What makes you think your "non-trivials" are a different kind of problem? — bongo fury

If you take a look at a person's use of language, the difference between believing such and such is a ketch and such and such is a yawl is of minor significance. There is the entire range of linguistic usage and history to orient an interlocutor toward this minor difference in belief or language use.

Turning to the non-trivial case (materialism v. immaterialism), the distinction between the belief that the universe is matter and the belief that the universe is mind is of nearly infinitely greater significance.

As triviality decreases the background of common beliefs decreases.

What makes you think your "non-trivials" are a different kind of problem? — bongo fury

There is a shared background of understanding attendant upon simply being human, that all people will agree upon; they are the trivials. Different paradigms consist in attenuated ideas, theories and beliefs, non-trivials, which indeed may not be translatable into each other's terms; and no one has presented anything here. and nor does Davidson's paper, that convinces me that that is not so.

Different paradigms consist in attenuated ideas, theories and beliefs, non-trivials, which indeed may not be translatable into each other's terms

You can come to a new mutual understanding without sacrificing the traditional terms though, especially in cases of intermediately non-trivial translation, like between Buddhist and Freudian folk psychologies for instance. Preservation of original terms is probably preferable if possible, as stable points of reference around which all kinds of formative communicating can align, so you can bring the uninitiated multitudes on board. Preserving terminology particularly assists as a locus of conversation, but can be confusing in writing because immediate, personalized clarification is not available. Authors have to massively elaborate while presciently anticipating the mindsets of their audience, and the resolution of objections is a lengthy process, though capable of reaching deeper, more reflective levels. This is probably an obscure way of describing common practice, but it might be good at this stage of the discussion to explicitly diffuse catastrophic relativism. Currently untranslatable non-trivial conceptual schemes exist, but this untranslatability may be alterable somehow.

There's no relation between the two. "Scaling-up" and a "non-critical attitude" - those two aren't related. You caught the tail-end of a longer conversation. But the two are unrelated. — ZzzoneiroCosm

.

Currently untranslatable non-trivial conceptual schemes exist, but this untranslatability may be alterable somehow. — Enrique

That's possibly true, although I don't think we are going to be able to translate the language of geomancy into the language of geology, astrology into astronomy or theosophy into the language of quantum physics or cosmology anytime soon.

The former three disciplines assume that genuine intuitive knowledge is possible, and may be invoked by the effects of symbols on the imagination to reveal arcane truths about the nature of reality. There is no acceptance of this idea in the latter disciplines, and consequently no language in them to deal with it except the language of denial.

I don't think the ideas of the former three disciplines have any place in philosophical discussions of the argumentative kind (except as examples), in any case, because there is no way to inter-subjectively corroborate the kinds of experiences and insights which are claimed by them.

If you have had those kinds of experiences and insights then you may indeed have reason to place your faith in them, but if you haven't, then someone trying to convince you of their veracity will be speaking a different language, analogous to trying to describe colour to a blind person; a waste of everyone's time, in other words.

:grin:

If you have had those kinds of experiences and insights then you may indeed have reason to place your faith in them, but if you haven't, then someone trying to convince you of their veracity will be speaking a different language, analogous to trying to describe colour to a blind person; a waste of everyone's time, in other words.

Many people have described visual experience to blind relatives and friends, the analogy is superficial, come up with a better example! lol Preferably not based on pre-Enlightenment worldviews.

The fact that people may attempt to describe to others what those others have not experienced, and hence may have no notion or understanding of, constitutes no refutation of what I said. The analogy would only be superficial if the success of such attempts could be demonstrated, and you have offered nothing in the way of that.

Also, that you try to characterize what I wrote as "based on pre-Enlightenment worldviews" as though (the myth of) progress ensures that those views are somehow inferior suggests to me that I will be wasting my time trying to engage in discussion with you, since it seems to indicate that you are interested only in the usual kind of polemic.

As I already said I don't believe that discussion about so-called religious or mystical experience is worthwhile in a context which demands empirical evidence or self-evident truth, these kinds of things cannot be coherently argued, and I think it is always a mistake to reify the ideas that come with such experiences to form the basis of any positive (quasi-empirical) claims.

In short it seems to me that we probably have nothing to discuss. But by all means, change the tune and surprise me.

Well said!

Edit: when I commented on your post it was empty. I preferred it that way!

