I tend towards sentimentality in poetry — Michael Zwingli

This made me want to ask - do you like "Song of Hiawatha?" Maybe more romantic than sentimental. I don't know if it's a good poem, but I love it.

Cue the doleful violas. — Bitter Crank

Or perhaps more like this:

don't know if you have ever read this one (I'd be surprised, since it is fairly well known), but it's long been a favorite of mine. It is a statement about human nature thought processes, and interactions. — Michael Zwingli

Realized I hadn't responded to this one. Yes, it seems familiar. It doesn't move me like some of his other poems. What is it you like about it? Is it the content or do you find the form pleasing?

How hopeless under ground
Falls the remorseful day. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes. The story of my life.

There are sensations unknowable to science. We only know the human ones because we have them. Otherwise, humans would be like bats, to an alien or AI science lacking those sensations. — Marchesk

I'm not sure what you mean by "unknowable to science." Unknown, sure. We know about some senses that other organisms have that we do not. As I noted, there are animals who can sense magnetic and electrical fields.

Isn't that a problem for physicalism? — Marchesk

How so?

But bats may experience sonar in a way that's entirely different from any of our sensations. It's just an example. — Marchesk

Some philosophers also believe that people may not experience common human sensory input the same way others humans do. In the case of bat vs. human perception, there certainly is a stronger argument to be made. I'll go back to what I wrote first - if I can observe and study how a bat uses sound waves to sense the world, it is possible that I can share some of its experience.

Surely there are sensations we have no idea about. — Marchesk

I'm sure there are. How could we have any idea about what an organism is experiencing if we don't even know the experience exists?

So you think learning bat language would give us sonar sensations? — Marchesk

No, but I think that learning bat language and being able to detect bat sonar signals might allow us to understand what bats are saying and how they think and see the world. As for "giving us sonar sensations," some thoughts. First, I don't know how different echolocation is from hearing, so I don't know how different the experience is. Also, humans use sound waves to understand the world in ways beyond hearing. We use sonar to detect underwater objects and seismic sensing to detect underground objects. Both these methods provide visual records of what the sound has detected. As for the experience of echolocation, as I wrote before, if we know how it works well enough, to some people, including me, that means we can know what the experience is like.

So you're saying if a bat could talk sonar, we would understand it? — Marchesk

I'm not sure what you mean by "talk sonar." If you mean without any device to allow us to detect and interpret the sounds, then no. If you mean can we understand bat language, I don't think there is one. If you mean if a bat could talk sonar that we could pick up on our equipment in an actual language expressing concepts, perceptions, and feelings, I don't see why not.

The controversy would be over color sensation, not the physics of EM radiation. Same problem we have when discussing bat sonar sensation, except bats have no language to name it for us.

Mary's species wouldn't know anything about color the same way we don't know anything about whatever sensation bats have when experiencing sonar. — Marchesk

Some philosophers would say that if she studied and observed enough to be able to use terms of color and seeing appropriately then she would know what it means to see and to see color. Is that pragmatism? It makes sense to me.

Everyone should go up the river at least once in their life. — James Riley

Also - anything with "Heart of Darkness" references get's my vote.

Everyone should go up the river at least once in their life. — James Riley

Very interesting and well written story. I don't know what it means, but that's ok.

Some experts back home dispute whether color could actually be a conscious sensation. — Marchesk

Alien scientists certainly know about electromagnetic radiation. I doubt there would be any controversy about animals being able to sense different frequencies. Some animals can echolocate or sense magnetic or electric fields and we don't think that's hard to believe.

Also - sight has evolved at least twice on earth. It's a very valuable sense. It could be a fairly universal sense among organisms who evolve on worlds where light and color are a major characteristic of the environment. Some biologists think that convergent evolution will mean that life evolving in similar environments on different worlds will be very similar in structure and function.

Cannot read it right now, the copy I got has so many notes on every page that it's impossible to focus on the story. — darthbarracuda

If you like to listen, LibraVox has a reading I really enjoyed. Free.

I don't understand how that has anything to do with it? I can describe colours to congenially blind people by way of referring to others senses. — I like sushi

I agree. It has always seemed to me the idea that a blind or color blind person could not have a concept of color is wrong.

Can't quite pin that down. Ah well, I'm easily entertained by the lyricism :) — the affirmation of strife

I like the poem too. I'd never read it before. I should read some Stevens. It's very sensual, visual, olfactory. I sense some darkness in it though.

A new discovery in the science of evolution has shown that a logic developed through evolution will never seek to understand the truth, it just learns to maipulate it's environment without a deeper understanding of what it is manipulating: — FalseIdentity

Two thoughts 1) Learning to manipulate the environment is what truth is all about. That's all it is. That's not news. 2) Never trust any insight you get from a TED Talk. TED is the People Magazine of the intellect.

