Regarding the statement about philosophy being the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of language, then why is that so? I mean to say, why does language behave this way or what makes this true that language going on holiday is all that some philosophy amounts to? — Shawn

I think that most of the conflict I've seen in my somewhat limited understanding of philosophy, and this forum in particular, result from these kinds of issues. The problem isn't our presuppositions, i.e. foundational assumptions, it's that we don't recognize them as such.

I like the quotes from Westacott and MacGee you've provided, especially this:

Anyone who supposes that if all the perceiving subjects were removed from the world then the objects, as we have any conception of them, could continue in existence all by themselves has radically failed to understand what objects are. — Schopenhauer's Philosophy, Bryan Magee, Pp105-106)

I'd suggest seeking scientific understanding of what the sensations are a result of. It seems you might need some understanding of the role the things themselves play in your experience of sensations.

What are the details of the light that reflected off the thing and into your eye?

Do you see consideration of such matters off limits for this discussion. If so, might it be that you are trying to understand things in overly simplistic terms? — wonderer1

As I've noted in my responses to @Bob Ross's posts, the specific cognitive mechanisms of perception are not relevant in addressing his concerns.

any given phenomena stripped of the a prior means of intuiting and cognizing it is left perfectly unintelligible (viz., remove all spatial, temporal, mathematical, logical, etc. properties from the phenomena and you have nothing left to conceptually work with other than a giant '?'); so whatever the thing-in-itself is will be exactly what is unintelligible: it is the 'thing' stripped of the a priori means of cognizing it. — Bob Ross

As I see it, this is a good way of looking at it, but it is not paradoxical.

the paradoxical and necessary elimination of knowledge of the things-in-themselves via particular knowledge of thing-in-themselves. — Bob Ross

I don't think it's truly paradoxical at all. As with most "paradoxes," it's a matter of language, attitude, perspective, not fact.

Kant begins with the presupposition that our experience is representational and proceeds to correctly conclude that knowledge of the things-in-themselves is thusly impossible. However, anyone who questions the legitimacy of this presupposition readily realizes that its justification rests purely a posteriori—on the empirical evidence of our representative faculties as presented to us in our conscious experience (or of another); and, as such, presupposes, from the onset, that one can trust their experience — Bob Ross

Here's the heart of the problem. There is no true "justification" for Kant's presuppositions because they can not be established empirically. This is not a criticism, because it's true of indirect realism, direct realism, and all other philosophical isms. For example:

one can trust their experience enough to know that (1) they exist (2) with representative faculties (3) in a transcendent reality which (4) has other things in it and of which (5) one’s representative faculties are representing. — Bob Ross

I can trust my conscious experience enough to conclude that I exist in a world with other objects, then I thereby trust it to know at least some things about the things-in-themselves (namely, that I and other objects exist in reality). — Bob Ross

I exist with other objects in reality — Bob Ross

None of these things can be established empirically. There are many, many problems like this in philosophy - there always have been and always will be - until we give up and recognize these kinds of statements are not true - they are assumptions, presumptions. We need them in order to proceed in the world, but they are human inventions, not properties inherent in the world.

The truly perplexing paradox arises when one accepts empirically, through trusting one’s conscious experience, those minimum 5 claims about the things-in-themselves — Bob Ross

Again, there is no paradox because the claims are neither true nor false. We act as if they are true, but there is no way to establish that.

I’ve had my say. I’ll leave it at that.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the first amendment, I'm afraid, so its a mistake to equate the two. That's fine, it's a common error. — NOS4A2

It's not a mistake and your response is disingenuous. There is no freedom of speech beyond what protections government or other institutions provide. Are you suggesting there should be? Are you suggesting people shouldn't be held accountable for what they say? Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for libel or slander? Are you suggesting the government should get involved in protecting freedom of speech beyond what they already do? What exactly are you suggesting?

The US isn't the only country in the world. At any rate, this isn't about the United States and its legal system. — NOS4A2

In your first paragraph you identify Trump's lies about the 2020 election as an example of the issue at hand. Caitlin O’Connor and James Weatherall are both American academics working in an American university. For you to say you're not talking about the US goes beyond disingenuity into intentional misleading.

I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech. — NOS4A2

As I asked before, are you suggesting that people shouldn't be accountable for what they say? That I shouldn't be able to sue you if you lie about me in a way that causes me harm? If that's what you mean, you should be clearer. It would involve a radical rewriting of civil law in the US and every other country in the world. Is that what you think is needed?

