Yeah, our conversation was good and promises more in the future.

I'll share some thoughts on Feuerbach's philosophical religion. 'God' is all of us, greater than any one of us individually. Some are wiser and brighter than others, but even these are wiser and brighter because they are plugged into others, because they are open to difference, assimilating it and shattering one narrower self-conception after another. This world, in which we have bodies, is already the world for us. It could always use some work (giving something real to do), but a healthy body in healthy relationships with necessities met is already almost in paradise--if the mind is right. With philosophy (Feuerbach's vision), even death can be made sense of. As narrow individuals, we are already dead to the degree that we are not lit up where we should be. The threat of bodily death (ego death) encourages us to push beyond our petty self-attachments and grasp something like Feuerbach's philosophy in the first place.

The narrow world is widened. We think of the billions that come and go, the billions living equally meaningful lives, some of them always more meaningful, wiser and bright. Others get this or that righter than we do as we get something else righter than they do. Thanks to language and matter (the stuff with a kind of memory that resists being engraved), we inherit the work of others. Our work is passed on to 'reincarnated' versions of ourselves. For Feuerbach something like reincarnation seems metaphorically true. If we find the best part of ourselves in others, including those not yet born, then we don't exactly die. We feel and not only think ourselves the flame and not the melting candle.

In early materialism we see a movement toward life, not lifelessness. Heidegger and Feuerbach were both trying to dig below calcified 'theologies.' For both the facing of death was primary.

Philosophy is from this perspective necessarily personal, and yet it is personal in a way that seeks the living impersonal. The 'objective' approach enacts a fantasy of having no standpoint. This denial of our 'thrown-ness' keeps us on the surface, pretending to be armchair scientists. We must pose as already-having-always-known. Anxious interpretation is covered over pretending that the machine of language can do all the work. This machine of language has meaning-atoms for its parts. Philosophy is reduced to a form of dead math of relationships between meaning atoms --a machine for cranking out tautologies. A depersonalized approach also covers over the value of direct introspection with respect to meaning and motivation. The last fantasy is that insincere or emotionally closed conversations are the way to do things. This fits the image of philosophy as turning the crank on the argument machine.

The way of truth is the death of masks.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I need to take a break from the forum to get some work done to pay the bills.

I'll share some thoughts on Feuerbach's philosophical religion. 'God' is all of us, greater than any one of us individually. Some are wiser and brighter than others, but even these are wiser and brighter because they are plugged into others, because they are open to difference, assimilating it and shattering one narrower self-conception after another. This world, in which we have bodies, is already the world for us. It could always use some work (giving something real to do), but a healthy body in healthy relationships with necessities met is already almost in paradise--if the mind is right. With philosophy (Feuerbach's vision), even death can be made sense of. As narrow individuals, we are already dead to the degree that we are not lit up where we should be. The threat of bodily death (ego death) encourages us to push beyond our petty self-attachments and grasp something like Feuerbach's philosophy in the first place.

The narrow world is widened. We think of the billions that come and go, the billions living equally meaningful lives, some of them always more meaningful, wiser and bright. Others get this or that righter than we do as we get something else righter than they do. Thanks to language and matter (the stuff with a kind of memory that resists being engraved), we inherit the work of others. Our work is passed on to 'reincarnated' versions of ourselves. For Feuerbach something like reincarnation seems metaphorically true. If we find the best part of ourselves in others, including those not yet born, then we don't exactly die. We feel and not only think ourselves the flame and not the melting candle. — macrosoft

This points to some important considerations...

The fact that meaning transcends individual people via language use.
The fact that thought/belief begins simply and grows in it's complexity.
The fact that thought/belief is self-contained, and it takes an other to show us a mistake in ours.
The fact that there is no sense of self-worth without others.

It does seem to presuppose something like mind/body dualism. I cannot accept that.

Philosophy is from this perspective necessarily personal, and yet it is personal in a way that seeks the living impersonal. — macrosoft

The last fantasy is that insincere or emotionally closed conversations are the way to do things. This fits the image of philosophy as turning the crank on the argument machine. — macrosoft

Some refreshing positivity here. :)

I agree that existence constantly strikes me as a marvel. The universe feels so alive when you can see it through the eyes of process philosophy and systems science. We should bury ourselves deep in nature.

But then I like a good argument, a good machine, as well. Nature has its pattern. Rational artifice has its pattern too. What's not to like in the end?

I wonder if you are pointing at thought independent of language/words? — macrosoft

My pointing is not independent of words. What I'm pointing at is. Thought/belief that consists of correlations drawn between different things, none of which are language.

