...and yet they do indeed use these words. How can that be, if your account is right? — Banno

I believe that fact is wrong, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is right. Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? That without the need of experience, every man, blind or sighted, already knows the idea of colours a priori? Well this still would not change my point that words point to things, in this case, to ideas that we know a priori; am I wrong?


I read up on this a bit. This is indeed astonishing. "She was able to enjoy music by feeling the beat and she was able to have a strong connection with animals through touch".

But I am not sure if she would have been able to perceive the animals' colours; although she may have been able to somewhat perceive the tone of the sounds from the vibration frequencies.

Notice that Mr Edison is quite able to use colour words correctly. Of course, there are some things he cannot do, as he acknowledges; and lots that he has trouble making sense of.

But does he know the meaning of our colour words? He uses them correctly in most cases, so I think we have to say yes.

You could finesse this all you like, but it would come down to showing the basic distinction between you and I in our attitude to meaning; I say it is use, you say... it is something mystical in your head?

And notice that your argument above, for some sort of innate ideas, simply falls apart when you talk to a blind person. Edison's use of colour is not innate; nor is it complete. But it is there for you to see.

And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do.

this still would not change my point that words point to things, in this case, to ideas that we know a priori; am I wrong? — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes. What is pointed to by Edison's use of "red"?

And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do. — Banno

:up: The autistic community gets impatient with ablism too. Thanks for your words. :smile:

If true, then indeed the flavours must have one thing in common, — Samuel Lacrampe

That's just not true.

A red sports car and a red sunset need not be the same colour.

Yet they are both red.

Therefore there is nothing that both uses of "red" point to.

Cheers.

... Did you watch the video? :brow:

He literally says "What is [color]? I don't know. [...] I don't have any concept of what it is. There is this whole part of vocabulary, of language, that doesn't mean anything to me. Over the years people have tried and tried to explain color to me and I just don't understand it."

If I had know about this video before, I would have showed it to you to prove my point; that we get meanings from experience, and to experience is to experience something.

He uses them correctly in most cases — Banno

I am starting to think your position is merely that people can use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct, even if they don't understand the meaning of the words. If that is all you are trying to say, then no dispute here.

And notice that your argument above, for some sort of innate ideas, simply falls apart when you talk to a blind person. Edison's use of colour is not innate; nor is it complete. But it is there for you to see. — Banno

Banno, please try to understand your opponents' position prior to arguing against them. Right now, you are attacking a straw man, because I said that it was your fact, which I disagreed with, that suggested the existence of Innate Ideas. This is not my position. I side with Aristotle and Hume who claim that we obtain our ideas and meanings from experience, and this video proves my point.

What is pointed to by Edison's use of "red"? — Banno

'Red' points to this, which he has not apprehend. That is his whole point. He said "When somebody says 'something is red' to me, I don't quite get it. [...] Stuff I picked up from hearing about it". He says he does not understand, but can repeat what others told him.

A red sports car and a red sunset need not be the same colour. Yet they are both red. — Banno

Red comes in many shades. They both have some shade of red.

And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do. — Banno

If this is about my statements about blinds, these should be taken as statements of facts, not statements of judgement. Anyways, if I have offended you, then I apologize for that, for my intent is not to offend.

But there is a thing, a being, as defined in my previous post. To side with philosophers like Aristotle and Hume, we apprehend meanings by observation. And to observe is to observe something.

A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe

The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? Note that talking about its light wavelength would not cut it; because that is not its meaning in the common language. Even before people knew about wavelengths, they knew the meaning of the word 'blue'. — Samuel Lacrampe

I understood you to be claiming that any and every word points to something - which you call a "being"; and further that this "being" is in some way individual, giving the meaning of the word.

It would follow that if there were someone who could not understand what some given word pointed to, then that person could not understand the meaning of the word; and that therefore, they would not be able to use the word.

So I present you with a video of a man using colour words, correctly, despite his inability to see what the word might point to.

Now to my eye this falsifies your theory of meaning.

You now have the choice of finessing your theory using ad hoc material; or you can accept the falsification.

He literally says "What is [color]? I don't know. [...] I don't have any concept of what it is. — Samuel Lacrampe

Quite so; and yet he uses colour words

I am starting to think your position is merely that people can use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct, even if they don't understand the meaning of the words. — Samuel Lacrampe

So one move open to you is to suggest that Edison can only use colour words syntactically, but without the semantics that can only come from knowing what the words point to. Of course, that would be to negate the evidence of his correct use of the words; an ablist insult that I'm sure you would not commit.

Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? — Samuel Lacrampe

You misunderstood; the notion of innate ideas was yours, I was just pointing out that Edison obviously learned to use colour words, and was not born with an understanding of them.

'Red' points to this, which he has not apprehend. — Samuel Lacrampe

(lost link in the quote)

So "red" points to a web page? You don't mean that. Nor do you mean that "red" points only to that shade of red, which will be different on your computer than on my laptop, and even on my laptop varies as I move from room to room.

There is no being to which the word "red" points, and in virtue of which it gains a mythical thing called a meaning... All there is, is the different and changing ways in which the word is used.

Yes, you are copying Aristotle and Hume. I'm copying Wittgenstein and Austin.

I understood you to be claiming that any and every word points to something - which you call a "being"; and further that this "being" is in some way individual, giving the meaning of the word. It would follow that if there were someone who could not understand what some given word pointed to, then that person could not understand the meaning of the word; and that therefore, they would not be able to use the word. — Banno

You are correct about my position.

They would not be able to use the word meaningfully. They can say the word (from hearing other people use it), but not understand it; which is precisely what Mr Edison says. The key distinction is between saying vs understanding. Before I learned to speak english, for it is not my first language, I could sing along to a few english songs, though I would not understand what I was saying at the time.

You now have the choice of finessing your theory using ad hoc material; or you can accept the falsification. — Banno

I continue to choose finesse. :wink:

So one move open to you is to suggest that Edison can only use colour words syntactically, but without the semantics that can only come from knowing what the words point to. — Banno

If this means roughly the same as being able to use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct but not understanding it, then yes, that is what I am saying. But don't take offence. Mr Edison said it himself:
"There is this whole part of vocabulary, of language, that doesn't mean anything to me. Over the years people have tried and tried to explain color to me and I just don't understand it. [...] Stuff I picked up from hearing about it." You seem to be bluntly ignoring the testimony from Mr Edison himself, and I don't understand why.

You misunderstood; the notion of innate ideas was yours, I was just pointing out that Edison obviously learned to use colour words, and was not born with an understanding of them. — Banno

You are misquoting me. Here is the full quote:

I believe that fact is wrong, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is right. Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? — Samuel Lacrampe

From the full quote, you should be able to pick up that this is not my position, and that I am deducing it from a fact that you brought up. Moreover, I already clarified this in my last post. Shall we move on?

So "red" points to a web page? You don't mean that. Nor do you mean that "red" points only to that shade of red, which will be different on your computer than on my laptop, and even on my laptop varies as I move from room to room. There is no being to which the word "red" points, and in virtue of which it gains a mythical thing called a meaning... All there is, is the different and changing ways in which the word is used. — Banno

No, I don't mean that. And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Gotta celebrate those small steps towards progress.

There is a being which is pure red, close to this, and then there are different shades of red which are composed of pure red and other colours. Pink=red+white. Brown=red+black. Orange=red+yellow. Purple=red+blue. Finally, green has no red in it. The fact that some things are red (to a more or lesser degree) and some things are not red is sufficient to demonstrate that 'red' points to a being with essential properties.

Have a look a this.


Do you really take Mr Edison's use to be nothing but syntactic?

To what does the word "purple" point, for Tommy?

It can't point to a archetypal purple swatch, as you suggest with red and blue.

There is a being which is pure red, close to this... — Samuel Lacrampe

This is your theory in a nut shell? An essence of red, a Platonic Form of red, something like these examples, but not actually these examples; and while these examples exist in the world, the true form exists... where? in your mind? In my mind? Somehow, shared between minds? Think of the ontological and epistemic complexity here.

And you offer this as somehow simpler that the claim that we just use the word to talk about different colours.

The fact that some things are red (to a more or lesser degree) and some things are not red is sufficient to demonstrate that 'red' points to a being with essential properties. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's not right. Not by a long shot. Not even close to cogent.

But the fact that we use the word "red" to talk about a range of different colours might be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that there is no one thing to which the word "red" points.

Do you really take Mr Edison's use to be nothing but syntactic? — Banno

Yes. Not only is it possible, it is asserted by Mr Edison himself: "In this video, I have no idea what I am talking about." He says purple is his favourite colour by association with Prince, which he likes. Whatever purple is, it must be good because Prince is good.

