Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

'Still' language limitations

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Post Reply
User avatar
BelieveNothing
Posts: 103
Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right
Contact:

'Still' language limitations

Post by BelieveNothing » February 7th, 2017, 8:46 pm

"the following statement is false.."
"the previous statement is true."

True or false? Maybe neither? Maybe both? Clearly contradictory or maybe unknown? I used to believe that truth existed before reality and separate from it but I'm no longer so sure. My first idea of what truth is was some kind of static state or 'balance'. Since then I have realized that I imagine truth to be static because of the nature of language - these words will remain whether true or not, but awareness of truth is all about change or in other words discovery. I think words and language are too static to determine the 'true or false' status of the above two contradictory statements. During the process of reading the two statements in quotation marks, while jumping back and forth from one statement to the other because they refer to one another, it becomes clear that a change is happening at the same pace in which you are reading and I for one can't explain the changing validity with static language. I would like to see someone explain that..?

The two statements contradict one another in such a way that kind of creates a loop is the way I see it, each statement switches from being true to being false or vice versa purely because the other one is doing the same thing and referring back.. I struggle with whether they are true or false though because the limitations of my mind are such that they can't be both. Does anyone know what I'm waffling on about? :D

I hope I live to see the day when ideas can be communicated quickly clearly and successfully without having to rely on language so much. Language -such as words- either written or spoken seems too linear and static as far as I can tell for serious 'bottle-necking' to be avoided.
Reality is not all in your mind.

A Poster He or I
Posts: 1104
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by A Poster He or I » February 18th, 2017, 5:06 pm

I struggle with whether they are true or false though because the limitations of my mind are such that they can't be both. Does anyone know what I'm waffling on about? :D
You appear to me to have stumbled into the problems of language that ultimately led to the invention of Analytical philosophy in the early 20th century. Very broadly speaking, the analytical philosophers came to the general conclusion that language occludes a more fundamental logic at the base of cognition. Although you don't mention logic in your post, I'm wondering if you might nevertheless be making a similar mistake in thinking that beneath or behind language there is a fundamental logic to resolve such a conundrum of words. Reading your post, I don't see where you've considered that the contradiction is due to the two sentences exposing the fundamentally self-referencing and tautological nature of logic itself (i.e., it has only itself to validate itself). Empirical experiment in the cognitive sciences since the 1960s demonstrates pretty unequivocally that logic is a product of cognition, not a root of it.

In other words, your waiting for the day when we might think beyond language may not be of much help, because language is only a manifestation of the problem not the cause.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by -1- » February 19th, 2017, 2:05 am

Paradoxes exist outside of language as well. There is an arrangement of switching in electronics which will act as a function; and when the function returns a zero state, it will generate a one state; and when a one state is returned by the function, it will generate a zero state.

"I for one can't explain the changing validity with static language. I would like to see someone explain that..?" Yes.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by -1- » February 19th, 2017, 2:17 am

""""I for one can't explain the changing validity with static language. I would like to see someone explain that.""""
(The above becomes different if you treat the second sentence as a plea, not as a question.)

Language is only valid in describing reality as long as reality does not change from a static lingual description. "Jane runs" is true only as long as Jane keeps running.

Can static language become a CAUSE of change in reality? Inasmuch as truth is a fitting description of reality. In the above case, truth becomes falsehood as soon as Jane stops running. Can a single static statement cause change in reality?

Well, yes. "If Andrew is zero, then Andrew is one. If Andrew is one, then Andrew is zero." This is a static statement; yet it falsifies and validates Andrew being one and zero at the same time and in the same respect.

The crux of the matter is that static language can express change. "Today we are sheep; tomorrow we'll become lions." Here, the language is static; yet there is a motion, a change, from sheep to lions.

Your Holy Grail in what you seek in language is that language, even static language, is not only an expression of facts and status quo; it is also a way to express movement, change, in temporal progression. "Get the facts -- get the fax." For instance. The language is static, yet the world will change due to its call.

User avatar
BelieveNothing
Posts: 103
Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right
Contact:

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by BelieveNothing » June 16th, 2017, 1:48 am

Maybe lies can be validated?
Science fiction sometimes becomes science fact so to speak.

I think philosophy is supposed to be a philanthropic search for truth but it seems the world we have to live in is dominated by lies and deception.
I'm not even sure if discovering the truth is such a good idea. One thing I'm relatively sure about is mortality, but I still like to believe that anything is possible.
Reality is not all in your mind.

Woodart
Moderator
Posts: 284
Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by Woodart » June 16th, 2017, 7:01 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:Maybe lies can be validated?
Science fiction sometimes becomes science fact so to speak.

I think philosophy is supposed to be a philanthropic search for truth but it seems the world we have to live in is dominated by lies and deception.
I'm not even sure if discovering the truth is such a good idea. One thing I'm relatively sure about is mortality, but I still like to believe that anything is possible.

Language is like a hammer - you can use it to drive home nails and make something useful. Or, you can bash someone's brains out - your choice.

User avatar
BelieveNothing
Posts: 103
Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right
Contact:

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by BelieveNothing » June 16th, 2017, 7:49 pm

Woodart wrote:
Language is like a hammer - you can use it to drive home nails and make something useful. Or, you can bash someone's brains out - your choice.

Thanks, 'your choice', free will is another issue entirely. I think most people only think what they are told to think and at least 50% of a mind's activity is just response to whatever it is exposed to. Most tools can be used in a myriad of ways and I guess language as a tool is a good analogy but I see language as an artificial construct that belies it's own intended purpose.

-- Updated June 17th, 2017, 5:05 am to add the following --

Is it true that when you say nothing you can say nothing wrong? It's kind of obvious that sometimes it's necessary or important to voice an opinion, but how can anyone know whether the message is going to be perceived accurately? There is always an element of translation or distortion when ideas are communicated and I'm frustrated partly because the language I'm trying to use is inadequate.

"when there is nothing to say, it is best to say nothing" - origin unknown. Just because someone doesn't express an opinion doesn't mean they don't have one.

I'm rambling, but is that really such a waste of time? Cogent structured ideas can be put in writing, but I expect 'fluid' ineffable thought processes which are probably more useful can rarely be expressed in such restricted terms. I often feel a bit like a dog chasing my own tail you know.
Reality is not all in your mind.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: 'Still' language limitations

Post by -1- » June 21st, 2017, 7:00 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:Maybe lies can be validated?
Science fiction sometimes becomes science fact so to speak.

I think philosophy is supposed to be a philanthropic search for truth but it seems the world we have to live in is dominated by lies and deception.
I'm not even sure if discovering the truth is such a good idea. One thing I'm relatively sure about is mortality, but I still like to believe that anything is possible.
There is a lot of truth out there that is not philanthropic.

If you only want truth that is nice, useful and kind, then either stop looking, or start cherry-picking truths.

And there the lies start... by denying the verity of unnice trutush.

-- Updated 2017 June 22nd, 12:05 am to add the following --
BelieveNothing wrote: "when there is nothing to say, it is best to say nothing"
Try telling that to my wife. If you can successfully convince her to follow this advice, I'll give you a thousand dollars, or her, or both, whichever is less.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Post Reply