are you sure you are talking to me? I made no request for "plain language." As for Heidegger and neologisms, are you really going to claim that words do not accrue baggage? Is there a single one of us for whom the word "reality" is not pregnant with a particular ontological disposition? Does the realist mean the same by "reality" as the idealist? Neologisms are essential to breaking new ground. Does Being and Time often lack clarity? Of course it does, But it was put together on time constraints and the body of Heidegger's work (both before and after) is well suited to providing clarification.

Sorry ...that should have been addressed to EricH.

As far as Heidegger is concerned I think 'clarity' is problematic when the work is considered in isolation. But as a reaction to Husserlian phenomenology, or as a parallel to Wittgenstein's views on language, it makes a lot of sense to me.

To all discussing 'relative existence' as founded on 'relationship', I would say that the only relationship worth thinking about is 'with humans'.
Take the single 'thing' we call 'water'. In other cultures (I forget which) there are at least two concepts of 'things' denoted by different words for that single thing we call 'water' -'water that you can drink' -and 'water that you may cross over which it is taboo to drink'.
In the history of our culture too, not only do we have the four classical elements which 'existed' then, but there was the 'morning star'/'evening star' situation - seperate 'things' then, which were later understood as the single 'planet Venus'.
In short, things require thingers and those thingers are human.

Can I ask you again why you're endorsing that view? ("Things require thingers" etc.)

Is it not obvious that it supports my 'human relationship' comments above ?

But if a relative view is taken, we can validly say 'God exists for believers' because the concept has utility for their interactions..And 'God does not exist for atheists' because the reverse is true. The consequences (i.e.what matters) of this relativity view are that atheists' seeking to argue against 'God's existence' on the basis of 'evidence' are barking up the wrong tree. — fresco

No deeply religious person would agree with this definition/usage of the word existence. No fundamentalist Christian would ever say "I use the word God because the concept has utility in my interactions with other religious folk". When they say "God exists' they are using - or attempting to use - the word exists in the same sense as "The tree exists".

Now if - in the context of these philosophical discussions - you want to use the word existence differently than the average person, that may be a valid point of discussion. But it seems to me that instead of using the word existence, perhaps it would be clearer to came up with a new/different word (neologism) to avoid confusion.

Of course believers would not admit to the 'utility' argument, anymore than a naive realist would admit it equally applying to 'the existence of trees' ( or 'rocks', or any other 'thing')!
From a philosophical pov, the term 'naive realist' neatly avoids 'confusion'.

You can't be post-structuralist and OLP at the same time.

OLP ?

Ordinary language philosophy

I suggest no problem.
The OLP situations I raise are ephemeral context bound episodes.
The post structuralist view recognizes that transience and seeks to generalize about them.

For example, I have already pointed out, above, that the 'fresco' answering a particular point
was a different 'fresco' evoked on previous points. Each 'fresco' might engage in OLP, but the recognition of the dynamic shifts is post structural.

Each 'fresco' might engage in OLP, but the recognition of the dynamic shifts is post structural. — fresco

Ok. Then I think we can all have our cakes and eat them too. Language on holiday for everyone!

Ah...the 'have the cake and eat it' issue is based on the static set membership of classical logic with its 'law of the excluded middle'. But dynamic shifting 'set membership' departs from classical logic towards QM inspired models of human rationality. (Its in the 'rationality' literature).
This does not seem to imply 'language on holiday'...more like 'the limits of classical logic in philosophical debate'.

*loads tranquilizer gun*

:blush:

Of course believers would not admit to the 'utility' argument, anymore than a naive realist would admit it equally applying to 'the existence of trees' ( or 'rocks', or any other 'thing')!
From a philosophical pov, the term 'naive realist' neatly avoids 'confusion'. — fresco

I'm not following you. I'm suggesting that you come up with a different word for "existence" in these philosophical pov discussions to avoid confusing it with the generally accepted usage.

Perhaps you can come up with something better, but for starters, maybe psv-existence?

The OLP situations I raise are ephemeral context bound episodes.
The post structuralist view recognizes that transience and seeks to generalize about them. — fresco

At the risk of extending this discussion far beyond its original bounds, given (among many other things) the on-going history of most major religions to impose their belief systems on non-believers, I do not consider these situations to be ephemeral; they are essential components of many of mankind's past & current conflicts.

Is it not obvious that it supports my 'human relationship' comments above ? — fresco

No, that wasn't obvious to me. I'm not sure what comments you're referring to. When I searched for "human relationship" over the last few pages I didn't find anything.

We are arguing from very different positions. I look at your posts as trying to justify the 'eternal, and absolute' aspects of 'existence of God', which for me are simply 'essential for the psychological utility' of a God concept. As an atheist, I aknowledge that utility for 'believers' but reject for me as 'an opiate'. The 'utility' argument also extends to 'social control' which accounts for imposition scenarios.

Terrapin,

Look at the first para of that post. I used the phrase 'relationship ...with humans'. I apologise if 'human relationships' implies a different concept for you, but for me, all thinging oarises and operates in 'social dialogues' albeit some of those dialogues are 'internal' between seperate facets of 'self'.

So you're saying that the reason you endorse this view over other possible views is that you only value thinking about human relationships/relationships with humans?

I can't see it can be otherwise since all 'thinking' is done via a socially acquired language.
(I would include the metalanguage of mathematics in that )

I can't see it can be otherwise since all 'thinking' is done via a socially acquired language. — fresco

You'd say that we can only think in terms of language?

Yes. We obviously unconsciously 'engage with our environment' as well, just like other non verbal species.

What about visualization? For example, visual artists thinking in terms of shapes, colors/saturations, textures, etc.? Isn't that a way that people can think?

No.Your report of that activity certainly involves language, but that activity seems to largely automatic puntuated by occasional internal dialogue. (When I play the piano, it's basically by muscle memory accompanied by critical internal dialogue to modify emphasis).

"Internal dialogue"/"critical internal dialogue" isn't thought?

Yes of course it is, but it's spasmodic with respect to a largely automatic activity like painting. Indeed much of the 'thinking' during such activities could be focussed 'elsewhere' entirely.

Okay, but if that's thought then some thought isn't linguistic, right?

Yes. We obviously unconsciously 'engage with our environment' as well, just like other non verbal species. — fresco

From where I'm sitting it appears that you are using the word "environment" in the same way that most people user the word "existence". Please note that there are other substitutes for the word "existence". 'Reality', 'the universe", 'state of affairs', 'mind-independent and language-independent world', 'things in their own right', etc, etc.

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows . We don't even know if this is the correct question to ask. But it is a rational choice to believe this. It simply means that you accept the evidence as presented to your mind by your physiological capabilities. And yes, we know that our senses can be fooled, but we also know how to determine this.

As you put it in another msg:

Common species physiology tends to imply large areas of agreement which we tend to call 'objects'. — fresco

For the word 'objects', substitute the word 'existence' or any of the other synonyms.

Also- and just for the record - besides unconsciously engaging with my environment? I also engage with my environment consciously. Or at least it certainly seems that way to me :smile:

No. Nowhere have I said that internal dialogue wasn't linguistic.
(I can even recall what I say to myself when playing Bach..'question then answer'....'hold the pause from dramatic impact'...'slow to the finale'..)

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows — EricH

I think it couldn't be more obvious that there is, and I see the view that it's a problematic question as pretty juvenile/sophomoric if not infantile (if I'm being honest rather than trying to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings).