Syntax and semantics

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 15th, 2018, 2:01 pm

RJG wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 11:18 am
RJG wrote:Words are just "labels" for experiences.
ThomasHobbes wrote:What experience do I have for black hole?
If "black hole" has meaning to you, then there exists an "aha!" experiential moment; a recognition point caused by the 'association' of (other) sensory experiences. -- The words "black hole" is the "label" given for these felt experiences.

If "black hole" is meaningless to you, then there are no associated experiences.
No one can experience a black hole.
Words are more than you say.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 15th, 2018, 2:03 pm

-1- wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 12:39 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 10:43 am


If you do not understand 'understanding' then you could, not only, not understand the answer, you could not even ask the question.
I am sorry, but anyone is capable of asking any question.

And it may be the case I don't understand understanding now, but given a proper explanation, I shall after that understand understanding.

On the other hand, if I understood understanding, as you claim, I should be able to give a proper account or description of it. However, that I can't, ergo, I don't understand how to understand.

Sorry I don't understand your objection.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1001
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by RJG » June 15th, 2018, 4:21 pm

RJG wrote:If "black hole" has meaning to you, then there exists an "aha!" experiential moment; a recognition point caused by the 'association' of (other) sensory experiences. -- The words "black hole" is the "label" given for these felt experiences.

If "black hole" is meaningless to you, then there are no associated experiences.
ThomasHobbes wrote:No one can experience a black hole.
What do you mean by "black hole"??? ...whatever answer you give, is its 'meaning' (to you), ...and it is this 'meaning', that is derived from sensory experiences.

ThomasHobbes wrote:Words are more than you say.
Are they more than these words that you say?

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 16th, 2018, 1:39 pm

-1- wrote:
June 15th, 2018, 6:38 am
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 7th, 2018, 6:16 pm
Formal logic can often convolute natural language more than is necessary.

Sometimes it's useful, in mathematics especially, and it can be useful to know modal logic, or even read Kripke and Lewis, but anything beyond that is just masturbation imo.
[ad hominem removed]

There should be a fallacy named after "I don't understand it, so it's immaterial, it is not a valid argument".

Don't feel bad, I also don't understand the second post. You and I need instruction, training and practice to follow that sort of argumentation. Which instruction, training, and practice you and I obviously lack.

But to put a limit on complexity only because it's beyond a person's level of easy and immediate understanding is near-sighted and very, very damaging.

This is what the Church had been doing actually, for thousands of years, and would be still doing if we let it, and is still trying to do in North America (with efforts, for instance, to deny that evolution is an ongoing process.)
[ad hominem removed] The church (the real church) is far from stupid. Folly only arose when the laity made attempts to interpret scripture. And whoever denies biological evolution is a dumbass. The one true Catholic church affirms evolution and you can even infer it in some ways from scripture.
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 16th, 2018, 1:40 pm

And this has went off-topic af, and this cat person is a nuisance. Be gone at once I say
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 16th, 2018, 3:48 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 16th, 2018, 1:39 pm
The one true Catholic church affirms evolution and you can even infer it in some ways from scripture.
No you cannot.
The RC church is just bending with the wind.

User avatar
ReasonMadeFlesh
Posts: 744
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
Location: Here & Now

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ReasonMadeFlesh » June 16th, 2018, 4:17 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 16th, 2018, 3:48 pm
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 16th, 2018, 1:39 pm
The one true Catholic church affirms evolution and you can even infer it in some ways from scripture.
No you cannot.
The RC church is just bending with the wind.
[ad hominem removed]
"A philosopher who does not take part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 17th, 2018, 12:15 am

ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 16th, 2018, 1:39 pm

Speak for yourself ****. The church (the real church) is far from stupid. Folly only arose when the laity made attempts to interpret scripture. And whoever denies biological evolution is a dumbass. The one true Catholic church affirms evolution and you can even infer it in some ways from scripture.
I know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the doctrine (they can only talk in terms of doctrines) of evolution but only from the point of creation of the world six thousand years ago (give or take).

If you did not have a lazy eye, you would have noticed that I said that it's the North American Evangelistic communities aniong the Christian sects that fight the theory of evolution.

I admit that my wording was ambiguous.

You will know what I mean by the Church hindering progress: the church officially admitted only in the nineteen seventies or eighties, or maybe the nineties, that they were wrong in their treatment of the teachings of Galileo Galilei.

This came 500 years after circumnavigation of the globe, after 100 years of hot air ballooning around the round earth, after 80 years of airplane travel, after 20 years of observing the earth from space, and after about 300-400 years of near complete and near precise knowledge of the nature of the solar system.

As the great writer and social critic Yaroslav Haczech put it, "the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not oppose progress, but it considers it its duty to keep it in check."
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 17th, 2018, 6:40 am

-1- wrote:
June 17th, 2018, 12:15 am
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 16th, 2018, 1:39 pm

Speak for yourself ****. The church (the real church) is far from stupid. Folly only arose when the laity made attempts to interpret scripture. And whoever denies biological evolution is a dumbass. The one true Catholic church affirms evolution and you can even infer it in some ways from scripture.
I know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the doctrine (they can only talk in terms of doctrines) of evolution but only from the point of creation of the world six thousand years ago (give or take).

If you did not have a lazy eye, you would have noticed that I said that it's the North American Evangelistic communities aniong the Christian sects that fight the theory of evolution.

I admit that my wording was ambiguous.

You will know what I mean by the Church hindering progress: the church officially admitted only in the nineteen seventies or eighties, or maybe the nineties, that they were wrong in their treatment of the teachings of Galileo Galilei.

This came 500 years after circumnavigation of the globe, after 100 years of hot air ballooning around the round earth, after 80 years of airplane travel, after 20 years of observing the earth from space, and after about 300-400 years of near complete and near precise knowledge of the nature of the solar system.

As the great writer and social critic Yaroslav Haczech put it, "the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not oppose progress, but it considers it its duty to keep it in check."
The RC church is like a small yappy dog that runs, barking, after the omnibus of progress but does not know how to buy a ticket to get on.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by -1- » June 19th, 2018, 2:49 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 17th, 2018, 6:40 am
The RC church is like a small yappy dog that runs, barking, after the omnibus of progress but does not know how to buy a ticket to get on.
All omniscient and omnipotent beings who live up to their own standards would rather die than take the bus.Their practice is to take only the omnibus.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Syntax and semantics

Post by Wayne92587 » June 19th, 2018, 2:00 pm

The use of metaphors, technical terms, not only convolute, pervert, distort, natural language, the meaning of the subject, but also the natural meaning of the metaphor itself.

Isis exists not only because of Religion but also because of the perversion of the meaning of Manliness.

Man in gereral, but more so the Fundamentalist Muslim Male has a perverted, distorted sense of Manliness.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Male because of his machismo, being sick in the head, sic,sic,sic; being a Man Beast, a Male Chauvinistic Pig; this chauvinism is carried into every aspect of daily life.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Female wearing Black and walking to the left and the rear of the Muslim Male.

The Fundamentalist Muslim Malewearing white, riding upon a white horse, going about to kill and to concur.

Black and White having more meaning than just being a color; Good and Evil.

The survival of the fittest the Fundamentalist Muslim Male can show his enemy no mercy, even though the God of Islam being a merciful God.

Mercy being Feminine, is rejected.

Post Reply