The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Words restrict Reality?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 1st, 2019, 6:13 pm

dawwg wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 8:52 pm
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
Welcome to the Forum. You do sound like a very good philosopher so far.
Thankyou for the welcome
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
Hopefully you will enjoy debating logically with us.
Ah! I am a slow learner with much to learn, including the politics of addressing the topic or disparaging the participants.
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
"Rules" implies the existence of a ruling authority which enforces them. By rules you probably mean laws of nature, such as gravity, combustion, motion, entropy, conservation of matter and energy combined, and so forth.
I doubt the rules of this forum are intrinsically laws of nature, however much an authority would like to consider be regarded as such.
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
We still don't know much about this Ruling Authority. He/She/They have not readily introduced Themselves to us ordinary people.
And there's probably a rule that applies. Why is one person/one card drawn out of the deck of 52? By chance? By design? Granted the uninformed are entitled to their doubts and their expression of them.
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
Thanks to Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant, we have been able to formulate some ideas about this Ruling Authority.
Suppositions circulated by authorities on the matter such as you lot
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
This anonymity by these Ruling Authorities is convenient for us however because it gives us great flexibility in defining them for ourselves.
"Can we all agree on that" well, no, but we can invoke precedent in our favor.
h_k_s wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 2:03 pm
But after we apply our philosophical intellects to do so, then we must have faith in our philosophy and in Their existence, for our own benefit.
Personally I think 'faith in our philosophy" is overly optimistic. Look around, the philosophy of division and advantage results in National identity and warfare, you have faith in that?

"and in Their existence, for our own benefit"- No doubt the laws that proscribe us exist, and humanity is a product of resisting the law of the jungle.
I will reply to some of your comments about my comments. In reverse order from the bottom to the top above, for convenience.

"... humanity is a product of resisting the law of the jungle." This seems true. One lesson of history is that human rights overall on this planet of ours have developed over a long period of time such that we no longer condone slavery or murder of civilian populations. Up until Christianity became well established in Europe, this had not happened yet. Philosophy was unable to do it. Christianity succeeded. As much as I despise modern religions, Christianity was good for something once.

"... the philosophy of division and advantage results in National identity and warfare, you have faith in that?" I do have faith in philosophy for myself as I carefully apply it being cautious not to make any mistakes for myself. I do believe in patriotism and nationalism as well, however both of these were sorely tested during LBJ's leadership during the Viet Nam (classical spelling, means South Viet) War. I got around that draft the same as Bill Clinton did, by enrolling in ROTC/NROTC in college. During my last semester, Saigon fell, and the last Marines were helo'ed out of there. The next 6 years of my tour of duty were very peaceful. That's how I had planned it. I was willing to go to Viet Nam against my better angels but God in His Providence must have deemed/deigned that I shall not have gone.

"... Why is one person/one card drawn out of the deck of 52? By chance? By design? Granted the uninformed are entitled to their doubts and their expression of them." God(s) clearly must prefer some people to others. You cannot get around this. Some people are apparently bad, some are nondescript, some are good, some are great, and some are outstanding. When you look at Moses, Elijah, Samuel, Nehemiah, Peter, James, John, Paul, and John The Baptist, God definitely does play favorites. There is no way around this. So we should simply stop pretending that God loves all of us the same. He clearly loves some more than others. Whether for a reason or not, He does.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 1st, 2019, 6:17 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 6:21 pm
no. it's just bated.
Fallacy: verbosity.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 1st, 2019, 6:18 pm

Greta wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 6:54 pm
Robee321 wrote:
July 29th, 2019, 10:59 am
As things stand. Everything exists from the 'standpoint' of its own existence.
For example: A Tree exists without knowing its a Tree. Its only a Tree because Humans collectively agree to identify it as a Tree. Same goes for just about everything Non human.
Consider what names are - and are not. They are labels but they tell us nothing about things, they just allow us to talk about them.

Richard Feynman on the limitations of labels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s
Anytime you mention a tree you are bound to attract @Greta 's attention !!

