|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Non-Definitions
#6980424 - 05/29/07 12:09 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Note: I am substituting for Diploid on this matter.
How can something be said to exist that cannot be defined? A definition is a pointer to an object. With a faulty pointer, the object cannot be determined to exist.
That is like mailing a letter to:
Mr. Anyone Main Street Anytown, USA
--------------------
|
FrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist
Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Like Plato, Aristotle believed that we obtained all knowledge ultimately by an intuitive grasp of the essences of things. "We can know a thing only by knowing its essence", Aristotle writes, and "to know a thing is to know its essence." A 'basic premise' is, according to him, nothing but a statement describing the essence of a thing. But such a statement is just what he calls a definition. Thus all 'basic premises of proofs' are definitions.
....
The second doctrone to be criticized has even more important connections with modern view; and it bears especially upon the problem of verbalism. Since Aristotle, it has become widely known that one cannot prove all statements, and that an attempt to do so would break down as it would lead to an infinite regression of proofs. But neither he nor, apparently, a great many modern writers seem to realize that the analoguous attempt to define the meanings of all our terms must, in the same way, lead to an infinite regression of definitions. The following passage from Crosman's Plato To-Day is characteristic of a view which by implication is held by many contemporary philosophers of repute, for example, by WittgensteinL ".. if we do not know precisely the meanings of the words we use, we cannot discuss anything profitably. Most of the futile argument on which we waste our time are largely due to the fact that we each have our own vague meanings for the words we use and assume our opponents are using them in the same senses. If we defined our terms to start with, we could have far more profitable discussions. Again, we have only to read the daily papers to observe that propaganda (the modern counterpart of rhetoric) depends largely on its success from confusing the meaning of the terms. If politicians were compelled by law to define every term they wished to use, they would lose most of their popular appeal, their speeches would be shorter, and many of their disagreements would be found te be purely verbal.' This passage is very characteristic of one of the prejudices we owe to Aristotle, of the prejudice that language can be more precise by use of definitions. Let us consider whether this can really be done.
First we can see clearly that if 'politicians' (or anybody else) 'were compelled by law to define any term they wished to use', their speeches would not be shorter, but infinitely long. For a definition cannot establish a meaning for a term any more then logical derivation can establish the truth of a statement; both can only shift the problem back. The derivation shifts the problem of truth back to the premises, the definition shifts the problem of meaning back to the defining terms (i.e. the terms that make up the defining formula). But these for many reasons, are likely to be just as vague and confusing as the terms we started with; and in any case, we should have to go on and define them in turn; which leads to new terms which too must be defined. And so on, to infinity. One sees that the demand that all our terms must be defined is just as untenable as the demand that all our statements should be proved.
At first sight this criticism may seem unfair. It may be said that what people have in mind, if they demand definitions, is the elimination of ambiguities so often connected with words such as 'democracy', 'liberty', 'duty','religion', etc. ; that it is clearly impossible to define all our terms, but possible to define some of these more dangerous terms and to leave it at that; and that defining terms have just to be accepted, i.e. that we must stop after a step or two in order to avoid an infinite regression. This defence, however, is unteneable. Admittedly, the terms mentioned above are misused. But I deny that any attempt to define them can improve matters. It can only make matters worse. That by 'defining their terms' even once, and leaving the defining terms undefined, the politicians would not be able to make their speeches shorter, is clear; for any essentialist definition, i.e. one that 'defines our terms' (as opposed to the nominalist one that introduces new technical terms), means the substitution of a long story, for a short one, as we have seen. Besides, the attempt the define terms would only increase the vagueness and confusion. For since we cannot demand that all defining terms be defined in their turn, a clever politicians or philosopher could easily satisfy the demand for definitions. If asked what he means by 'democracy', for example, he could say "the rule of the general will" or "rule of the spirit of the people"; and since he has now given a definition, and so satisfied the highest standards of precision, nobody will dare to criticize him any longer. And, indeed, how can he be criticized, since the demand that the 'rule' or 'people' or 'will' or 'spirit' should be defined in their turn, puts us on the way to infinite regression so that everybody would hesitate to raise it? But should it be raised in spite of all that, the it can be equally easily satisisfed. On the other hand, a quarrel about the question of whether the definition was correct, or true, can only lead to an empty controversy about words. Thus the essentialist view of definition breaks down, even if it does not, with Aristotle, attempt to establish the 'principles' of our knowledge, but only makes the apparently more modest demand that we should 'define the meaning of our terms.' Karl Popper-The Open Society and Its Enemies
-------------------- "Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
|
Yeah, yer right, kinda~.... Just like the bat-signal only works under certain circumstances.... It does exist because we "all" know what it is, but it really doesn't.... LoL
>^;;^<
-------------------- I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: How can something be said to exist that cannot be defined?
Most people say the undefinable exists, the same way, they say all other things. People say stuf with their voices.
Steven Hawking uses a computer when HE has something to say.
So do Shroomerites.
Quote:
A definition is a pointer to an object.
Well, if you're going to play SEMANTICS... I STRONGLY disagree.
A definition, by definition... is NOT A POINTER.
See for yourself... and, BE AMAZED!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
def·i·ni·tion /ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[def-uh-nish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear. 2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. 3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined. 4. Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system. 5. Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction. [Origin: 1350–1400; ME diffinicioun < OF diffinition < L défīnītiōn- (s. of défīnītiō), equiv. to défīnīt(us) (see definite) + -iōn- -ion]
—Related forms def·i·ni·tion·al, adjective def·i·ni·tion·al·ly, adverb
With a faulty pointer, the object cannot be determined to exist.
Now that I have properly, re-defined definition for you... you can clearly see, pointers have nothing to do with any of this.
