Are These Concepts Universal?

[Gee]

Hello Members;

This is my first visit to Philosophy of Language, and I am sorry to have to say that I know little about it. Knowing so little, I decided to ask people who are interested in, and more knowledgeable about, language to answer some questions that I have considered in my study of consciousness.

When one studies consciousness, it is important to follow any lead that can be found, as evidence is so very difficult to come by. In my studies, I have noted that there seem to be linguistic interpretations of consciousness that are intuitively incorporated into language. These interpretations compliment my understanding of consciousness, so I would like an objective "third party" inspection of my considerations.

There are two points of interest. First, it is my understanding that emotion is external and thought is internal, and I often find this reflected in language. Please consider the following statements:

1. "The student sat at his desk in quiet contemplation; his thoughts closed up on his face."

2. "The newly wed couple left the church; their joy radiating from their faces."

These are perfectly understandable statements, but what if we traded some words? Consider the altered statements below.

1. "The student sat at his desk in quiet contemplation; his thoughts radiating from his face."

2. "The newly wed couple left the church; their joy closed up on their faces."

Although there is nothing really wrong with these altered statements, they do not ring true. They seem false and unbelievable. After considering this, I realized that there are many examples; ie,
"The child stood in a pool of innocence."
"His anger emanated from him."
"His fear was palpable."
"His joy lifted the mood of everyone."

There are many examples in literature that we express emotion as external and thought as internal, so I think that this is an intuitive knowledge of something that exists. I would also be very interested to know if this is a universal concept, but as I know only English, and am horrible with Google, I don't know.

Second, another part of my understanding of consciousness is that it is a combination of awareness and matter. This also seems to be reflected in language, and I would like to know if this is also universal. In people airiness seems to be equated with awareness, and density seems to be equated with non-awareness--as in the following examples:

1. A "rock headed", "dense", or "thick" individual would be someone who has no problem with focus, but is not very aware.

2. A "space cadet", "scatter brained", or "flighty" individual has a real problem with focus, and is aware of too much.

3. A "level headed" individual would be someone who is aware, but also grounded in that awareness.

What do you think? Does anyone else see a connection here? Are these concepts accurate, and are they universal in language?

Thank you for your assistance and comments.

Gee

[Impenitent]

interpretations are not universal

description of feelings are never adequate...

limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

There has been a lot of water under the language bridge since Russell - Schlick, Feigel, A.J.Ayer, just to name a few. The interesting part is that most of recent ones and the ones that outlived Russell centred their discussions on the works of Wittegenstein ( regarded by many as the greatest linguistic philosopher).

There appears to have been some sort of move towards an agreed position and that the philosophy of language is just that, a philosophy. It is not a theory, but an activity, in that repect it doesn't produce statements that are universally true or universally false; rather clarifies the meaning of statements.

So on that basis we could say that some statements are emotional, graphic, poetic while others(as you point out) are nonsensical, but this doesn't necessarily mean that such statements are cognitive.

In the end I think it would be very helpful to look at Wittgenstein, especially the latter Wittgenstein.

Ginkgo

[Gee]

interpretations are not universal

description of feelings are never adequate...

limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...

-Imp

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.

When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?

When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

[Ginkgo]

interpretations are not universal

description of feelings are never adequate...

limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...

-Imp

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.

When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?

When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

Gee, could you expand on what you mean by concepts are often universal?


Ginkgo

[Impenitent]

interpretations are not universal

description of feelings are never adequate...

limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...

-Imp

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.


concepts defined by whom? is the definition of the concept the final arbiter? ask an Eskimo about the concept of snow...



When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?


not at all... but claiming that one interpretation or expression is truth is fleeting...



When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

is it indeed all we have? an incomplete and inadequate index of representations masquerading as truth...

are the sensory impressions and any emotive reactions to them limited to those we can categorize into linguistic boxes?

"the limits of my language are the limits of my world..." (Wittgenstein)

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

interpretations are not universal

description of feelings are never adequate...

limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...

-Imp

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.


concepts defined by whom? is the definition of the concept the final arbiter? ask an Eskimo about the concept of snow...