I can tell this is going to be an adventure lol By pre-Enlightenment worldviews, I mean such as geomancy, astrology and theosophy. I have no inclination to get into the details of those perspectives either. By post-Enlightenment views, I mean the ideals of equal access to institutions of education, representative government, justice, some cultural expression, the social foundation that makes a progressing scientific worldview with a species consciousness, general humaneness, even conceivably universalizable. I think post-Enlightenment thinking is largely what makes it possible for millions of people with vision to care about the experience of someone who is blind in general, based on the idea that the impaired deserve assistance, their constraints dignified by legally affirmed equality of need and rudimentary commitment to reciprocate, the social contract. Prior to the Enlightenment, most citizens probably cared about the blind only if relatives, family friends, or a relationship formed incidental to relatively uncommon local conditions. Based on concepts of humanity, many people would find it generally admirable to describe a visual experience to an acquaintance who is blind, not a waste of time at all!

So I'll be Socrates: if describing sight to the blind is viewed as a waste of time by some with normal vision, it must be for a reason besides untranslatability, because every normal visual experience would be similarly untranslatable to someone who is blind, but not every individual with normal vision regards describing visual experience to the blind as an unconditional waste of time.

I think post-Enlightenment thinking is largely what makes it possible for millions of people with vision to care about the experience of someone who is blind in general — Enrique

Are you suggesting that "post-enlightenment thinking" has a unique claim on compassion?

but not every individual with normal vision regards describing visual experience to the blind as an unconditional waste of time. — Enrique

I don't know what to make of this. That some people may persist in attempting to describe things to people who have never experienced them says nothing about the success of such attempts.

I suspect Enlightenment thinking is what made the dignifying of human life in general with social programs a government institution, though opposing trends are also in effect.

I suppose the issue is how we define social success. If its easier for some individuals to translate between their experiences, and they collectively compose the majority, should the minority be excluded completely? Some absolute minorities exist, but what if the minority in one context is the majority somewhere else, or the minority has power, or the minority gets outraged? Can we grow a culture that not only imposes minimum and constantly violated legal obligations, but also fosters self-imposed respect or even compassion for every human being transcendent to relative translatability of concepts or any additional criteria? The charitable approach has solved a lot of social problems, and the world would probably be utter chaos and misery without thought and behavior that troubles to reject stereotypes.

The assessment of translatability depends on beliefs regarding the functions, boundaries and possibilities of discourse. A subject very much in the domain of the humanities, though I gather you guys have more of an analytic approach. Maybe this discussion's angle of reasoning can help bridge the divide. I may be making nearly self-evident claims lol What do you think?

I suspect Enlightenment thinking is what made the dignifying of human life in general with social programs a government institution, though opposing trends are also in effect. — Enrique

This would seem to be historically borne out.

I suppose the issue is how we define social success. If its easier for some individuals to translate between their experiences, and they collectively compose the majority, should the minority be excluded completely? — Enrique

It seems that in these days of identity politics minorities do not get excluded completely if their voices are loud enough to penetrate the shell of the general level of complacency, or ta least manage to convince the politicians who appear to hold the reins that they have convinced those voters that they, the politicians, believe actually matter to the outcome of the next election.

Can we grow a culture that not only imposes minimum and constantly violated legal obligations, but also fosters self-imposed respect or even compassion for every human being transcendent to relative translatability of concepts or any additional criteria? — Enrique

I don't think cultures can, or ought to be, "grown". Cultures evolve, no one's really in control (although of course the plutocrats do generally set the agenda, even though they cannot control even themselves).

Compassion is a matter of feeling, that is cultivated by those few who viscerally realize the reality of inter-connectedness.

The assessment of translatability depends on beliefs regarding the functions, boundaries and possibilities of discourse. A subject very much in the domain of the humanities, though I gather you guys have more of an analytic approach. Maybe this discussion's angle of reasoning can help bridge the divide. I may be making nearly self-evident claims lol What do you think? — Enrique

I don't know about others. but I don't see my approach as "analytical". Of course analysis plays a part, but more important still is synthesis. The only purpose of reduction is to assist in making whole. I think the humanities are excluded only to the valorization of scientism and the general detriment of philosophical thought.

And I wouldn't say your claims are "self-evident"; would you want them to be given that if they were they would be mere tautologies?

And I wouldn't say your claims are "self-evident"; would you want them to be given that if they were they would be mere tautologies?

Benjamin Franklin seemed to think so, but he also almost deliberately electrocuted himself with a kite lol

Now you've bamboozled me! :yikes:

Edit: I just noticed you wrote "nearly self-evident"; what a sloppy reader I am sometimes!

But that raises the question as to how something could be nearly self-evident; I had always assumed that something is either self-evident or not. :chin: