What is God?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strongly Agree with this and everything else you have said Al.

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

Personally I quite fond of the idea of Spinoza's God. However I agree that is indeed a concept beyond potential human understanding, at least using our historically and culturally developed tools (ie. science) to do so.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

The concept is something being itself, not anything to do with "1."

Ah okay, I was taking a purely numerical interpretation (perhaps if you said 2=2 it would be more clear). However I still think my argument stands, or rather what you are stating is nothing more than an abstract tautology on its own. The important thing here is define something being 'itself' (A chair is a chair.. but this chair may have features that separates it from other chairs.. like style, construction, material, etc). Yes I admit this is a detour.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But how can empirically prove whether an act/belief/whatever is truly rational not just a cultural value? Or for that matter and more radically, whether a priviledged something: an act/belief/whatever as rational and therefore good is itself a cultural value (why support the objective over the subjective?). Many - most societies - ideas of rationality would be alien to our. It was a 14th Century Theologian who invented Occam's Razor after all.

Or to take another example from Anthropology (An Anthropologist always has to deal with these questions..) there are many societies whose number system does not go up very high - some only up to 2 and no further - here I am usually talking about words and language, concepts are slightly different but usually there are alternative ways of expressing higher numbers though none very high, what use do hunter-gatherers have of the number 87? So for this group the equation 2+1=3 makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't mean it can't learn it but sometimes it doesn't learn it... and isn't suspectibility towards mathematics a cultural value? (and if they can't express that 2+1=3 so much for complete human objectivity, it ain't objective to them...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are assuming that the human mind organizes reality and its experiences in a 'rational' way. But the historical record shows otherwise (think of many hunter-gatherer societies - not 'rational' from our POV, but this is a very different issue which I can talk about at some length...).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been reading too much Levi-Strauss recently, that is never a good idea for this sort of thing. Plus I've been receiving the correct "sociological attitude" since I was like six (my mother is a sociologist) which I think explains my "OMG Everything must be put in historical-cultural context" attitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think I answered that question with the addition to my previous post. Mathematics is after all just another form of organization, not brought about by rational investigation itself (especially advanced mathematics, is game theory empirical?)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

Well then I must have missed something, or my brain isn't functioning. What be your analogy again?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

Well then I must have missed something, or my brain isn't functioning. What be your analogy again?

My analogy regarded tautologies and similar base logical operations.  My argument is that they aren't really prone to cultural relativism.  They could be, I suppose, but I see no justification against assuming they aren't.

(That's the short version because I am really, really, really sick right now and can't write anything smarter.  Sorry.  Later )

The problem is that you can't state those tautologies regardless of their tautological-ness in anything other than language and/or mathematics, the statements themselves not being true but assumes that language has some kind of actual status to the real world independent of human thought and the symbols of language/mathematics themselves. (And anyway let's not forget with maths 1=2 sometimes, if you know the correct method).

I think you may have missed my point here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Btw, while no doubt Ilikeverin will come in and explain that mathematics and language is a product of biological evolution, that is somewhat beside the point, because that does not explain the property of language itself. We assume that we can describe reality via language, this is not an empirical belief and the fact that scientists have to invent words for everything new they do suggests that we are constructing language as we go along (though this is not the place for a language/reality/cognitive relativism debate).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

woo, more zombie-mode posting.

I genuinely must be misunderstanding what you're saying, because how would the "symbols of language/mathematics themselves" be relevant in a tautology?

You're talking about some very interesting anthropological phenomena, but they are cultural limiting factors, not differences in the perception of reality.  The possible existence of greater than two objects is not defined by culture, even if it is not defined as such.  Much like that tribe in Brazil with no understanding of depth perception...

Unless, of course, you are arguing that our interpretation of tautology is a byproduct of cultural upbringing as much as theirs?  That is an argument I'm skeptical of

What I'm saying is that we use 'symbols' (language and maths) to describe things, including things we hold to be innately true (1=1, the red ball is a red ball) but that these symbols are products of human cognition which we then insert or project onto reality. The symbols themselves have no truth value (or if you want to invoke the language of linguistics, the relationship between the sign and the signified is completely arbitrary). Also as to a large extent logic is a product of language that means... in certain languages for instance, logical paradox is gramatically impossible as it isn't in English. Also tautological description is not the only way of describing anything.. the red ball may be the red ball, but it is other things as (such as having a position in time and space).

Of course there are truths that exist outside of human experience and thus culture, such as gravity, but it is quite clear that human beings were not designed to know these things. God, to get back on topic, might be one of these things. (note: when I refer to 'culture' I'm generally refering to all aspects of human existence with the outside world as it is lived, at least in a modern society, whether certain attributes of your self are determined by "nature" (genetics) or "culture" (social constructionism, development, etc) is not important here, all your day to day actions are cultural in a specific sense, even those that are innately human, like anything sexual.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm not even reading yall's conversation, and it's giving me a headache.

We were discussing the nature of the categories of being, existence, cosmology, etc. I assume "god" (if he is 'there') is one of those.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Al, stop stealing my ideas and claiming them as your own, thx.

(Actually no, alot of that was what I was trying to say, but couldn't express it to well and also brought an anthropological perspective to it.)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I aim to please. Actually no I do find it difficult to keep on topic some times, just the nature of me personally. (Btw, good to know people find my posts "genuinely interesting")

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost. I'm arguing that there is no a single "objectivity" or "rationality", these are just concepts or words we give to things that have "rational-ness" and "objective-ness" and are formed from cultural and historical assumptions. (Occasionally political as well, look at Francis Bacon's secular power worship or Newton's argument to the Royal society that the introduction of "the gravity hypothesis" would not effect the political status quo.).

Of course this is not to say that the scientific method and its likes are bad, actually they are great improvements on what went before, I don't think we would like to find ourselves living in the medieval period, just that they are human creations, can often have highly normative aspects (I'm reading alot on this at the moment actually, treatment of "mental illness" is the classic case. Can give more info if desired.) and are thus flawed instruments, occasionally enlivened by a genius or two. Truth too is a cultural conception, as you say "The Rock is a The Rock" but "the Rock" is also "that rock over there" which is different from "that rock over here" and "that other rock", "a rock I saw once" and "that the third rock from the sun". "Rock" is just a concept we give things which have "rock-ness", how we define that quality is more or less culturally and subjectively imposed.

Also I believe that you are falling into The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness vis-a-vis language. Language I don't think refers to anything real as such - we only think it does, however it only does refer to what our beliefs are about what is real: concepts such as "rock" (and what is the difference between a rock and a stone?) or "computer" (why does every new product need a new word?) or even "man". Ever seen man, not men, but man?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We agree, hurray. My misplaced concreteness comment was based on how you refer to language as refering in itself to reality (or at least my perception that it does) rather than how reality is perceived.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it is, It is making a statement that it is a 'rock' and thus not a stone, a pebble, a turtle or anything else. This linguistic judgement is subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tautology however is only possible with language. "The Rock is a rock", perhaps so, but to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends on your definition of "is". It is also "that rock over there". Anyway tautologies are abstractions, the rock over there exists, "the rock" does not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rock is something which we have defined as a "rock" (and thus not "a stone" and etc) thus talking about the properties of "rockness" or the thing which we have defined as a "rock" is a logical collarly to that. It is the definition.

I think the problem is here is that we both making some subtly different metaphysical assumption, but defining it is difficult.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah, the Joys of Metaphysics.

Basically my point is that it is a subjective judgement to perceive the Rock as a "rock" and not a thing positioned in time and space or as not a 'stone' or whatever. So here enters perception, of course x=x but that depends on how we define 'x' the subject. The Rock is not a stone for instance. So yes I do believe that the definition of the word is completly culturally contigent and that the word refers to a preconceived idea of reality, not reality-in-itself. In that sense, logic needs cultural and linguistic assumptions to work*. We can not conceive of anything logically, or at least express them, except through the medium of language. The Rock is not a stone, after all.