To what does the word "purple" point, for Tommy? — Banno

Nothing. The word is to him meaningless. That is the point. As he stated in the previous video, he knows a colour is a physical property of objects which we perceive with our eyes (and later our memory), but cannot go any further than that. Thus the blind can know the material cause but not the formal cause of colours.

Again, these videos prove my point, and appear to disprove yours, namely that words need not to point to beings we experience, in order to be meaningful. If you are correct, then how do you explain Mr Edison's statement: "There is this whole part of vocabulary [colours], of language, that doesn't mean anything to me"?

It can't point to a archetypal purple swatch, as you suggest with red and blue. — Banno

As purple is not a basic colour, it has more than one essential property: red and blue. But purple still has an archetype or form. We know this because, again, we observe some colours to be more purple than others. And for a thing which degree does not go to infinity, a more and less implies a most. Like an arrow aimed closer to the target until it hits the bullseye.

This is your theory in a nut shell? An essence of red, a Platonic Form of red, something like these examples, but not actually these examples; and while these examples exist in the world, the true form exists... where? in your mind? In my mind? Somehow, shared between minds? Think of the ontological and epistemic complexity here. — Banno

"In the mind" insofar that the subject has apprehended the object. Otherwise, only in reality. Where? In no physical location because forms are not physical, but that is a great discussion for another time. :wink:

And you offer this as somehow simpler that the claim that we just use the word to talk about different colours. — Banno

As per Occam's Razor or Law of Parsimony, we should side on the theory that is the simplest AND can explain all the data. My theory is not simpler than yours, but explains all the data, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not the case with yours. How does your theory explain the fact that some statements are true and some are false?

A statement is said to be true if its meaning or message is reflective of reality. In order to do that, the meaning of the words, which the statement is made of, must point to things in reality too. E.g. the statement "This apple is red" is true only if the thing I am referring to is truly an apple and is truly red.


Side note: how do you upload images and videos directly to the post?

But the fact that we use the word "red" to talk about a range of different colours might be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that there is no one thing to which the word "red" points. — Banno

Not so. That range of colours must have that form of red to a more or lesser degree, in order to truly call that range red. "This has red" is true. "This has red" is false. Therefore the former range must have a thing which the latter range does not have; and this thing must be defined, that is, must have limits, because it does not appear in the latter range.

The word is to him meaningless. — Samuel Lacrampe

SO the only possible conclusion is that one does not need the meaning of a word in order to be able to use it correctly.

That's right. Correct in the sense of grammar or syntax; not in the sense of knowledge, understanding, or truth. Have we reached an agreement on that point?

SO the only possible conclusion is that one does not need the meaning of a word in order to be able to use it correctly. — Banno

Indeed, one could simply quote someone else without knowing anything about what is quoted means. Children tend to do so quite a lot. Education tends to start with reproduction before it can get to understanding. Human beings start with attempting to reproduce the language of their parents way before they actually understand what the words used in the language mean.

What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? — Tomseltje

I have also been puzzled by some poster's aversion to defining terms. But I gradually came to suspect that it's due to a recent (20th century) split in the philosophical community that has been labelled as Analytic vs Literary, or Modern vs Postmodern. It may also be viewed as Reductive vs Holistic. I try to integrate analytical objective methods with holistic subjective intuition in my own personal worldview. But to see them as implacable enemies seems to require a desperate Win-Lose Good vs Evil attitude toward the world.

Postmodernism was just beginning to become a "thing" in my part of the world as I graduated from college. At the time, and in my field of Architecture, I found the PM approach incomprehensible. So I went out into the real world, and treated it as a passing fad. Until, 40 years later, I began to see PM terminology and attitudes popping-up on this forum. So, I'm assuming that some posters were influenced in college by the holistic Literary doctrines of PM. Am I wrong in attributing the ambiguity of some forum "arguments" to Postmodern influences?

In the last few weeks, I've made an attempt to understand where these PM posters are coming from. But they don't seem to be able to explain their avoidance of defining terms, except to imply that to "carve reality at its joints" is an arrogant or hubristic assumption that the continuum of reality can be broken down into reductive parts by those who are embedded in the system. As I noted, if that is so, then Science is impossible and Philosophy is fictional. Instead, the PM attitude seems to be more Political, in the sense that "truth" is whatever the powers-that-be say it is. Hence, PM philosophers seem to be trying to tear-down (deconstruct) the bastions of Modernist oppression, including Science and Capitalism.