I put a link in the original post. It's old, so it may be out of date, but it shows how people and journalists around the world are being placed in jail on the premisses you advocate. — NOS4A2

Another false statement. The article you linked to identifies no country in North and South America or western Europe except France and Italy that have potentially significant restrictions. Indications of people being put in jail are primarily located in authoritarian countries in Africa and Asia. Is that it? You're worried about press freedom in Burkina Faso?

You've just made up this whole issue so you can paint your preferred right-wing political cohort as unjustly persecuted.

Are you suggesting that slander and bomb threats shouldn’t be illegal? — Michael

No, slander shouldn't be illegal. As I noted in my response to @NOS4A2, slander is not a crime in the US, which makes sense to me.

I recently read an article in Nature magazine in which researchers plead to their readers that we ought to care more about the threat of misinformation to democracy. To illustrate the threat they provide the typical examples, “false claims about climate change, the efficacy of proven public-health measures, and the ‘big lie’ about the 2020 US presidential election have all had clear detrimental impacts that could have been at least partially mitigated in a healthier information environment”. The researchers promise us that “efforts to keep public discourse grounded in evidence will not only help to protect citizens from manipulation and the formation of false beliefs but also safeguard democracy more generally.” — NOS4A2

Whenever this subject comes up, someone points out that freedom of speech, the First Amendment here in the US, only applies to government action. It doesn't limit what individuals, corporations, or institutions can do about your or my speech. It's not against the law to fire someone or ask them to leave your house if you don't like what they say. Certain kinds of speech, e.g. slander and libel, can also be addressed under civil law. If I sue you for something you said, that's not a violation of free speech as it is usually understood. Here in the US, slander and libel are not crimes.

So... I don't see anything wrong with what the authors of the article wrote, at least as you've described it.

In their book The Misinformation Age, philosophers Caitlin O’Connor and James Weatherall come to the stunning conclusion that the same legislative prohibitions the state puts on false advertising, hate speech, and defamation ought to extend to misinformation. — NOS4A2

In the US, there are no "legislative prohibitions" against defamation and so-called hate speech. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding false advertising. I assume it is considered a type of fraud. As far as I know, it is still addressed in civil rather than criminal proceedings.

These two examples are meant to illustrate a perennial tale, that some individuals believe other individuals need to be protected from the kinds of information our betters do not approve of, and therefore monopoly on information needs to be achieved. In this case, our betters are advocating for some form or other of Official Truth and censorship so that others do not form “false beliefs”. — NOS4A2

Actions, including speech, have consequences. If those consequences harm someone, it may be appropriate for the harmed party to take the speaker to court. Do you have a problem with that?

One wonders how it is that the authorities in this instance are immune to misinformation and false beliefs. — NOS4A2

Do you have specific examples in mind of "authorities" putting the kibosh on someone's politically incorrect speech? If not, what's your kvetch? How about that - "kibosh" and "kvetch" in the same response.

All of this leads me to conclude that the hubbub over misinformation is a campaign for more power rather than a legitimate plight for public safety. — NOS4A2

Well, you certainly haven't made any case for your claim. Besides that, I'm with Mikie.

Oh cool, the dude who worships the guy who said anyone burning the flag should get put in jail is gonna lecture us on free speech absolutism. Pass. — Mikie

It's hard to take this seriously.

Language cannot express feelings but merely describe them I’m just wondering if there is other things that language cannot express or has limits … thoughts ? — kindred

The philosopher I feel most at home with is Lao Tzu, who wrote "The Tao Te Ching," one of the founding documents of Taoism. As the first verse says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." To vastly over-simplify, "Tao" means the world.

Again, to simplify, the map is not the territory, the story is not the experience. When we describe something with words, the words and what we are describing are two different things. "My memory of my mother" is something different from my memory of my mother. So, to answer your question, we can't truly express anything with language, but it's the tool we have to communicate our experiences to others.

The first example is a decision not based on neutrality, values or beliefs though. We’re not always making decision based on neutrality, personal beliefs or values but based on circumstances for example a poor person buys cheap products because they’re restricted by their finances not their tastes, values or personal beliefs. — kindred

I think we've carried this issue as far as we're going to get.

As I indicated previously, I appreciate the sentiment. It means a lot to me.

Now that you talk about it like that I think you are right and no decision can be neutral and every decision is influenced by personal beliefs — QuirkyZen

You're new to the forum, so maybe you don't know how rare that kind of acknowledgment is. I appreciate it.