Orgone, since you see pointers, when there are no pointers to point to... who are you to argue when others ALSO define non-existent things?
Show me your invisible pointers. Where are they? I suspect they only exist in your re-definition... not the actual one.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (05/29/07 04:08 AM)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: Rose]
#6981234 - 05/29/07 09:21 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Recondicom
Power of four
Registered: 05/03/07
Posts: 226
|
|
Pinch yourself. But, the object changes with the will and some deterministic nature...so: change exists. Is it the truth? Then truth exist.
-------------------- Wave. 'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape. Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
How can something be said to exist that cannot be defined?
Changed my mind as I misunderstood. You are correct.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
Edited by Icelander (05/29/07 11:03 AM)
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 24 days
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: Icelander]
#6981511 - 05/29/07 11:03 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Incommensurability occurs when reality and the norms set up by thinking collide, revealing a starling inconceivability that none managed to explain. Those who hold on the thought of linking the inner world with the outer world will keep discovering that those units they use do not govern the Universe, but only what little sense we make of it. How can one sustain, it those conditions, that something that can’t be “measured” also doesn’t exist?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
You really mean 'can not' in general terms ? I think, there are many things, which can't be properly described in the now, because we miss the context of description still. This doesn't mean, that it can't be described in the future, when we own the right measures, instruments, concepts, models, hypotheses (sp?) and most important, the right context into what to embed the definition. The lack of definitions in the now, for us, doesn't necessarily make 'it' non-existent in general. It only may make it non-existent for 'some' of us in the present
Edited by BlueCoyote (05/29/07 11:35 AM)
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: BlueCoyote]
#6981760 - 05/29/07 12:13 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would go a step further.
What is music? Pleasing patterns of tone? What is pleasing, Goodness? Tell me what that is. Just because we label something doesnt mean we know what it is.
Because life relates to reality always in terms of its inextricable quality, which cannot be defined; our definitions are merely complex webs of semantics.
Heres another fun one. Try to define is, are, be, or any other form of being. Try to define existance. How can we say we say that anything exists when we dont know what existance is?
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
We are ALWAYS assuming, no matter how logical you get. So all you logicians out there, why not rely more on more concrete the territory of art and abstraction?
Edited by daytripper23 (05/29/07 12:27 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I was in a relationship with a born-again-Christian. She asked me if I believed in God. I stumbled for a bit and then I told her the question was unanswerable. She asked why. I responded that there were millions (or more) possible definitions of what God is. And even if I assumed my idea of one of the popular Christian definitions, it states that God is beyond comprehension. If I cannot comprehend something; if it is timeless, formless and beyond all senses and not of the material world how could I believe in such a thing that I cannot even envision.
Naturally, she got pissed at me and said I was merely playing word games.
Such is the frequent dilemma when discussing 'objects' that are not objects. There is no reference and the definition points to no thing.
--------------------
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
|
Do "feelings/emotions" exist....?
Does "pain" exist....?
Does "life" exist....?
Does "ego" exist....?
>^;;^<
-------------------- I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
|
Oh, one more to make my point....
Is there any "Art" at all in this existence, or does it have a fallible non-definition as well - that we should completely discredit it's existence....?
>^;;^<
-------------------- I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: PhanTomCat]
#6982439 - 05/29/07 02:54 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PhanTomCat said: Do "feelings/emotions" exist....?
Yes they do. They exist in the ABSTRACT... until they are expressed.
Quote:
Does "pain" exist....?
Yes it does. See above.
Quote:
Does "life" exist....?
Yes it exists simultaneously, in the abstract, and in the REAL world.
Quote:
Does "ego" exist....?
Yes... in the abstract... until it is expressed. Then, it is real.
Detect a pattern, here?
Quote:
PhanTomCat said: Oh, one more to make my point....
Is there any "Art" at all in this existence, or does it have a fallible non-definition as well - that we should completely discredit it's existence....?
Yes there is ART. Any time somebody creates something... ART is being expressed... in REAL LIFE. You made ART, with your last post. I am making it, now.
Until it is expressed, ART lives in the abstract... like many of the words you listed above. When ART exists in the ABSTRACT... it is known as IMAGINATION. When the imaginary is made REAL, it becomes known as CREATIVITY.
Abstract things like ideas, and imagination DO exist. The proof is in THEIR EXPRESSION.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: PhanTomCat]
#6982451 - 05/29/07 02:56 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PhanTomCat said: Oh, one more to make my point....
Is there any "Art" at all in this existence, or does it have a fallible non-definition as well - that we should completely discredit it's existence....?
May we call it (/the art of existence) a pattern ?
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: BlueCoyote]
#6982476 - 05/29/07 03:01 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
hehe I love those guys who say "I live for art!"
We all are, youre not special in this. Just gotta realize it.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Non-Definitions [Re: PhanTomCat]
#6982499 - 05/29/07 03:08 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Do "feelings/emotions" exist....?
OG: Are you feeling Shmoopy today?
PTC: What does that mean?
OG: Just answer the damn question!
--------------------
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
|
|
Just because there isn't one collective definition for the "defined subject" doesn't mean that there isn't one, it just indicates that we can't come to an agreement - that is what I was getting at....
If you had never known nor met your parents, it doesn't mean that they never existed....(?) Well, this idea "works" until they start all this genetic Engineering stuff up....
>^;;^<
-------------------- I'll be your midnight French Fry.... "The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...." >^;;^<
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 24 days
|
|
Quote:
OG: Are you feeling Shmoopy today?
PTC: What does that mean?
OG: Just answer the damn question!
By that you just stated that any attempt to describe feelings will probably fail, not that they don't exist
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
|