There is a limit to what can be explicitly said about pre and/or non-lingual thought/belief. That limit is determined by the pre-lingual creatures' capability to drawn correlations. The content of such correlations is determined by what the creature is capable of perceiving. If thought/belief begins simply and grows in it's complexity, then the capability is - in part - innate. We need not 'turn on' our physiological sensory perception. We need not 'turn on' instinctual fear and hunger. We need not 'turn on' the drive to reproduce. We need not 'turn on' a sense of familiarity that comes with repeatedly drawing correlations between some thing and other things.

None of this is existentially dependent upon language aside from the report/account itself. What I'm accounting for is not existentially dependent upon my account.

My drakes and hens have physiological sensory perception. They have innate fear and hunger. They have the sense of familiarity.

They have drawn correlations between their own hunger and our behaviour, between their own hunger and the food bin... the treat bin...

They have attributed meaning. Correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. The have no ability to doubt whether or not they are really hearing... really seeing... really smelling... really fearful... really hungry...

This is the water you say we see through...

Creativesoul and Macrosoft -

It is interesting listening to your exchange. The main point of interest for me being what either of you mean by “language.” It isn’t clear to me where either of you are sketching (have sketched) out a starting point from which to continue.

There a few things we know about language and a few ways the term “language” is used. From evidence it does appear that language is not learnt but rather an innate capacity. We also know that people without a “language” (in the everyday “wordy” sense of the term) can and do communicate. Examples of feral children show what appears to be a lack of a “language instinct” at first glance, but with a further investigation we learn that this is more to do with familiarity with humans in a social capacity than exposure to some “language” - evidence coming from deaf people with no language coming to aquire language very late on in life.

The trunk from which communicable language branches serves our world orientation.

The problem we’re always going to have here is delineating what we mean by one sense of “language” and another. For example it is acceptable for linguists to call bee dances “language” yet we know perfectly well we’re not talking about a complex grammatical structure or anything like this “language” I am writing in now.

There is also the fact that spoken language is constantly shifting. We cannot insist upon what people say and what terms and phraseology falls in and out of fashion (although some speakers do try and keep a baseline standard in order to keep a more precise universal communciation an approachable idea eve if we understand that we’ll never truly arrive at a moment of complete understanding.

Anyway, now I’ve got that aired we have a bigger problem annouced above in the previous but one post...

What is “pre-lingual” thought? This is quite easy to understand for me at least. It is basically our “imagination.” I don’t need words to think about visual imagery, nor about a piano concerto. The deaf people mentioned above don’t share a common symbolic form of representing what they wish to convey. What they do is pantomime what happened to them that day; they’re able to act out and convey some story, to joke, to laugh, to comprehend what each other is conveying with some basic gestures and use of facial expressions - this is due to empathy and mirror neurons. We understand sadness in someone else’s face without havnig to ever see our own face when sad. The muscle pattern is replicated and we understand that that particular facial expression suggests this or that mood. The deaf people understand basic gestures like eating or drinking nd perfectly understand waves, winks, and many other bodily gesturing all without the use of props (which are imagined without worded grammatical “language.”)

If we’re going to talk of “thought without language or words” then we’re defining “language” in a preset manner. To make any reasonable ground in this area it is unwise to hold a view of “language” that conflicts with many other academic views of “language” - as mentioned above MANY linguistics would not say grammar or words are necessarily “language.” What is going on is much more than mere symbolic representation. We have a huge array of conveying these differences with adjectives, nouns, subjects, abstractions, etc.,.

We also know from various brain lesions that very particular parts of perceptions and language (worded/written) use become jumbled and are even eradicated. There are alos set developmental stages of human perception and languge acquisition.

I'm suggesting something like a pre-human 'bottom' of our mind/language. Some things are just so automatic that we live rather than see them. With difficultly we can get a vague sense of them, by looking at certain problems in attempts at explicit accounts.

Children do not learn that books exist, that armchairs exist, etc.,etc.---they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc.

Does a child believe that milk exists?

Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical things comes very late or very early? — macrosoft

This is good. The 'bottom' of our mind/belief. Witt's questions are apt for showing that belief about existence is not primary/foundational.

Creativesoul and Macrosoft -

It is interesting listening to your exchange. The main point of interest for me being what either of you mean by “language.” It isn’t clear to me where either of you are sketching (have sketched) out a starting point from which to continue. — I like sushi

Thanks. Your bit in the PI reading thread is appreciated. I'm hesitant on joining in just yet. I've yet to look for and find my copy of the PI(Anscombe's).

