In English, nouns are persons, places, or things... — creativesoul

That's just a pedagogical shortcut. For example, "nothingness" is a noun.

It's one discussion out of hundreds in the Lounge. Just ignore it like most of the rest of us do.

It's the Lounge. That is all.

My sister's an actor (though not major and not involved in politics), so I readily admit to a possible bias in their favour here!

Foe very major actor, there are a thousand minor ones. And for every major actor actively involved in politics, there are probably a dozen who aren't. I guess the ones that hog the political limelight give the rest a bad name (supposing they do so in a negative way).

Missed the boat on this question a bit, so excuse me if I'm repeating stuff others have said. Anyway, I'd want to avoid a situation where you have identical sets of marks and only one considered meaningful because of the intention of its creators. So, accidental meaning is OK by me. If Robinson Crusoe walking randomly around his beach created a well-formed arrow with his footprints, I would say he had created a sign that would not require a plane flying overhead to imbue it with meaning. So, I'm thinking of linguistic meaning here as a kind of orientation. Meaning is meaning to ____ or meaning for ____ . As long as you can fill in the blank with a perspective holder capable, at least in theory, of making meaning from x mark or set of marks orientated to their perspective then that's enough for me to say that x is a meaningful set of marks.

(Of course, in doing away with one issue, you create others. A problem for this view, for example, could be that in an infinite universe, there may be a perspective holder for any given set of random marks, making them all meaningful!)

Anyhow, late and got work to do. Talk more anon.

I'm ok with using that term*. It doesn't affect the gist of what I'm saying. I'm in line with this:

It is verging on introducing the idea of the impossibility of saying anything about the noumenal. And that is to 'step up' to another level of discourse about what can meaningfully be said about 'things in themselves' in general. — Janus

If that helps.

*The "deciding" is in the figuring out

Again, I mean in principle, not necessarily in practice. There doesn't have to be a decision on meaning only the theoretical possibility of one to allow for a world where the presence of meaning makes sense.

Maybe at that level, it's a matter of taste. But I draw the line slightly more strictly than you as a defence against what I see as the only effective line of attack on the position, which is to point to an incoherence in completely bracketing out meaning-makers while seeming to rely on the logic, at least in principle, of their presence.

I would say you get into murky territory when you posit a scenario that brackets out all meaning-makers to the extent that the question becomes somewhat incoherent. Is something still meaningful? There's no-meaning-maker, even in principle, to decide unless, again, they get snuck in by the back door.

:up:

Mine seems less problematic. — S

I don't have a huge problem with your straightforward view (less so than the opposition's alternatives). It mostly works. But I'm going for some extra nuance that deals with the sneaking-in-the-meaning-maker-by-the-back-door thing. Where do you see my view as being more problematic?

Edit: Maybe your edit addresses that.

I suppose a succinct way to put it would be: If there is to be a question of meaning, there must, in principle (if not in practice), be a question poser (meaning-maker). And where there is a question poser, there must, in principle (if not in practice), be an answer to the question.

Yes, and I think decipherability is the key point in talking about this in order that a distinction be made between encoded linguistic patterns and random marks when discussing ancient texts; and similar scenarios, such as an alien civilization wiping itself out but leaving physical or digital writings, in which I think it also makes sense to call the writings meaningful because they would be potentially decipherable to us (in theory even if not in practice). However, in any scenario where there are no meaning makers at all left and no potential, even in theory, for decipherability, the connection is short-circuited, and I don't think it then makes sense to identify meaning (or non-meaning). So, the most sensible way of talking about this from my point of view is to admit meaning does not have to be in the here and now (it's not tied to some active brain state etc) but there must be potentializability for it to make sense to talk about it being instantiated in any given text.

(This is not to get at the "truth" of the matter, but to try to offer the least problematic solution.)

Apples and oranges often come in baskets together. Now sometimes they don't, but let's presume for the sake of argument, they do. So, now there's a correlation between apples and oranges, right? Agree, so far? Because I'm just building up to accusing you of saying apples are oranges...

What to do? — Wallows

I think you've got the most important part covered, which is don't get a job, make a job. As in view the concept of work differently, i.e. from a self-development angle, rather than a conformist one.

Diogenes and Socrates now? I thought you were Winston from 1984? Who next? Wonderwoman?

Put it another way, I think there's pressure on people not to reveal themselves because they fear what will happen when they do. And they fear it because it's an unknown, and it's an unknown because people like them don't tend to reveal themselves because... (repeat ad infinitum).

And eventually we all become actors who forget that they're acting.

Logically, you might say you get no enjoyment out of watching people act out characters, and that sounds reasonable on the surface. But seeing as TV doesn't work on the basis of logic or reason but plugs straight into the emotional (and lower) centres of the brain, there seems something disingenuous about the criticism. Anyhow, my criticism of TV would not be that it's not enjoyable, but that it's too enjoyable. And it lives life for you, so you don't have to. It processes imaginative possibilities in a way that tends to ossify them. Or something along those lines.

