessarily caused by what it is not. This is a logical necessity, as there must be something contrasting it, to give it existence.

It doesn't matter specifically what causes things. Once something appears to us we give it a name, and that's language.

Yes, it is inductive. We draw up some useful categories based on our experience.

It doesn't mean anything to call it "inductive". Words are simply labels that we apply to things (and categories are things). It is a one-on-one application. There is no creating more from less.

"Purely logical". What does that mean?

It means that there is no empirical measurement taking place. At no time do we take out a ruler (say) and measure anything. There is no guesswork involved.

Pure mathematics is an example of pure logic.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what we measure in the empirical world.

That we could come by these truths with nothing but logical reasoning? Don't we need concepts to reason with first -- namely concepts inductively derived from the empirical world?

Concepts come from somewhere, but we don't know for sure where they come from. Some people guess that there is some kind of external world "out there", but I'm not interested in guesswork.

Anything that appears to us is "real". That's the only reality we have. There is nothing other than appearances. "The empirical world" is one such appearance.

What other appearances are there?

The number "1" is an example of something that doesn't appear to be of the empirical world. It is unchanging and unmeasurable. There are countless other such things that are unmeasurable and unchanging. The concept "empirical world" is another such thing. My category "the empirical world" is both unchanging and unmeasurable.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Neil Melnyk wrote:

Something "wrote" (caused) whatever appears to us.

How do you know?

Because a thing is necessarily caused by what it is not. This is a logical necessity, as there must be something contrasting it, to give it existence.

Must everything conform to this "logic" that human beings have inductively created from the empirical world?

Kevin Solway wrote:

"Purely logical". What does that mean?

It means that there is no empirical measurement taking place. At no time do we take out a ruler (say) and measure anything. There is no guesswork involved.

We did a few thousand years ago and you forgot. You came upon a chart of measurements and refuse to admit they are just that.

Kevin Solway wrote:

That we could come by these truths with nothing but logical reasoning? Don't we need concepts to reason with first -- namely concepts inductively derived from the empirical world?

Concepts come from somewhere, but we don't know for sure where they come from. Some people guess that there is some kind of external world "out there", but I'm not interested in guesswork.

Ignoring the point....

Kevin Solway wrote:The number "1" is an example of something that doesn't appear to be of the empirical world. It is unchanging and unmeasurable. There are countless other such things that are unmeasurable and unchanging. The concept "empirical world" is another such thing. My category "the empirical world" is both unchanging and unmeasurable.

And all of these are simply models inside our mind that help us predict better what is out there. Our minds are presumably not unchanging and there is no reason to believe our concepts are.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Must everything conform to this "logic"

Yes.

Logic doesn't come from the empirical world, since it is unmeasurable. Only measurable things come from the empirical world, by definition.

Kevin Solway wrote:

At no time do we take out a ruler (say) and measure anything. There is no guesswork involved.

We did a few thousand years ago

You're just guessing, and I'm not interested in guesswork.

Anyway, it doesn't matter where logic comes from. Its source doesn't affect the truth of it. It wouldn't matter if logic just appeared randomly, what is logical would still be true.

Kevin Solway wrote:There are countless other such things that are unmeasurable and unchanging.

And all of these are simply models inside our mind that help us predict better what is out there.

Firstly, prove, absolutely, that there is an "out there". And secondly, prove, absolutely, that all thoughts are models of what is "out there".

I'm not interested in mere guesswork on your part.

Our minds are presumably not unchanging

Again, that's just an assumption.

Kevin,

NM: Must everything conform to this "logic"

KS: Yes.
Logic doesn't come from the empirical world, since it is unmeasurable. Only measurable things come from the empirical world, by definition.

So we have a mind-body duality or what? I always though that humans created logic as a tool for themselves. I reject your idea that only measurable things come from the empirical world. Art comes from the empirical world. Music. Ideas. Could you paint something without ever having experienced the empirical world? No. Could you think up something that is not at all related to the empirical world? No. Could you think at all without the empirical world? Doubtful.

KS: At no time do we take out a ruler (say) and measure anything. There is no guesswork involved.

NM: We did a few thousand years ago

KS: You're just guessing, and I'm not interested in guesswork.

You have no alternate theory but since we don't know for sure you aren't interested. This is like the Christian saying evolution is guesswork so he isn't interested. It is more convenient for you to just assume logic is infallible since it is here, to forget all its history and build up "absolute truths" with it.

KS: Anyway, it doesn't matter where logic comes from. Its source doesn't affect the truth of it. It wouldn't matter if logic just appeared randomly, what is logical would still be true.

If logic is just something derived from the empirical world there would be no reason to think it was valid anywhere beyond. Before you reply asking me what is "beyond" I will mention things like: causality, absolute truth, ultimate reality.

KS: I'm not interested in mere guesswork on your part.
...
Again, that's just an assumption.

Everything is an assumption. But at least you don't have to actually think about or argue against my position, you can just keep out pointing out that "WE DON'T KNOW, THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG [and I am right!]".

Neil Melnyk wrote:Could you paint something without ever having experienced the empirical world?

I will paint something if I am caused to. The causes could come from anywhere.

Could you think up something that is not at all related to the empirical world?

As I say, pure mathematics is not at all related to the empirical world.

You have yet to demonstrate that there even is such a thing as an "empirical world".

KS: At no time do we take out a ruler (say) and measure anything. There is no guesswork involved.

NM: We did a few thousand years ago

KS: You're just guessing, and I'm not interested in guesswork.

NM: You have no alternate theory

I say that we are caused, and that the causes are without beginning.

This is like the Christian saying evolution is guesswork so he isn't interested.

In my case, I was actually trained as a scientist, and evolution was my specialty.

So I am interested in evolutionary science, but philosophically I'm interested in cause and effect, since the latter is certain, and is not dependent on the uncertainties of measurement.

If logic is just something derived from the empirical world

The way I define it, everything related to the empirical world is measurable. Since logic is not a measurable thing it follows that it is not related to the empirical world. It's as simple as that.

Everything is an assumption.

Yet you make that statement as though it were not a mere assumption!

You should say, "I presume everything is an assumption".

Gentlemen I think you are missing something very basic. Namely, you are a part of the universe yourself.

I would make a bold move and say that the universe is "expressing" you at this very moment.

Said differently, the universe is your context and contrast. (Perhaps context=empirical world?)

What consequences follow?

A side note:
A good thing to remember when talking about language, logic and mathematics is that those things didn't always exist.
Take for example Quantum Mechanics.

If so, something else must have given rise to these first concepts.

truth_justice wrote:Gentlemen I think you are missing something very basic. Namely, you are a part of the universe yourself.

Kevin's philosophy seems to support some mind-body duality though he denies it.

It definitely doesn't support any kind of mind-body duality.

Kevin is in the opposite direction to where you are currently looking. You need to turn around if you want to see him. You also need to take off those Nietzschean blinkers too.

-

I can see Kevin quite clearly, and also the solution to his problem which he can't see.