User avatar
TimBandTech
Posts: 78
Joined: February 19th, 2013, 8:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: Kant
Location: Meredith, NH
Contact:

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by TimBandTech » August 1st, 2019, 8:28 pm

Robee321 wrote:
July 29th, 2019, 10:59 am
Human Understanding is now restricted within the confines of the Modern 'Word'?
Obviously. The Human 'Matrix' of understanding is very necessary for modern Humans to function in a Modern world.
But Words are in fact just a part of an 'Identification software reality'? That has been 'developed' to make sense of the Modern Psychological/Physical Reality Humans exist in.
Human Understanding of 'Everything' is based on Collective agreement of what words mean.
If all Humans Disappeared. Everything else would still exist as it always has. But without Human words for Identification, Value and Meaning for the benefit of Humans.
As things stand. Everything exists from the 'standpoint' of its own existence.
For example: A Tree exists without knowing its a Tree. Its only a Tree because Humans collectively agree to identify it as a Tree. Same goes for just about everything Non human.
It is the same for Humans too. Every word a Human Knows. Is the result of Human Collective agreement to the same knowing.
So. To understand the Individual reality of all 'things' We need to remove the Human Identification/Meaning Label? We need the ability to temporarily remove the Human Identification and Meaning to understand something from the 'standpoint of its own Individual Existence? Some kind of. New form of Empathic Understanding??
Nice post. You've got informational theory and human traits in there. I think that is an important detail; we barely understand what the human is. You've managed to dodge the age old assumptions of human superiority. The classical human is so capable of logic and rational behavior that we are not instances of animals. That is a flawed assumption. Our language exposes a social trait whose action takes place beneath our conscious awareness: mimicry. Whether your grew up in China with Chinese genes or grew up in America with Chinese genes the genes don't really matter. Your language will be a matter of mimicry. Out of thin air we acquire it. Surely there are extensions to this theory. Unfortunately they may be dark enough that we cannot explicitly state them without appearing niholistic. Still, the factor of mimicry is so strongly supported that whatever extensions can be made, the matter of opening to them has to be taken as a positive stance. Wee humans are social animals. Somehow we have come to arrive in a level of national identity whereby peaceful coexstence can be had. Whether we can achieve a global identity: this should not be a matter of economic model. We can and have achieved global identity upon naming the human species. Sadly, we are still apes, and the warring factions who ape their way along have only arrived in nationalism, or worse yet racism. Religion exposes the mimicry yet again, and the explicit statements of superiority of the Abrahamic religions is no different than racism. Yet such assumptions validate the mistreatment of nonaligned fellow humans. What is wrong with the Abrahamic religions is their exclusivity. A belief in god or a disbelief in god need not trigger such hostile judgements when we presume that either way we all operate in the same reality. This is not so when your group goes to heaven and others go to hell. Since we have not released ourselves from these Abrahamic assumptions we can state the case that mimicry rules this day, when Muslims are vilified by Christians and visa versa. Shall we throw in atheists? Communists? Capitalists? Socialists? Now we are aping our way right back into Darwin. Got to read the origin of species. Haven't done it yet.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7934
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by Greta » August 2nd, 2019, 6:04 am

h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:18 pm
Greta wrote:
July 31st, 2019, 6:54 pm


Consider what names are - and are not. They are labels but they tell us nothing about things, they just allow us to talk about them.

Richard Feynman on the limitations of labels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s
Anytime you mention a tree you are bound to attract @Greta 's attention !!
It was not always the way. I went through the phase of seeing trees, and everything else, as mere props for terribly important human activities.

Whatever, I find words extremely helpful in organising my thoughts. Perhaps the somewhat arbitrary divisions that they impose on our views are limiting at times, but I wonder if it would be more any more limiting than amorphous, wordless thinking?

But, as per the Feynman point, words are tools, although I think it goes beyond communication. It involves conceptualisation. Most of reality is beyond words, though, hence the existence of numbers :)

User avatar
dawwg
Posts: 50
Joined: July 30th, 2019, 5:33 am

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by dawwg » August 2nd, 2019, 7:53 am

h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:13 pm
... we no longer condone slavery or murder of civilian populations.
We might not need words to ascertain one's guilt in the murder of civilians by way of collateral damage by the administration one places their confidence in by way of vote.
h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:13 pm
...we should simply stop pretending that God loves all of us the same. He clearly loves some more than others. Whether for a reason or not, He does.
How's this for a rule?: You recognize that throwing your support behind an administration who murders on your behalf is a questionable tactic if guilt is involved; so you appeal for forgiveness with an intent not to repeat the mistake.

Is love involved or merely a balancing of accounts?

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 2nd, 2019, 3:57 pm

Greta wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 6:04 am
h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:18 pm


Anytime you mention a tree you are bound to attract @Greta 's attention !!
It was not always the way. I went through the phase of seeing trees, and everything else, as mere props for terribly important human activities.

Whatever, I find words extremely helpful in organising my thoughts. Perhaps the somewhat arbitrary divisions that they impose on our views are limiting at times, but I wonder if it would be more any more limiting than amorphous, wordless thinking?