When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?


not at all... but claiming that one interpretation or expression is truth is fleeting...



When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

is it indeed all we have? an incomplete and inadequate index of representations masquerading as truth...

are the sensory impressions and any emotive reactions to them limited to those we can categorize into linguistic boxes?

"the limits of my language are the limits of my world..." (Wittgenstein)

-Imp

Yes, I have to admit that I am a Wittgenstein fan. However this idea of concepts being universal has got be intrigued.

I go along with E.G. Moore's common sense view that everyone know what a chair is and everyone knows what a table is. The external world does exists can we give names to objects such as tables and chairs. In a way tables and chairs are 'universal' in a limited sense. That is, everyone understands what we are talking about when I talk about what happened to by my Labrador when she had pups.

However, I think the danger is to start to believed in this universality as being related to some type of Platonic Form. That, is language reflects some type of 'hidden truth' that exists behind the veil, and that the proper investigation of language will reveal this 'truth'. I think linguistic philosophers have long since moved on from this idea.

Austin's contribution to these ideas needs a mention as well because he is pointing out that the words we choose are not completely ad hock. We try to use language in a meaningful way. But in the end language is still just an activity, all be it a refined activity.

[Gee]

Gee, could you expand on what you mean by concepts are often universal?

Ginkgo

Hi Ginkgo;

Sure. A few years back I was looking at my kids baby pictures with a friend, and noted that my first born was very hairy--actually he looked a lot like a monkey. My friend laughed and said that she saw that, but couldn't say anything when my son was born, because I thought he was absolutely beautiful. (He grew up to be quite handsome, and everyone agrees, so it's true.) The point here being that parents all over the world will look at newborn, scrunched up, ruddy, mottled faces on misshaped heads, and declare their child "beautiful". It is a universal concept.

But for this thread, the study of body language might me a better example. It is well noted and studied that a person, who is wearing clothing that is buttoned up, closed, dark, and covering the body discretely, will appear thoughtful and intelligent. Keeping limbs close and moving them in a conservative reserved manner will give the same impression. Alternately, wearing clothing that flows and moves, is open, and relaxed, will give the impression of feeling and emotion. Loose swinging arms and hair also add to the impression of someone who is feeling, rather than thinking. These are universal concepts.

Does this help?

Gee

[Ginkgo]

Gee, could you expand on what you mean by concepts are often universal?

Ginkgo

Hi Ginkgo;

Sure. A few years back I was looking at my kids baby pictures with a friend, and noted that my first born was very hairy--actually he looked a lot like a monkey. My friend laughed and said that she saw that, but couldn't say anything when my son was born, because I thought he was absolutely beautiful. (He grew up to be quite handsome, and everyone agrees, so it's true.) The point here being that parents all over the world will look at newborn, scrunched up, ruddy, mottled faces on misshaped heads, and declare their child "beautiful". It is a universal concept.

But for this thread, the study of body language might me a better example. It is well noted and studied that a person, who is wearing clothing that is buttoned up, closed, dark, and covering the body discretely, will appear thoughtful and intelligent. Keeping limbs close and moving them in a conservative reserved manner will give the same impression. Alternately, wearing clothing that flows and moves, is open, and relaxed, will give the impression of feeling and emotion. Loose swinging arms and hair also add to the impression of someone who is feeling, rather than thinking. These are universal concepts.

Does this help?

Gee

Yes, I would generally agree with that. Some types of emotional responses are probably culture driven, but other more than likely not.


Ginkgo

[Gee]

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.


concepts defined by whom? is the definition of the concept the final arbiter? ask an Eskimo about the concept of snow...

Defined by me, because I asked the question. I am not an Eskimo; I did not ask about snow; and you are making no sense at all.

When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?


not at all... but claiming that one interpretation or expression is truth is fleeting...

Which would be why I asked for other interpretations, and other people's perspectives.

When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

is it indeed all we have? an incomplete and inadequate index of representations masquerading as truth...

If thought can not find truth, and words can not share that truth, then wisdom is unattainable, and philosophy is a bad joke.

are the sensory impressions and any emotive reactions to them limited to those we can categorize into linguistic boxes?