* I would hold that logic is a human invention and back to our original topic, thus flawed especially finding out about what we might call the transcendental. The argument that God can not exist because it 'refutes logic' assumes that logic is both an accurate description of reality and can be applied to the whole of totality (all that exists). Neither of which are very logical (or rather, empirical - given that most people now believe the two things to be same) assumptions. Reason is a limited tool, many of our experiences can not be reasoned with, usually we just invent or hear 'an explanation' and accept it is fact, the content of the explanation dependent on what we believe to be true or sounds true. But I'm rambling again...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that is my position, more or less. Or rather the reason for this is that we don't have a symbol system, language or mathematics (which is of course different, and deserves a different topic) which is a description of reality-as-it-is or reality independent of ourselves, rather humans attach meanings to reality as the basis of language. All our intellectual operations are done in a linguistic form, thus the nature of that form effects the outcome of the results. Is the rock really not a stone? What is the difference?

Also we can't empirically prove whether one system of logic is more referent to reality than another especially if we are discussing nominalism v realism, men v man, 'rock' v that rock and so on. (well, that depends actually on what you define as 'logic', a tricky word to define. I'm mainly thinking here of Levi-Strauss and his idea that the 'primitive thought' or prescientific thought was itself a form of logic and that 'alternative' medicine, magic systems, etc are all logical when made in reference to their cultural (ie. non-empirical) assumptions about the nature of reality. Some cultures hold that sun revolves around the earth, some - most today thankfully, hold the opposite. So clearly then some cultural systems are more accurate representations if the Levi-Strauss thesis is correct).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it is accepted by both parties then it is to some extent a cultural item. You agree that we define the world around ourselves? After all if the two people disagree on whether it is a rock or a stone... then can we say anything axiomatic about it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course no culture holds things to be both true and untrue (at least none I know of). That's because 'culture' as a concept is to a certain extent an interpretation of reality. I believe here you are confusing Is-Ought or bringing in moral ideals into an area which doesn't have any. I am, from my point of view, describing language as I see it.. only if we have a particularly defined concept of reality (which apparently I am going against) could we say that I am making a "moral point". Perhaps a linguistic system should refer to reality as a whole, but it obviously does not. It's not a rock, or a stone, it is a zwigwag (a word I just made up).

Admittely this bit might not be completely well thought out: I'm a bit tired right now. But I really enjoy this discussion.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I recognize that but
1) We can't empirically disemble our concepts and the things-in-themselves, our concepts of things is always our concept of things. If our rock/stone had conciousness, say, and a mind with an ability to logic and form language, would it come to the same conclusions as ourselves? I would not think so. "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him" (Wittgenstein).
2) The Desire to logically order things is not logical in-itself, at its basic level logic is about ordering reality in a sensible way and so that we can describe reality 'better' than with our naive intutions. There is nothing logical or empirical about that ordering (what Al said; with a caveat - what sort of the person is an intellectual who organizes things?).
3) Also that ordering is based around language to a certain extent* and to our intutions and reactions to the outside world, especially when we think of language as something having value or meaning-by-itself. This is something intellectuals do more so than your average person. There is quite alot on this that can be elaborated. (In short, it is a fallacy to believe that words have any sort of 'truth value' themselves. The word "believe" is a good example of that actually, If you want me to elaborate on that I will, but will take time.)

* (Actually there are 'universals' that human mind constructs or at least so it seems, though the evidence is so far a bit patchy, examples would be colour, time, space, etc... everyone knows or so it seems** about blue or black or days or sky or night or day or etc. But I don't wish to get into a debate about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This is somewhat irrelevant, after all, all human have some shared experiences, so they should have some shared languages)

** (Except possibly one Amazonian peoples)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That presumes that our understanding of reality isn't cultural. But it is. As I mentioned before that great tool of logic, Occam's Razor, was invented by a 14th Century Theologian, a period when God's existence as an overarching 'reality' in the world was taken for granted (and not from observation mind). I remember reading one historian who claimed that even among the very rare nonconformists of the middle ages, the amount of nonbelievers was a tiny, tiny proportion. And whether they actually didn't believe or not is up to question. Now, do we consider God's omnipresence to be the most likely explanation to reality or not. (Going slightly back on-topic).