What if our experience in life were a simulation and not reality directly, but reality is 100% identical to the simulation. When we interact with the simulation it has the same effects on reality, and when reality gives feedback it is through the simulation. Is the simulation as real as reality even as an in-between with reality, or must it be fake? — TiredThinker

If there is no way for us to know that we are in a simulation as opposed to what we call reality, then they are the same thing. If there is no difference, there is no difference.

In that regard, I recommend a good science fiction book - "NPC" by Jeremy Robinson. Good story. Good writing. Good philosophy.

Right, but what's in our minds almost always gets "let out" in what we say or in how we behave -- i.e., in our actions. Which has an impact on the world around us, including others. — Xtrix

I try to be aware of how I behave toward other people. I try to treat them with kindness and respect, with some, imperfect, success. At the same time, my mind is full of dark emotions, prejudices, and lust and what's worse... philosophy. By which I mean, no, you're wrong. Even if you were right, it would only be what gets let out I would be responsible for, not what's kept inside.

What do you think is the reason why most people, even very educated people, seem to have difficulty engaging with ideas that challenge their views? — thesmartman23

I'm 69 and I have some strong beliefs. Actually, it's more accurate to say I have a strong system of beliefs. All my beliefs are connected to each other. If you change one, you're likely to have to change some others. The more important the belief, the more others it is connected to. I think that's true of other people as well. Except for simple or superficial beliefs, it takes intellectual and emotional effort to change things. Alternatively, it takes a strong crow bar to pry things apart. Crafting effective crow bar arguments is not easy, even when the underlying idea is a good one.

It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms. — baker

Well put.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

We are not responsible for what's in our minds, only for what we let out. And that's a good thing, for me at least. Being aware of what is going on inside us is another good thing. That includes what we know and believe, how we know know it, how certain we are of it, and what the consequences are if we are wrong. But, again, we are only responsible for our behavior.

Conceptual clarification is what philosophy consists in, yes. And further, if you have an honest think about it, you will agree. And this even despite your penchant for threads that are merely making lists.

Consider:
What is mysticism?
What does "consciousness" mean
Is introspection a valid type of knowledge
What knowing feels like
Determinism vs. Predictability
What are our values?
,,,and so on. Your own threads. What are these if not quests for clarity? — Banno

This seems like typical Banno snarky insulting bullshit, which is much more common than any search for clarity. So, in the interests of clarity, am I right about that?

I personally do research on humor, cross-linguistically. Now there's carrying water in a basket! — Kermode

I took French in high school and one year of German in college decades and decades ago. When my brother and I went to Europe a few years ago, I studied up on my German. My brother is fluent in French. We traveled around in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Germany. I loved trying to make myself understood in my creaky French and Germany. Every time I tried to tell a joke, it went nowhere. I had a philosophical discussion with a friend of my brother's in French. It was difficult but lots of fun.

In English we use a lot of definitive phrases; perhaps more than any other language. — Benj96

In other languages the addition of “to be” and “to do” is less exaggerated as maybe they believe to “do” is a form of “to be” and perhaps vice versa, therefore doesn’t have to be reiterated. Instead of “I am going” it’s more equivalent to “I going” or “I currently go” — Benj96

Is there evidence for this? If so, can you reference it.

These subtle differences in the use of our most common verbs must have a profound effect on our perspective or understanding of the world between cultures. — Benj96

I think you need to argue for this or cite the research. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is very controversial. — jamalrob

As @jamalrob noted, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not accepted by linguists or psychologists for any language except Klingon. We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago. At that time I commented that the hypothesis had been controversial when I took Psychology of Language 50 years ago. Since then, it apparently was strongly out of favor, but has come back into some favor in the last 25 years or so. It has been criticized as inconsistent with Chomsky's theory of universal language. I am skeptical of it's use for drawing broad conclusions about cultural differences.

Well , profundity and importance tend to be synonymous with a certain notion of difficulty , dont they? — Joshs

Absolutely, positively, completely, indubitably no.

Most of the exciting concepts in science I learned ( Darwinism, Newtonian and relativistic physics) unfolded this way. — Joshs

As I noted previously, science is different from philosophy, with the exception, I guess, of logic.

But then scepticism began creeping in with Hume , and Kant’s attempt to salvage the old verities forced him to let obscurity in via the unattainable thing-in-itself. — Joshs

I guess I see this as just the opposite. The idea of thing-in-itself is the ultimate simplification. It's the world with all the paint and glitter of language and reason stripped off. What could be less obscure. It's right there if you look. Just turn off the words that obscure it.

Obscurity only made its way into the heart of truth with the post-Hegelian relativisms of Rorty, Kuhn and Feyerabend, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, the phenomenologists , the Pragmatists, the social constructionists and the postmodernists. — Joshs

I can't speak to most of these, but it is absolutely not true of the pragmatists. How could an understanding of reality nailed down to concrete human behavior and understanding be obscure.

Reading through all the responses on this thread, it strikes me there are people who don't think a philosophical idea can be profound or important unless it is obscure or difficult. Maybe to them the effort required to figure something out is related to its value.