...but, the degree to which this is performed, at least here in the US, is absurd. It's like nobody is comfortable in their own skin and needs to hop around and perform some superficial dance/show/entertainment for other people to feel respected. — Wallows

Not just the USA. And it's funny because it's like we're not doing it for each other (because we're not taken in by each other's acts), and therefore it's not really about gaining each other's respect (if we realize others are no more taken in by it all than us then they most likely disrespect us when we do it as much as we disrespect them when they do it), but it 's all for something in the air that we pretend not to believe in but can't help believing in. Because that's just the way we live now and we don't see any other options.

(I don't watch TV or movies either, but not out of a disrespect for what actors do. I just can't spare the endorphins.)

Seems like people to not be trusted. Liars and deceivers. — Waya

No, that would be lawyers/politicians/marketers/lobbyists/PR pros. Actors are as benign as the rest of us creative artists. And as people in general.

You're welcome.

There are two ways this discussion could go from here and one of them is not good, and will only please those who don't want to have the discussion at all. I hope that's not the way it ends up, but I'm going to butt out now and let you all at it.

If you have nothing to offer but an unsupported opinion, you have nothing to offer, period. You are not giving anyone a reason to take what you say seriously. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just that your contribution is superfluous.

Thanks for this contribution, Ilya. Please feel free to add any of your creative works to this discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/89/get-creative/p1

Cheers!

Just a reminder of the specific topic here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5222/the-climate-change-paper-so-depressing-its-sending-people-to-therapy/p1

He might be horribly wrong. I haven't taken a position on everything he says. I'm just trying to keep this on track by asking people to criticize on the basis of what the author actually claims in the paper (as there are things being criticized that no-one has claimed) and what other scientists claim because we're in the science category. There's no other way to resolve the debate other than scientific evidence. And if it's so obvious he's wrong, then it should be an easy refutation. Anyway, got stuff to do. Be back on this later.

Unless you can quote otherwise, it seems to me, neither un nor the article writer made the specific claim that humans will go extinct within ten years. So, why are we discussing it?

I still don't see that specific claim being made or un claiming the author made it, but he can speak for himself, of course.

I thought un's point was the un didn't make the claim not that the author necessarily did.

General note:

Please talk about climate change with reference to the paper and the evidence within or elsewhere for its claims along with counterevidence, for those who disagree, from other scientific sources. Everything beyond that will be subject to deletion unless there's a very good reason for its inclusion.

(And this rule generalized goes for all discussions in the science/tech category, which this is now in).

The claim that human extinction and global social collapse are likely due to climate change in the next 10 years is unfounded. — frank

On a cursory reading, I see no specific claim that humans will go extinct due to climate change in the next ten years. You'll need to quote that one. Social "collapse" is a muddier issue.

This:

Recent research suggests that human societies will experience disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress. Such disruptions include increased levels of malnutrition, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war – and will not avoid affluent nations. — Conclusion

seems reasonable to me.

This:

That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. — Abstract

A lot less likely if near-term unequivocally means within ten years, but then I presume there's evidence for this that will be produced. (And it's a strong claim, so the evidence should be correspondingly strong).

I won't interfere with discussion of the article. I will continue to encourage people to seek information from reputable scientists. I don't think that's unreasonable. — frank

You're presuming the matter under debate. You consider him unreputable because you disagree with his conclusions, right? But his conclusions are the subject of the discussion. So, what you are saying effectively is, none of this is worthy of discussion.

It'd be more helpful for us casual readers to quote the paper where you think it's wrong and then quote another scientist to back up your claim.

I suppose we're not allowed close this. :sad:

Baden, I love ya... — S

Aw, I love you too. :kiss: Did you say something else ... ? Must have missed that. ;)

Of course, this leaves out other comments... — S

Yes, it leaves out all but one of the final twenty or so comments which were the ones where the philosophical content was largely negligible and on which the decision was primarily based. But I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.

Again: It was the right decision in this case and the idea that leaving things go on the way they were would have improved rather than detracted from the quality of the site isn't at all convincing. So, if you want to play at mocking and insulting people and generally making no little or effort to engage productively, please stick to the lounge or the Shoutbox.

To others, there is a general argument to be made for closing less discussions and deleting more or finding other ways to deal with them. That's something we'll take on board.

We were better here when the powers that be were fostering more of a free thinking, tolerant, less judgemental forum. — S

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you.

If it's shit, delete it, — unenlightened

Not all of it was shit, but it had clearly run its course and was degenerating beyond repair. Unfair to delete and remove the posts of those who made an effort. Fair to prevent further nonsense. That was my view anyway.

if the closure tool is being abused — S

What was being abused was your position as discussion creator. And the abuse involved you using the discussion for the most part, but particularly towards the end, primarily as a means to massage your own ego. You have plenty of other discussions in which to do that, and we're not likely to prioritize your attempts at having fun at others' expense above forum quality. But go ahead, see if you can talk anyone, other than terrapin, into believing you were actually doing philosophy when the discussion was closed.

But of course, you don't see it that way, which is part of the problem — S

Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way is part of your problem. That's apparent. Anyway, that was the reason. I doubt there'll be many apart from terrapin who on observing the way the conversation was going would see any philosophical value in it.