-Imp

I believe that you may be under the impression that my entire theory of consciousness rests upon the questions at the beginning of this thread. Not so. These questions represent a small piece of evidence that I am trying to acquire in relation to one small part of the huge concept of consciousness, which involves all life and includes most of the studies within religion, science, and philosophy.

Gee

[Impenitent]

Well, Imp;

Although what you have stated is true, it is not really a direct response to my questions, nor is it very helpful.

When you state that "interpretations are not universal", it is true, but concepts are often universal. I am asking about concepts, and can only hope that the "interpretations" are an honest reflection of those concepts.


concepts defined by whom? is the definition of the concept the final arbiter? ask an Eskimo about the concept of snow...

Defined by me, because I asked the question. I am not an Eskimo; I did not ask about snow; and you are making no sense at all.




defined by you? that isn't very universal...

When you state that "description of feelings are never adequate...", are you suggesting that we should dispose of trying to express them?


not at all... but claiming that one interpretation or expression is truth is fleeting...

Which would be why I asked for other interpretations, and other people's perspectives.



see previous



When you state that "limiting thought to that which can be described with language is incomplete...", it looks like nonsense. Are you suggesting that there is an alternative? Complete or incomplete; it is all that we have.

Gee

is it indeed all we have? an incomplete and inadequate index of representations masquerading as truth...

If thought can not find truth, and words can not share that truth, then wisdom is unattainable, and philosophy is a bad joke.


I have never said otherwise...



are the sensory impressions and any emotive reactions to them limited to those we can categorize into linguistic boxes?

-Imp

I believe that you may be under the impression that my entire theory of consciousness rests upon the questions at the beginning of this thread. Not so. These questions represent a small piece of evidence that I am trying to acquire in relation to one small part of the huge concept of consciousness, which involves all life and includes most of the studies within religion, science, and philosophy.

Gee

all life? anthropomorphic fallacy...

-Imp

[Gee]

all life? anthropomorphic fallacy...

-Imp

Good plan. We can just study the aspects of life that we have already decided are conscious and use that information to confirm whatever we choose! That would be a lot easier than looking at it honestly or even realistically. I sincerely doubt that you even know what anthropomorphism actually is, as I am beginning to believe that you may be a lot less than brilliant.

Imp, I retired from law. In case you do not understand the significance of that, I will tell you that "words" are the law. So if a person is not careful with wording, a lot of people can suffer from a very bad law; hence, I have developed a great respect for words, language, and how those words are put together.

When I first considered posting this thread and asking my questions, I looked at the Philosophy of Language forum and read, "What did you say? And what did you mean by it?" This led me to believe that meaning could be found here. What I did not expect, was to find someone who chose their words for the purpose of obfuscating any understanding and meaning. Unless someone else joins this thread, I won't be back as there is nothing to learn here.

Gee

[Bill Wiltrack]

.











........................................................................................................................................................





This might help:

Principle of charity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."











.

[Gee]

Bill;

Thank you for the tip. I will try to keep it in mind when reading other people's statements.

But I don't believe that it applies here as Imp does not make statements. I know this because the "quips" provided by Imp never start with a capital letter and never end with less than three periods. So they could not possibly be statements...

Thanks anyway,

Gee

[Dunce]

1. "The student sat at his desk in quiet contemplation; his thoughts closed up on his face."

This seems a very strange phrase to me; possibly an Americanism which has yet to cross the Atlantic? Is it like saying, "His face was scrunched up in thought" or more like, "His face ceased to be expressive when he started thinking?" The first - and arguably the second - would be external expression of internal thought, although not giving away its content.

Perhaps it is relevant to consider the way we use the phrase, "I betrayed my emotions." The word betray has its roots in the Latin tradere - to hand over. The way we use it seems to imply a duty to keep our emotions protected inside - that we have given in to a base instinct if we fail to do so. I don't think I hear people talking about betraying their thoughts nearly as often. We seem to think we have greater control over thoughts and the expression of thoughts than we do feelings and their expression. You are more likely to hear someone say,"I can't help the way I feel" than. "I can't help the way I think."