What I am advocating is called argument. When someone says something, if it doesn't make sense you can ask for clarification. — Banno

Come on, Banno. Do you really claim that this is the way philosophy works here on the forum, or in philosophy in general, for that matter. Or for you, for that matter.

Seems like jibberish - then you are not looking at conciseness, you are a non intellectual on shape or lesser than me, or you're thinking perversely. — Varde

One problem with your description is that I don't have a strong ability to visualize complex objects. Clarity could be provided by an illustration.

I'm interested to hear about other terms, or sets of terms, that have a habit of stagnating discussions in philosophy and of ideas about how to deal with this. — I like sushi

A couple of thoughts. First - I'm not so much bothered by terms being "fossilized" as I am by the fact that they have taken on so many different meanings it is hard to have a coherent discussion. Solution - define your terms well in the OP and enforce that meaning throughout the thread.

Second - There is a difference between "truth" and "warranted assertibility." They mean different things. They represent different metaphysical approaches to reality. There wouldn't be such a problem with fossilization if people would accept that different metaphysical approaches are not right or wrong, just more or less useful in particular situations.

There - I just got to bang on two of my favorite drums at once.

Tell you what. You give me a list of who you consider to be leading suspects for unreadable philosophy , and I will summarize, simplify, and link their work to social scientists who have embraced them. — Joshs

Why would I go to the trouble of doing that? There are so many other good books out there - philosophy, non-fiction, poetry, fiction - why would I spend my time reading books I didn't enjoy or get anything out of?

No he’s not. — Joshs

Unh hunh. Is too.

I was in search of something to read that would blow me away. Rising to the top of the list was "The Sound and the Fury" by William Faulkner. I read it. At first I thought it was the most worthless piece of shit every written. Worse even than the King James version of the Bible.

But then I pumped the brakes and confessed that maybe there are just some things I don't get, and don't want to invest the time and energy to get. I try to remain open to the possiblitlity that some things are beyond me. — James Riley

"The Sound and the Fury" didn't do anything for me, but I loved "As I Lay Dying." It's funny, my brother, who doesn't like to read, somehow got ahold of "As I Lay Dying" and really liked it. My philosophy of fiction reading, and I think it's probably a bad one, is, if it doesn't pull me in in the first few chapters, to heck with it. For non-fiction I might try harder if it's something I really want to know about.

If you want to read some Faulkner, he has a collection of short I guess you would call them mystery stories collected as "Knight's Gambit." Very accessible, but they still have that taste of the dangerous wildness found in the countryside outside of town, which is probably the thing I like best about his writing.

It matters because the 'v' ('or') connective should never have been conflated with exclusive-or.

Also, your notion that exclusive-or has an advantage of elegance is ill-conceived, as I could explain also. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Since P and ~P are mutually exclusive, what difference does it make whether the disjunction is inclusive or exclusive?

Thanks. I'll take a look.

If you want specific recommendations on different topics, I'll be glad to give you some recommendations. — Manuel

Yes, please. How about some follow up on what he was discussing in the audio to start.

I never said that if Chomsky and Popper said it, that means it's right. — Amalac

I know that.

What matters is the content of what someone says, not who says it. — Amalac

I agree. I was being amusing.

So, it's better to follow Popper's advice:

If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can — Amalac

I really enjoyed the Chomsky audio. I've been thinking I should put some effort into his work. I guess if Chomsky and Popper agree with us, we must be right.

I a lot folks dismiss ideas because they claim it lacks "clarity". The assumption seems to be that if an idea, or concept, is not easily comprehended it is therefore dishonest. — Wheatley

I am a deep skeptic about most philosophy, especially western. You are much, much, much too kind to and understanding of most philosophers. Science has difficult ideas. It needs to describe complicated things that haven't been seen before. There are lots of unfamiliar moving parts. There need to be new words to describe the things that are discovered. Learning and understanding some aspects of science requires education and experience. Even so, talented writers can make the general ideas and many of the details clear to intelligent non-scientists. I've read original work by great scientists - Darwin, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg. These guys could write in very clear and understandable ways. Usually, when I would read a paper, the first couple of pages would be really interesting and clear. Then, it would rapidly get over my head. That's how I knew that their writing was clear but my understanding wasn't.

Philosophers don't have that excuse. The things they are talking about are not hidden away in the microscopic and subatomic worlds or billions of years ago soon after the big bang. Everything they write about is right out in the open for everyone to see. Every time I've come up against an idea wrapped up in dense verbiage and unnecessary jargon, when I've finally fought my way through I've found ideas that I have no trouble explaining in relatively normal language. Sometime those ideas are wonderful, but they are often not worth the trouble.

There are philosophers who can express complex ideas in clear understandable language. The world is complex, but it's not that complex. If you can't say it in words I can understand, you don't understand it.

Which empiricism generally resists, on the grounds that humans are born 'tabula rasa', a blank slate, on which ideas are inscribed by experience. — Wayfarer

Those of us who have been around young children know that they come out of their mother's anything but blank. They are who they are and always will be the minute they are born. Probably before.