I don't want to speak for macro. I do believe that we share an understanding - a minimalist criterion - for what counts as language:Shared meaning, whereas all meaning is attributed
by virtue of something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations between these(different things). Shared meaning is a plurality of creatures drawing the same(or similar enough) correlations.

There a few things we know about language and a few ways the term “language” is used. From evidence it does appear that language is not learnt but rather an innate capacity. — I like sushi

Seems to me that language is learned, and all users have an innate capacity that facilitates language use. The nuance is that one need not think about the fact that they're learning language, in order to do so.

Calling language "an innate capacity" is to conflate language itself(what it is) with part of what language is existentially dependent upon(with part of what it requires... at a bare minimum).

We also know that people without a “language” (in the everyday “wordy” sense of the term) can and do communicate. Examples of feral children show what appears to be a lack of a “language instinct” at first glance, but with a further investigation we learn that this is more to do with familiarity with humans in a social capacity than exposure to some “language” - evidence coming from deaf people with no language coming to aquire language very late on in life. — I like sushi

I would put this a bit differently, although I agree...

If we know that creatures without conventional "wordy" language can and do communicate, then it only follows that conventional "wordy" language is not necessary for communication.

Communication is existentially dependent upon shared meaning(as previously explained). On my view, that is language. So, rather than conclude that communication does not require language, it seems to me that neither communication nor language requires words.

The problem we’re always going to have here is delineating what we mean by one sense of “language” and another. For example it is acceptable for linguists to call bee dances “language” yet we know perfectly well we’re not talking about a complex grammatical structure or anything like this “language” I am writing in now. — I like sushi

The importance of one's conceptual framework comes to the fore...

If there is nothing in common between dancing bees and talking people, if bee dances are not anything like this language that we're writing in now, then calling bee dances "language" adds nothing more than unnecessary confusion(incoherency). There is no justification for calling bee dances "language" if bee dances have nothing at all in common with the language we're using.

That would be an incoherent position to hold, and/or argue for. The evidence for that is equivocating the term "language", which is inherent self-contradiction. That kind of inconsistency of terminological use adds nothing to our understanding of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our naming it.

The bee dance is sign/symbol, the location of pollen is signified/symbolized, and the bees learn to interpret the meaning of the dance from the other bees that already knew what it meant. The meaning of that rudimentary language transcends the individual bee. So, it is the case that bee dances have something in common with the language we're using. More importantly, it is the case that bee dances share the same set of elemental constituents that all other language shares.

Knowledge of that set of elemental constituents is the strongest justificatory ground possible for claiming that this or that constitutes being a case of language(or not). What counts as language and it's use is not something that we determine by virtue of how we use it. Rather, language is something that exists in it's entirety prior to our taking an account of it. These are things that we can get wrong.

There is also the fact that spoken language is constantly shifting. We cannot insist upon what people say and what terms and phraseology falls in and out of fashion (although some speakers do try and keep a baseline standard in order to keep a more precise universal communciation an approachable idea eve if we understand that we’ll never truly arrive at a moment of complete understanding. — I like sushi

While we cannot insist upon what people say and what terms and phraseology falls in and out of fashion, we can use language as a means to acquire knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our knowledge(account). Some language and some thought/belief are just such things. We can use our knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety as a standard of measure by which to analyze and/or consider other language uses...

What is “pre-lingual” thought? This is quite easy to understand for me at least. It is basically our “imagination.” I don’t need words to think about visual imagery, nor about a piano concerto. — I like sushi

Yeah...

I would certainly question the basis/ground of the above. First of all, our imagination is effected/affected by language. Secondly, a piano concerto is itself existentially dependent upon language. Thirdly, language does not require words.

I would ask you to put forth a minimalist criterion for what counts as thought, such that each and every example thereof satisfies this criterion, and every example that satisfies the criterion counts as being a case of thought.

The deaf people mentioned above don’t share a common symbolic form of representing what they wish to convey. What they do is pantomime what happened to them that day; they’re able to act out and convey some story, to joke, to laugh, to comprehend what each other is conveying with some basic gestures and use of facial expressions - this is due to empathy and mirror neurons. — I like sushi

A sign/symbol does not require written language. Pantomiming, gesturing, and facial expressions are what becomes sign/symbol, the events they are reporting upon(including their own emotions at the time) are what becomes signified/symbolized by virtue of the other drawing the correlations between the behaviours and the events being recounted. Sure, empathy and mirror neurons play a role in the capacity. They are not adequate for shared meaning.