But, as per the Feynman point, words are tools, although I think it goes beyond communication. It involves conceptualisation. Most of reality is beyond words, though, hence the existence of numbers :)
During my career as an international corporate tax CPA, I got to speak with experts all around the world for whom English was their second language.

I learned to keep my words simple and my sentences short. Subject, verb, object, etc.

This works for philosophy as well.

When language becomes an issue in philosophy it I most often due to sophistry in some way.

I do not see any problems with language in philosophy if you keep your words simple and your sentences short and complete.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7934
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by Greta » August 2nd, 2019, 6:27 pm

h_k_s wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 3:57 pm
Greta wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 6:04 am

It was not always the way. I went through the phase of seeing trees, and everything else, as mere props for terribly important human activities.

Whatever, I find words extremely helpful in organising my thoughts. Perhaps the somewhat arbitrary divisions that they impose on our views are limiting at times, but I wonder if it would be more any more limiting than amorphous, wordless thinking?

But, as per the Feynman point, words are tools, although I think it goes beyond communication. It involves conceptualisation. Most of reality is beyond words, though, hence the existence of numbers :)
During my career as an international corporate tax CPA, I got to speak with experts all around the world for whom English was their second language.

I learned to keep my words simple and my sentences short. Subject, verb, object, etc.

This works for philosophy as well.

When language becomes an issue in philosophy it I most often due to sophistry in some way.

I do not see any problems with language in philosophy if you keep your words simple and your sentences short and complete.
Globalisation changed my attitude. I used to love the quirky gatekeeping of English and took pride in knowing the correct forms. Now I see that it was an exclusivist code - are you one of us or not?

Strict correctness is no longer important in most circles, and even less necessary. Now clarity is the focus.

In writing online today whitespace is as critical as language. Expecting people to stay with dense blocks of text when reading online content is unrealistic.
Computer screens, Kindles, and paper create different reading experiences. When you read on a computer screen, the image is not stable—it is being refreshed constantly, and the screen is emitting light.

When you read text on paper the image is stable (not being refreshed), and instead of emitting light the paper is reflecting light. The refreshing of the image and emitting of the light on the computer display are tiring on the eyes. Electronic ink (as in the Kindle) mimics the appearance of ink on paper. It reflects light and holds the text stable without refreshing.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/10 ... /ch17.html

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 3rd, 2019, 5:16 pm

Greta wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 6:27 pm
h_k_s wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 3:57 pm

During my career as an international corporate tax CPA, I got to speak with experts all around the world for whom English was their second language.

I learned to keep my words simple and my sentences short. Subject, verb, object, etc.

This works for philosophy as well.

When language becomes an issue in philosophy it I most often due to sophistry in some way.

I do not see any problems with language in philosophy if you keep your words simple and your sentences short and complete.
Globalisation changed my attitude. I used to love the quirky gatekeeping of English and took pride in knowing the correct forms. Now I see that it was an exclusivist code - are you one of us or not?

Strict correctness is no longer important in most circles, and even less necessary. Now clarity is the focus.

In writing online today whitespace is as critical as language. Expecting people to stay with dense blocks of text when reading online content is unrealistic.
Computer screens, Kindles, and paper create different reading experiences. When you read on a computer screen, the image is not stable—it is being refreshed constantly, and the screen is emitting light.

When you read text on paper the image is stable (not being refreshed), and instead of emitting light the paper is reflecting light. The refreshing of the image and emitting of the light on the computer display are tiring on the eyes. Electronic ink (as in the Kindle) mimics the appearance of ink on paper. It reflects light and holds the text stable without refreshing.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/10 ... /ch17.html
I agree. Clarity is the overriding purpose and need in any communication whether inside or outside of philosophy.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 508
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by h_k_s » August 3rd, 2019, 5:20 pm

dawwg wrote:
August 2nd, 2019, 7:53 am
h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:13 pm
... we no longer condone slavery or murder of civilian populations.
We might not need words to ascertain one's guilt in the murder of civilians by way of collateral damage by the administration one places their confidence in by way of vote.
h_k_s wrote:
August 1st, 2019, 6:13 pm
...we should simply stop pretending that God loves all of us the same. He clearly loves some more than others. Whether for a reason or not, He does.
How's this for a rule?: You recognize that throwing your support behind an administration who murders on your behalf is a questionable tactic if guilt is involved; so you appeal for forgiveness with an intent not to repeat the mistake.

Is love involved or merely a balancing of accounts?
Love is a tricky word in English.