After some extended dialogues with what I'm calling "PM philosophers" I got the feeling of ennui that I associate with the play Waiting For Godot. It's a sense of Nihilism, meaninglessness and pointlessness of life. That may not be the way they feel, but it's my frustrated impression of a vague undefined disorganized worldview. Yesterday, I watched a Netflix movie, Everything Beautiful is Far Away, that gave me the same Godot feeling. There was no plot to speak of, just aimless people wandering in the desert for no apparent reason, except they didn't like to live in the polyglot multicultural confusion of the city. What little dialogue that passed between them was focused on pragmatic issues like food & water, or a hypothetical (mythical) lake of water in the desert as a possible destination.

Is this undefined worldview just a minority trend in philosophy, or is it the wave of the future? Am I a dinosaur who believes in a rational world where motley people can communicate and coexist? Should I try to read Wittgenstein and Foucault? Or is it too late for me? :worry:

To define what is undefined or rather poorly defined. To see what definition has more weight or even simply that those perceived as having less actually have more than was first determined or assumed at first glance.

A zombie thread. Better to start a new topic.

Who is being identified as a "PM poster" here?

Better to start a new topic. — Banno

How so? Why?

Baggage.

What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? . . . . I used to think this was the common vieuw among rational people discussing philosophy, but seeing several topics in this forum that don't seem to abide by this, I'm starting to doubt it. So I think that the answer to the question I posed ought to be 'none', but perhaps I'm wrong about this. — Tomseltje

The answer to your OP question seems to hinge on the definition of "philosophy". And that is the implicit topic of my previous post. Some hold to Aristotle's definition of "First Philosophy" as Metaphysics (being, wisdom, theology). Which, ironically, leaves Physics as "Second Philosophy". But since the enlightenment era, Science has split-off pragmatic Physics as its own domain, and left mushy Metaphysics to feckless theoreticians and theologians.

But then the 20th century notion of what's-what was turned upside-down by Relativity, Quantum Theory, and Big Bang Cosmology. And, 21st century polarized politics has taken Relativity to an extreme, undermining the ground under most of our traditional definitions. So, if all things are relative to some individual perspective, there is no firm foundation for our opinions. In which case, we merely form political interest groups to compete with others that don't share our commitments. Whereas God was long assumed to be the arbiter of objective Truth, in a multi-cultural god-less world, it's everyman a "law unto themselves"

So, what did you mean by "philosophy" : empirical science, or religious theology, or Postmodern politics, or merely general curiosity about reality? I have only skimmed the prior posts, but they seem to fall into the usual narrow attitudes toward what qualifies as a philosophical definition and as acceptable facts. Hence the discussion quickly veers off into separate chat rooms of those holding compatible views, versus those "idiots who don't know what they're talking about". Is this philosophy, or merely political debate? :chin: :roll: :confused:


First Philosophy : http://serious-science.org/what-is-first-philosophy-9029

Before I suggest it, what do you think of the idea of the ability to view a thread sorted by "best posts" independent of any sort of rating system that does anything toward the poster.

Example. This thread under such a system. You can sort by "highest rated posts" and naturally some of the best posts are results of former posts, so you can "pivot" or "traverse" rather the argument or idea both backwards and forwards.

Again this proposed system has absolutely no effect on the poster or any posters independent of the discussion.

So, what did you mean by "philosophy" — Gnomon

Any serious attempt to answer the existential questions.

what do you think of the idea of the ability to view a thread sorted by "best posts" independent of any sort of rating system that does anything toward the poster. — Outlander

How do you suppose to determine what is 'best' without any sort of rating system?
As soon as some system proclaims one comment better than the other, it has it effects on its posters.

You may be right. I've spoken someone rejecting any form of rationality claiming that only strictly empirical science is valid. As if any of the empirical sciences could exist without the rational approach of logic as in math.

21st century polarized politics has taken Relativity to an extreme, undermining the ground under most of our traditional definitions — Gnomon

When definitions change at a certain point in time, there will by definition be multiple definitions in use as some people have picked up the new definition and others haven't (yet), hence I'd consider it to be even more important to provide the definition intended in such times. As long as there are multiple definitions possible, providing the intended definition strikes me as the only way to prevent mistaking what was intended by applying another definition when reading/listening than the writer/speaker intended in his/her statement.