No threats, but circumstances, such as: you have to work otherwise you will end up on the streets or no food on table is such an example of a forced decision, on the other extreme slavery was a forced decision too or a custodial sentence handed by a judge to a defendant a decision with which the defendant has no choice but to accept. — kindred

In the first example, forcing someone to make a decision doesn't force them to make a neutral one. As for slaves and convicted criminals, there are no decisions involved at all. Crooks don't decide to go to jail. Slaves don't decide to do the work their owners tell them to.

A simple example of this is a judge in a courtroom given a decision. There he is not influenced by his personal beliefs and values but rather gets beliefs from external sources. — QuirkyZen

I disagree. Have you ever read a judges decision in a court case. Just look at recent events in the Supreme Court in the US. How could nine judges come to such differing conclusions about the same facts and laws? There clearly is a connection between their political and personal values and how they voted.

What about a forced decision, one that is imposed upon someone without their consent ? — kindred

How is the person forced? By threats? How could such a decision be neutral?

even if I try not be influenced by personal beliefs that itself is a belief — QuirkyZen

Although this is true, it's not what I've been trying to explain. I thought I expressed myself clearly, perhaps not. To go any further I'm just going to have to repeat myself.

It will really help if you can give us an example of a decision that you or anyone has made without input from personal values and beliefs.

I think there might be a misunderstanding between us because you are saying that a decision cant be made without value and in my last reply I told you that I also believe that decision can't be made without beliefs and values but I also believe that decision can be made without personal beliefs and values(though not 100%) — QuirkyZen

I don't think there is a misunderstanding, just a disagreement. What is ethical is a personal value. Even an understanding that it is necessary to consider ethics is a personal value and belief. All my professional decisions as an engineer took my personal values into account.

Can you provide an example of the kind of decision you are talking about?

I am not saying that a decision can be made without beliefs and values but I'm saying that it can be made without personal beliefs and values (though I have mentioned in comments on this discussion that it is impossible to make a decision without influence of personal beliefs but we can make the influence very low). — QuirkyZen

Again, I can't think of an example of a decision that can be made without values. When I was an engineer, the first question in any decision making for a course of action was always is it ethical? is it in my client's best interest? Is it consistent with my obligations as a professional engineer.

there are some people who have managed to keep their beliefs at side and make decisions while being completely neutral. — QuirkyZen

What you're describing is not consistent with what is known about human decision making. Emotions and values are an integral part of thinking and decision making. This from "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio.

For example, work from my laboratory has shown that emotion is integral to the processes of reasoning and decision making, for worse and for better. This may sound a bit counterintuitive, at first, but there is evidence to support it. The findings come from the study of several individuals who were entirely rational in the way they ran their lives up to the time when, as a result of neurological damage in specific sites of their brains, they lost a certain class of emotions and, in a momentous parallel development, lost their ability to make rational decisions. Those individuals can still use the instruments of their rationality and can still call up the knowledge of the world around them. Their ability to tackle the logic of a problem remains intact. Nonetheless, many of their personal and social decisions are ir- rational, more often disadvantageous to their selves and to others than not. I have suggested that the delicate mechanism of reasoning is no longer affected, nonconsciously and on occasion even consciously, by signals hailing from the neural machinery that underlies emotion. — Antonio Damasio - The Feeling of What Happens.

those decisions to be better than the ones made neutrally there is one condition. You have to have correct beliefs. What are beliefs and whether ones beliefs are correct or not is a different topic but the thing is that making decisions according to your beliefs is not as bad as we often tend to think about it. — QuirkyZen

I don't understand. Can you give me an example of a decision that can be made without values and beliefs? We have discussions here on the forum ad nauseum about what constitutes knowledge. What is knowledge other than beliefs about the state of affairs in the world - something you believe to be true?

That's three things. — Benj96

I’m God. If I say it’s four, it’s four.

Dr. Phil is definitely welcome here — javi2541997

Do you know who Dr. Phil is? He's pure evil.

God abandoned us a long time ago... — javi2541997

No. You're thinking of Franco.

You would be constantly pestered for details and logistics by not only me but everyone else, if you were indeed God and we could speak to you. Universal management does sound exhausting. — Benj96

Four things 1) I would be omnipotent 2) I would be omniscient 3) 4) I wouldn't care what you thought or wanted.

Hmm... Perhaps that anyone sees North Korea as an opportunity rather than a punishment. Regarding killers and abusers, we can't really never know. — javi2541997

Careful, don't piss God off. Maybe I'll send them to Spain instead. You know what? I'm definitely going to send Dr. Phil to Spain.

as a God you would hold the life and wellbeing of children in higher regard to any adult? — Benj96

Not necessarily in higher regard, but the most vulnerable are due the greatest protection.