In Greek, which is where most European languages came from, there are 3 kinds of love:

- parental love (agrape),

- neighborly love (philos), and

- erotic love (erotismos).

User avatar
dawwg
Posts: 50
Joined: July 30th, 2019, 5:33 am

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by dawwg » August 5th, 2019, 6:06 am

And the designation of "love" between opponents in the game of tennis?

MAYA EL
Posts: 26
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by MAYA EL » August 12th, 2019, 5:49 am

Robee321 wrote:
July 29th, 2019, 10:59 am
Human Understanding is now restricted within the confines of the Modern 'Word'?
Obviously. The Human 'Matrix' of understanding is very necessary for modern Humans to function in a Modern world.
But Words are in fact just a part of an 'Identification software reality'? That has been 'developed' to make sense of the Modern Psychological/Physical Reality Humans exist in.
Human Understanding of 'Everything' is based on Collective agreement of what words mean.
If all Humans Disappeared. Everything else would still exist as it always has. But without Human words for Identification, Value and Meaning for the benefit of Humans.
As things stand. Everything exists from the 'standpoint' of its own existence.
For example: A Tree exists without knowing its a Tree. Its only a Tree because Humans collectively agree to identify it as a Tree. Same goes for just about everything Non human.
It is the same for Humans too. Every word a Human Knows. Is the result of Human Collective agreement to the same knowing.
So. To understand the Individual reality of all 'things' We need to remove the Human Identification/Meaning Label? We need the ability to temporarily remove the Human Identification and Meaning to understand something from the 'standpoint of its own Individual Existence? Some kind of. New form of Empathic Understanding??
This is a very interesting subject to ponder on and one that I have been contemplating about for a few years now.
Language has indeed become a limiting problem in this area of life and as Terence mckenna ones said that
Language is a 2 part Broadway show 1 part speaking with the trigger sounds and the other part being the telepathic link and communication.

I feel that we are losing that one on one telepathic aspect of communication as technology continues to replace the old ways of transferring information.

User avatar
dawwg
Posts: 50
Joined: July 30th, 2019, 5:33 am

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by dawwg » August 13th, 2019, 4:49 am

MAYA EL wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 5:49 am

I feel that we are losing that one on one telepathic aspect of communication as technology continues to replace the old ways of transferring information.
Being that correspondence between people by way of the written word has been the accepted method of communication for millennia, I think the preference of face to face interaction can sometimes be a device to impress through a physical imposition of pheromones such as beauty or virile manliness.

MAYA EL
Posts: 26
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by MAYA EL » August 13th, 2019, 11:56 pm

dawwg wrote:
August 13th, 2019, 4:49 am
MAYA EL wrote:
August 12th, 2019, 5:49 am

I feel that we are losing that one on one telepathic aspect of communication as technology continues to replace the old ways of transferring information.
Being that correspondence between people by way of the written word has been the accepted method of communication for millennia, I think the preference of face to face interaction can sometimes be a device to impress through a physical imposition of pheromones such as beauty or virile manliness.
I agree with you about the face to face part however if I'm not mistaken less then 5% of the world he's able to read and write up until right after the Dark Ages so although the written word might have been the preferred method of communication over long distances it may have been the only method for communication over long distance and it wasn't very popular either way nor did it have the social negative effects that technology has today.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 636
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Words restrict Reality?

Post by Mark1955 » August 14th, 2019, 3:43 am

I'd suggest that words restrict our sense of reality in the same way as the limitations of all our other senses restrict our sense of reality*. Wenn ich Deutsch spreche, verstehst du mich vielleicht nicht, Americans and English people mean something totally different by the word 'fag'. Despite supposedly being in the British armed forces the words 'secure a building' mean entirely different things to the RAF, Navy, Army and Royal Marines.
dawwg wrote:
August 13th, 2019, 4:49 am
I think the preference for face to face interaction can sometimes be a device to impress through a physical imposition of pheromones such as beauty or virile manliness.
I'm not sure of the relevance of sex hormones to general conversation, but I'd suggest that face to face communication is not just about the words I use it's about the voice I use them with and the body posture I adopt. If I stand 1" away from you and scream "I love you" in your face as loudly as I can and with the accompanying small amounts of spittle flying at you I don't think you'll actually take me at my word. If I simply write something down all the non-verbal elements of communication are lost and the chances of miscommunication rise. Irony and sarcasm in particular are so much clearer in face to face communication.

* Like David Hume I don't believe in reality just our impression it exists, but that's another topic entirely.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Post Reply