Can you change the tree with words? Ordering it cut down will certainly change it. — Banno
You can't cut down a tree, or influence it in any way, with words. You can of course influence other language users with words, you can induce them to cut down the tree. So, it is of course true that we are influenced by our own words and the words of others, that is we are influenced by our understandings of the meanings of those words, and not by the words themselves as mere physical phemomena, whether they come in the form of visual symbols or sounds. — Janus
The point, way back, is that we do things with our utterances. — Banno
In the sense that we may act on other people (and some animals) with our utterances, such as to cause, or at least influence, them to do things, I agree. — Janus
It wasn't about other people sleeping. It was about the question, do I believe the world exists, when I am asleep? The point is not about the existence of the world. It is about the logical ground for believing in something when not perceiving. There is a clear difference.The last claim above does not follow from the bit that precedes it.
Think of when you've watched another sleep. People sleep. We watch. We're part of the world. The world exists while they sleep. If you agree, but still doubt your own experience, then you're working from double standards. Special pleading for your case. — creativesoul
X cannot do Y. That doesn't mean X cannot do Y? Is this not a contradiction? This is exactly the confusion I have been telling he has been insisting on. :)We cannot change the tree on the road with our words alone. It does not follow from that that we cannot change the world with our words. Strictly speaking we do always change the world with our language, if for no other reason than we've added more examples of language use to it. — creativesoul
Literally you could say anything. But that alone doesn't change anything in the real world. You need action to change the world. I take it that you have never cut your grass by yourself in your life for sure. :rofl: How nice it would be if you can change the world by your words alone. :roll:The point is that we do sometimes use language to do exactly what you said, but... and this is the important part... — creativesoul
Think of when you've watched another sleep. People sleep. We watch. We're part of the world. The world exists while they sleep. If you agree, but still doubt your own experience, then you're working from double standards. Special pleading for your case.
— creativesoul
It wasn't about other people sleeping. It was about the question, do I believe the world exists, when I am asleep? The point is not about the existence of the world. It is about the logical ground for believing in something when not perceiving. There is a clear difference. — Corvus
We cannot change the tree on the road with our words alone. It does not follow from that that we cannot change the world with our words. Strictly speaking we do always change the world with our language, if for no other reason than we've added more examples of language use to it.
— creativesoul
X cannot do Y. That doesn't mean X cannot do Y? Is this not a contradiction?
The problem then arises with the philosophical division between words and things. That's the bit that creates unnecessary problems. — Ludwig V
But words are also part of the world and words are also things in the world. The distinction between the two may have uses for certain purposes, but if misapplied, just generates false puzzles. — Ludwig V
The point is that we are talking about a logical ground to believe in the world when not perceiving the world. Please ask yourself, what is your logical ground for believing in the world when not perceiving the world. Please don't say the world exists even when you are not perceiving it, because it is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the basis for scepticim regarding the external world.You seem to have missed the point.
When we sleep, we are not perceiving the world.
Now apply the example I offered. It is of a case where someone we're watching is sleeping, and the world still exists even though they are not perceiving the world. The same holds true of the world and you while you sleep. — creativesoul
But did words cut the tree itself? What tools did the words use for cutting down the tree?You're mistaken here. "change the tree on the road with our words alone" is not equivalent to "change the world with our words". In other words, you've assigned the same variable "Y" to two different things and then treated them as the same thing. They're not.
See that word "alone"?
Words do not cut down trees. Words can instruct another to cut down trees... using language to do so. — creativesoul
The logical ground for me to believe the tree exists across the road is that, I have perceived its existence. There is no other ground for me to believe in the tree to exist apart from the perception. — Corvus
You might believe the tree exists because a trusted friend told you so, and on the other hand, your perception might be delivering false information to you if, for instance, you have taken a hallucinogenic drug. So, though it's true that if you perceive a tree, it's rational to believe there's a tree, it's probably not the only grounding for such a belief, right? — frank
I am afraid I don't base on any of above as the logical infallible ground for the existence of the tree apart from my own perception. — Corvus
I don't think your perception is infallible. LSD is not a "true" hallucinogenic, which means you know at the time that what you're seeing isn't real. For instance, I had an incident where I observed that the moon was following me around. I knew that wasn't real, though. — frank
As a sceptic, in fact I even doubt my own perception. But it is the most reliable source of knowledge for me. — Corvus
The logical ground for me to believe the tree exists across the road is that, I have perceived its existence. — Corvus
There is no other ground for me to believe in the tree to exist apart from the perception. — Corvus
So the whole point of argument was about the logical ground for belief in the world, rather than the existence of the world itself. — Corvus
I don't think he would have thought of it as the brain doing it. — frank
Right. I don't think Austin is arguing with that, although it may seem that some posters in this thread are. He was taking issue with a theory of perception transmitted by Ayers, which says your knowledge of external entities is built up from smaller units of perception called "sense data." — frank
LSD is not a "true" hallucinogenic, which means you know at the time that what you're seeing isn't real. — frank
It is obvious that we cannot cut a tree with just words, but we can't cut it if we don't understand the act of 'cutting' either. — javi2541997
This is true, but it is also true that we don't need language in order to understand the act of cutting. Think beavers, for example, or leaf-cutter ants. — Janus
We are talking about the basis for scepticism regarding the external world. — Corvus
For Ayer, statements about objects just are statements about sense data. — Banno
This is the case even when I pick up a cup with my hand and look into it. — Corvus
The desire to anticipate the implications of our actions is also a motivation for a general explanation. If there is anything Austin is good at, it is showing that abstraction is the death of truth. It seems clever to find one criteria to judge everything by (true or false? Real or not?) because it doesn’t change, which makes for predictable outcomes. But a general account also flattens out distinctions, which are exactly what will inform us of what might happen in a particular instance. — Antony Nickles
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.