Would North Korea remain the same size regardless of how many people are sent there eventually leading to overpopulation, starvation and death. Or would North Korea's terrority expand to accommodate your accumulating mass of condemned people?

Would North Korea gain power and economic prosperity from the influx of forced immigration? Would the world eventually end up being all "North Korea?" After its population explodes and it conquers other countries by sheer numbers alone? — Benj96

I'm God, for God's sake. Don't pester me with details and logistics.

If you were God, what would you do? — Benj96

I'd send anyone who intentionally killed, tortured, seriously hurt, or abused a child to North Korea permanently. Oh, and Dr. Phil too.

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans — Sir2u

This is true — T Clark

Really? Who disagrees? How so? Seems a strange thing to dispute, — I like sushi

I have a strong intuition (wishful thinking?) there is an innate human nature. As I have always seen it, innate language is the strongest instance of that. I've read a bit about other ways of seeing things, but after this discussion I thought I should dig deeper. This is from "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher. His seems like a pretty even-handed and non-polemical take on the issue.

The reason why there is so much disagreement is fairly simple: no one actually knows what exactly is hard-wired in the brain, and so no one really knows just how much of language is an instinct...

...The human brain is unique in having the necessary hardware for mastering a human language – that much is uncontroversial. But the truism that we are innately equipped with what it takes to learn language doesn’t say very much beyond just that. Certainly, it does not reveal whether the specifics of grammar are already coded in the genes, or whether all that is innate is a very general ground-plan of cognition. And this is what the intense and often bitter controversy is all about...

...Uncontroversial facts are few and far between, and the claims and counter-claims are based mostly on indirect inferences and on subjective feelings of what seems a more ‘plausible’ explanation. — Guy Deutscher - The Unfolding of Language

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans — Sir2u

This is true

I am still not sure about language being hard wired, but I am not a scientist. — Sir2u

I don't disagree with this. I like to think I'm open minded, but I find the evidence for the innate nature of language convincing. I also am not a cognitive scientist or psycholinguist.

A thought, if language was hard wired would that mean that there are some specific genes that control this function? — Sir2u

As I understand it, there are genes which have an influence on language, but it's not an absolute connection. People without the genes or with damaged versions may still be able to use language correctly. People with the genes may have language difficulties.

And the funny thing is that some people still insist on using human science as a bookmark for knowledge when we don't even have a complete picture of how we work? — Sir2u

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The fact that scientific knowledge is not complete is no reason not to use what we have.

↪T Clark points out that naming things seems to be an intrinsic part of human thought processes, but it seems to me that it is a learned ability. From the very beginning of their lives they are shown things and told the names of those things. — Sir2u

Evidence from psychological and cognitive science studies indicates this is not true. Language, including grammar and naming is a genetically inherited human capability. Obviously, specific words for specific things is learned social knowledge, but the drive to communicate with words is a fundamental part of human nature.

The development of the specific term God is middle eastern/western. There is no primary concept of God (or religion) in the East. — I like sushi

Shiva, Brahma, Ganesh?

I guess my main line of thinking here is that humans are kind of new to reason. Applying reasonable explanations by assuming how we see the world is part and parcel of why I started to think like this. — I like sushi

Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?" You might find it interesting. Amazon says "Jaynes's still-controversial thesis [is] that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing." His hypothesis strikes me as very far-fetched and his evidence flimsy, although some people give it credence.

Going back to the Middle East it is fairly apparent that cities had traditions that developed into God concepts too. This plays into the competitive concept of state versus state but in a more direct and concrete fashion. By this stage though we are probably way, way past the kind of incremental steps I am talking about that arose through some form of exaggeration for entertainments sake. — I like sushi

Evidence?

Given that FACTS did not exist in the sense they do today this may be even more plausible than it seems. The lack of EVIDENCE (because it did not strictly exist) would allow for the strength and depth of the narrative to take on a life of its own. — I like sushi

I have been of the mindset for a long time that modern religions arose through the use of mnemonics, and now I am starting to think that maybe, much further back, the intent to preserve information came through and due to comparisons between imagined and real stories. EVIDENCE and FACTS themselves began with imaginative interplay and incremental one-upmanship. — I like sushi

Where did this come from? What possible evidence could you have this is true.

Your whole argument is to just restate your premise over and over.

Anyway, thoughts and ideas on this specific idea welcome. I do not really want to get into other common tropes for how the concept of God arose UNLESS you feel it dovetails into this idea in a curious way. — I like sushi

It is my understanding that it is an inherent human tendency to personify aspects of our world. Babies are instinctively responsive to human faces and voices and have an inborn moral sense. We name our cars and boats. This is something I have noticed about myself. So, it seems to me it is an easy step to personifying the world itself. I really love the world and I often find myself feeling grateful for what we have been given. That gratitude feels like a natural and reasonable manifestation of our drive to personify. This completely speculative idea strikes me as a better explanation for where gods might have arisen. Wherever they came from, I'm sure the process is much more complex than either of our ways of thinking about it.

I'm trying to expand the notion of biosemiotics to embrace the entire material domain, not just the biological (a la Terrence Deacon). — Pantagruel

Apokrisis has written a lot about biosemiotics and, based on his recommendations, I've read a couple of articles. I must admit I've never have been able to figure out what it really means - how it manifests in the world. I hadn't heard of Deacon, so I looked him up. Wikipedia says "Deacon's theoretical interests include the study of evolution-like processes at multiple levels...He has long stated an interest in developing a scientific semiotics (particularly biosemiotics) that would contribute to both linguistic theory and cognitive neuroscience."

After reading the Lorenz book we have discussed as well as "What is Life - How Chemistry Becomes Biology" by Addy Pross I have taken a strong interest in evolution as an organizing principle beyond just biology. Both write about evolution as it might apply to different levels of organization - Pross about evolution as a mechanism of abiogenesis and Lorenz about the evolution of societies.

So - is there a connection between biosemiosis and this broader understanding of evolution?

abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery — kindred

Here is my response to a similar claim you made in the "God" discussion.

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works. — T Clark

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists — kindred

Have you looked at the scientific discussion of abiogenesis? It's just one more of the questions for which there are hypotheses but no accepted theory. Other examples - a theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, dark matter and energy, and the manifestation of experience from neurological processes. Do you think those questions "confound" scientists? If so, well, that's just how science works.

It is obvious that it is better to read Joyce directly in English than in Spanish, because the translators usually 'disrupt' the real sense. — javi2541997

Have you ever read a Spanish book and also the English translation? If so, what was the experience like? Did the translation get the original right?

Great book. I had some difficulty with it in the beginning: — Jamal

I had some difficulties reading Borges as well. It is remarkable his vast knowledge on almost everything. However, I feel he expressed himself in a manner that can only be fully comprehended by him. The eternal handicap of gifted! — javi2541997

I've always been intrigued by translation. I wonder about the difference of your experiences reading it in Spanish as opposed to English.

My favourite, when it comes to explaining the universe is, 'I don't know'. — Tom Storm

I'm a fan of "Who cares."

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory.

I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. — Bodhy

Once you've gotten past the silly, creaky "why is there something rather than nothing" question, the universe can't be an "accident." It's inevitable. As for pointless, why does the universe owe you intelligibility or a point. That's your job as a conscious entity - tacking on intelligibility, meaning, purpose, and point.

The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe. — Bodhy

By "tenseless" do you mean that there would be no direction to time? What does that have to do with intelligibility or purpose? As for an eternal universe, what's wrong with that? What else could it be? I think time is likely just another one of those things we tack on.

I like Paul Davies idea that the only things that can possibly exist are things that explain themselves, some sort of self-contained intelligibility, so that the universe and the reason for its existence must be co-emerging or co-creating somehow. — Bodhy

I think the universe explains itself by evolving consciousness to gussy itself all up with intelligibility and meaning.

Regardless of whether or not relativism is more accurate, or if we feel as though objectivism is too rigid, assuming objectivism in the search for truth (the answer to this question's use case) is generally more useful than assuming relativism.

Most truths worth looking for (except for personal truths) either have one answer, or the assumption that they have one answer leads to more productive debate and higher quality proposed solutions. — Igitur

I like the way you've formulated this issue - judging a choice of perspective based on usefulness. For me, that's the heart of the matter.

If I'm understanding that right, then Lorenz is saying (at least in part) that what is a priori to the individual is a posteriori to the race, or species? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, I think that's exactly right.

I suspect I'm not using the quote mechanism correctly; I meant to quote T Clark, quoting Lorenz. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

In my experience you can't nest a quote within a quote on the forum. Maybe someone else knows how to do it.

Does that mean the mind is also an abstraction? Something outside the physical world? If so how does one explain what happens to my mind when you crush my head between two boulders? — Benj96

Oh, wait. I guess I didn't answer your question... Did I mention that's a good question?