Also we think of reality in concepts relative to humanity, like day-night, man-woman, edible-not edible, etc. While these concepts have a strict existence, there are days, there are women, they are also ways of organized our direct experience - could you imagine your life if you didn't understand the day-night or man-woman dicthomony? Yet it is describing reality a) cyclically, that is not as things 'are' at a particular time (it is bright) but as knowledge of what things will be or are in reference to a concept (it is day, it will be night) and b) with labels attached to people, who at least in modern society, would probably prefer to think - at least intellectually - of themselves as individuals, as things-in-themselves, rather than as a gendered concept (which says nothing about whether there are any innate differences between the sexes). All that I hold is just one way of looking at reality, which suits us homo sapiens fine, but perhaps not things (remember my concious rock). Also It is probable that these understandings are innate to human understanding (we are not pure blank slates after all) but that is irrelevant to the argument actually it strengthens it because then we can't 'unlearn' it, our logic revolves around us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because of this comment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which seemed to suggest that you were accusing me of uber-relativism (and stated a moral implication for that relativism). What ethics has to do with the philosophy of language I'm not too sure.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No that is probably me, it is just how my mind works. (I like my tangents)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't necessarily hold that the concept "woman" is a cultural construct. I think it is an innate human construct, for obvious reasons (reproduction, sexual attraction, etc). I think here you are assuming that I am arguing that if something ain't 'real' as an object then it must be a cultural construct. No, I am not, rather we associate certain feelings, perceptions or things with a certain quality that the abstraction has (so breasts in this), which we then categorize the person as a woman. This categorization obviously pre-exists the person herself (she can't choose her sex) and doesn't and can not and should not the person-in-herself, it is a label other people give to her (which isn't of course saying it isn't a biological fact aswell, but that is a different isse). And furthermore these categorizations are purely natural or subconcious phenomena. That is to say that our natural cognition presupposes reality alot. I'm not really talking nature vs. Culture here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I assume that natural science is closer as a description to actual reality as any other system we have I don't doubt that. I am saying that at root there is alot of non-science and non-empirical logic operating in the sciences and this effects the results. This does not necessarily mean 'bad', but it may help explain some of the things we can't explain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not denying the usefulness of otherwise of empiricism, I'm trying to show its limitations, I'm showing that human assumptions - that is human nature, assuming it exists, and reflections about the nature of reality effect the results of empiricism/natural science because it uses unempirical concepts, which are experiential, such as night/day, man/woman and supposes that the quality things these have to us, as we experience them, is what they are. For example my concious rock probably can't tell the difference or isn't interested in the difference between night and day because it doesn't effect his experiental reality, of being a "rock". Instead using night and day, we structure time cyclically based on empirical data that night falls after day, but that is a way of structuring time around experience - which is related to the experience of being human, especially in societies which require a deal of self-sufficiency (unlike our own). "night" and "day" have no empirical basis outside of our own experience (this isn't 'bad', but presupposes that 'our' reality of experience is universal...)

Btw, this is somewhat off my original argument which started this whole thing, which I'm now struggling to recall what it was.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FANTASTIC! I WINORZ!!!111

Actually no that I realize it and have thought about it I think you are right here, my essential problem is with "the rock is a rock" type sentences is there abstract unrealness to it, or rather it is only possible to state with language. It is a not statement I recognize as reality, a rock is always in a particular place, at a particular time, etc. Such tautologies are only possible through linguistic expression (by human beings) so....

Also I want to be an Anthropologist, not a sociologist. Subtle difference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah okay, you are speaking of platonic truths about the nature of objects and the world, or science as we call it. I have no problem with that in itself, I was just trying to show that its basis is not purely empirical or logical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, this is a question I've always been interested in actually. How do whether my 'sadness' or 'joy' is the same thing as another's 'sadness' or 'joy'. I can't (so emotions, at least until behavior science finally conquers the human brain, are nonempirical beasts...) the words are concepts I give to my own feelings, but that may differ for another person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think so; In saying that I don't see any harm in seeing life in more than just one way. Actually through the eyes of many is the most useful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ALCON I HATE YOU!!!!1111111