If we’re going to talk of “thought without language or words” then we’re defining “language” in a preset manner. To make any reasonable ground in this area it is unwise to hold a view of “language” that conflicts with many other academic views of “language” - as mentioned above MANY linguistics would not say grammar or words are necessarily “language.” What is going on is much more than mere symbolic representation. We have a huge array of conveying these differences with adjectives, nouns, subjects, abstractions, etc.,.

We also know from various brain lesions that very particular parts of perceptions and language (worded/written) use become jumbled and are even eradicated. There are alos set developmental stages of human perception and languge acquisition. — I like sushi

What gives you the idea that anything in the above applies to what I've been arguing?

I was just curious what you both mean by “language.” If you have different concepts then you’re both needlessly talking past each other.

The confusion of the term is usually clarified by scientists in any given field in the papers they write. Personally I don’t tend to class bee dances as “language” merely a communication; I am happy to of course, but “grammar” is something I use as a marker in defining differences.

Monkey’s have calls for “go up the tree” and “go down the tree” when a predator is nearby. You could class these as “words” but they’re not part of a “language” in the sense I just mentioned regarding grammar.

The best thing of Heidegger is for me, is his metaphysics.
He denied existence of number zero(0).
Zero does not exist.
Why?
Let say x=0.
You said it is something, so is not nothing.
And also in nature zero number, does not exist.
Everywhere we have something.
Even in vacuum we find some electron.

Try getting that past a mathematician! They’d just laugh and walk away shaking their head.

He denied existence of number zero(0). — One here

Citation pls.

I is not only a word.
Check book "Introduction to Meaphysics of Heidegger, chapter No-thing."

I've read the Intro to Metaphysics and at no point does Heidi mention, let alone discuss, the number zero.

Well I understand it that way.
​Metaphysics:
By saying, this is nothing, you already said it is something, so it is not nothing.
Well done. By saying this is nothing, you are creating new things from nothing!
This is my quotation.
I am a physicist and you will never find zero in universe.
Some my say i will be zero, not there, not here, but it doesn't go.
You must put yourself on the right or lef, up or down.
Of course we won't change anything, but we should get Nobel price for that.
I is funny how i get to this. Bible says, that God puts wisdow to pnes who are humiliated in the eyes of the world. And the ones who are in high positions, don't get this knowledge.
I am one here, so I litle jerk, this is why i have this wisdow.
If you say:
x=0
We say ix is egual to zero.
We use the word is.
If it is=something.
I am from Slovenia, funny, we say this is not zero.
Language like this.
I think, zero was discovered by the devil, so people would think, that they have nothing.
This goes even to wars, depresion, murders and so one.
regards

I don’t believe you’re a physicist. Zero is a fundamental part of physics/mathematics.

Also, what does the “devil” have to do with this?

Something very important is being lost in the translation or you’ve made a horrible error.

Haven't read B&T but seems Heidegger mixes-up ontology with existentialism which to me is an big mistake. In that case here's a better title: 'Being and Being More'

How?

I don’t believe you’re a physicist — I like sushi

And what was your assessment of the "little jerk" part?

Is that you slumming it and playing littler games down here, Slavoj? :joke:

No idea what you’re talking about.

He said he was a little jerk.

big difference between being in the world and an object's specific state of being. The latter can inform the former, but Heidegger views the two as interchangeable imo. Again, I haven't read Being and Time but have viewed multiple lectures on it.

With regard to zero, I do not know what Heidegger actually said or what they context was, but he may be referring to the Greek concept of aristmos. Jacob Klein, who was a student of Heidegger, did an important work on this: Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra”. For the Greeks the first number is two. One is the unit of the count, the thing that is being counted. Without an identifiable one or unit we cannot say how many. Zero was introduced to the West by the Italian mathematician Fibonacci along with the rest of the Arabic numerals.

The Greek concept of number has ontological significance including the problem of the One and the many, atomism, and Plato’s Forms.

big difference between being in the world and an object's specific state of being. The latter can inform the former, but Heidegger views the two as interchangeable imo. Again, I haven't read Being and Time but have viewed multiple lectures on it. — VMF

I take you to mean by "an object's specific state of being" to be referring to an ontology of some kind. Being in the world has its ontology also, but a different kind, an existential ontology rather than an objective ontology. Heidegger is not reducing the latter to the former or the former to the latter. They are distinct.

Dasein is da (there) and sein (being), fused in same word. I'm in the Husserlian camp that consciousness and being are inexplicably linked, and ontology has to be an reductive endeavor, if possible at all (Kant's noema). Heidegger muddies already muddy waters by introducing anthropological/existential concepts like "utility" and "authenticity", wrapping manifolds rather than unbinding them. Though MH is right that human ontology is The critical question of philosophy. Curious of your background/interest in this.