a theory of language...

[Peter Kropotkin]

In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?

for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"

What I am thinking about is what Hume said about "cause and effect"
the example he used was this, "The sun will rise tomorrow."...
but how do we in fact know that the sun will rise tomorrow?
we don't... it is an assumption, one form from habit, and use,
but having no real connection... the statement, "The sun will rise
tomorrow" and the actual sun rising tomorrow has no relationship...
two distinct and separate statements that don't connect in any way,
shape or form... we connect them from habit and usage, but in fact,
they are not connected..

and so it goes for the word "table" and an actual table... from habit
and usage, we connect the word "table" with an actual table,
but in fact, there is no connection between the word "table"
and an actual table....they are two distinct and separate words
that have no connection outside the connection we give them
from habit or superstition or custom.. as Hume himself says,

'' custom alone makes us expect for the future, a similar train of
events with those which have appeared in the past"

and what does this thought that there is no connection between words
and their objects actually mean? The entire analytical tradition of
"Linguistic analysis" is based on a flawed idea that words are identical
to the objects that they portray.. in other words, the word "table''
is the same thing as the object of the table.. that they are identical...
and they are not... the only relationship the word "table''
has to the physical object of table is found in our custom or habits
of connecting the two words..

not only isn't there a universal understanding of the word "table",
there isn't even an individual understanding of the word, table...
the word "table" has no connection to an actual table...

I could just as easily call a "table" a blork' or a uggan, or a blreag...
and it would just as easily stand for a table...
take for instance, Tisch.... as an American, the word "Tisch" means
nothing to me... I cannot make any type of connection from the
word "Tisch" to any other word... or perhaps the word "mesa"...
how do I connect the word "mesa" with any other word? or perhaps
the word "stol." or perhaps "stul"... it is from
habit and custom that I might be able to connect each of these
words with their being identical with their physical objects...
which in this case is the English word, "table".. Tisch is the
German word, table... but I cannot know that before the fact..
in other words, we learn words from experience.. not from
theory...

so what concrete physical object can I connect the word "love" to?
so many of our words have no concrete, physical existence.....
so how do I connect these words to each other if they
no physical presence? simply by habit, superstition, custom...
and that is the only connection that the word "table"
and the object table has...from habit, custom, superstition that
we connect the two ideas...

Kropotkin

[attofishpi]

In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?

for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"

What I am thinking about is what Hume said about "cause and effect"
the example he used was this, "The sun will rise tomorrow."...
but how do we in fact know that the sun will rise tomorrow?
we don't... it is an assumption, one form from habit, and use,
but having no real connection... the statement, "The sun will rise
tomorrow" and the actual sun rising tomorrow has no relationship...
two distinct and separate statements that don't connect in any way,
shape or form... we connect them from habit and usage, but in fact,
they are not connected..

and so it goes for the word "table" and an actual table... from habit
and usage, we connect the word "table" with an actual table,
but in fact, there is no connection between the word "table"
and an actual table....they are two distinct and separate words
that have no connection outside the connection we give them
from habit or superstition or custom.. as Hume himself says,

'' custom alone makes us expect for the future, a similar train of
events with those which have appeared in the past"

and what does this thought that there is no connection between words
and their objects actually mean? The entire analytical tradition of
"Linguistic analysis" is based on a flawed idea that words are identical
to the objects that they portray.. in other words, the word "table''
is the same thing as the object of the table.. that they are identical...
and they are not... the only relationship the word "table''
has to the physical object of table is found in our custom or habits
of connecting the two words..

not only isn't there a universal understanding of the word "table",
there isn't even an individual understanding of the word, table...
the word "table" has no connection to an actual table...

I could just as easily call a "table" a blork' or a uggan, or a blreag...
and it would just as easily stand for a table...
take for instance, Tisch.... as an American, the word "Tisch" means
nothing to me... I cannot make any type of connection from the
word "Tisch" to any other word... or perhaps the word "mesa"...
how do I connect the word "mesa" with any other word? or perhaps
the word "stol." or perhaps "stul"... it is from
habit and custom that I might be able to connect each of these
words with their being identical with their physical objects...
which in this case is the English word, "table".. Tisch is the
German word, table... but I cannot know that before the fact..
in other words, we learn words from experience.. not from
theory...

so what concrete physical object can I connect the word "love" to?
so many of our words have no concrete, physical existence.....
so how do I connect these words to each other if they
no physical presence? simply by habit, superstition, custom...
and that is the only connection that the word "table"
and the object table has...from habit, custom, superstition that
we connect the two ideas...

Kropotkin

Compare your above 45 years of comprehending "PHILOSOPHY" from books written by your atheist rational yet non-comprehending actual reality, to the below:


How much did you just waffle on about a TABLE?

..well....just ask Sculptor since his return to the forum stated - that my bollocks (*or something to that effect) is legendary.

So apparently I am a LEG_END, and what you thought was S_TABLE upon the atheist "philosophy" table...is now defunct.

<delete - speak no evil!!>

[Harbal]

I suppose we use words to represent concepts, which better enables us to combine single concepts to form more complex concepts, and also enables us to communicate concepts to others. Maybe you could think of words as signposts that point to ideas, or labels that we attach to them.

[uwot]

I suppose we use words to represent concepts...

I usually run a mile from discussions about language, but anything you write is worth reading and now you've got me thinking you scoundrel. It jumped into my mind that language represents experience* - particularly shared experience. Even people who share a language like English can have points of reference that are meaningless to others**.

*Which is basically David Hume's point if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole.
** Which is basically Wittgenstein the later's point - a refinement on his earlier presumption, shared by the logical positivists that everyone has essentially the same experiences. So language games, game theory, subjectivism, underdetermination, alternative facts, Brexit and Donald Trump.
Anyway, Ealing Rugby Club are kicking off at 3 o'clock - I'm off to Vallis Way.

[Harbal]

now you've got me thinking you scoundrel.

How reckless of me.

[uwot]

now you've got me thinking you scoundrel.

How reckless of me.

Yes, you must learn to use your power wisely.

[Pattern-chaser]

In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?

for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"

Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

[Harbal]

Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

In what way might we confuse the label with the thing?

[Pattern-chaser]

Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

In what way might we confuse the label with the thing?

In the way that prompted Rene Magritte to paint his "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" picture?

[Harbal]

Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

In what way might we confuse the label with the thing?

In the way that prompted Rene Magritte to paint his "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" picture?

You mean because it was a picture of a pipe, and not an actual pipe? But who would think it were otherwise?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Peter Kropotkin:
In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?

K: for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"

PC: Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

K: and therein lies my point... "confusing the label with the thing the
label is assigned to"... it is about assigning labels to things... that isn't
having the object in question, the table.. being the same thing as the word
"table"... a real table.. of which I am currently writing on, is not the same as
the word, Table... it is a representation of the actual object, the table...
the two are not the same thing.. one is a representation of the other..
an assigned label and nothing more...

Kropotkin

[commonsense]

Peter Kropotkin:
In composing some responses of late, I have gotten to thinking
about language... what is the exact relationship between
words and objects?

K: for example, I think the word "table" but does this word ''TABLE"
actually mean anything? Is my thinking of the word "table"
actually correspond to what we would think of as a "table?"

PC: Isn't this about (not) confusing the map with the territory? Or in this case, perhaps we might refine that to say 'confusing the label with the thing the label is assigned to'?

K: and therein lies my point... "confusing the label with the thing the
label is assigned to"... it is about assigning labels to things... that isn't
having the object in question, the table.. being the same thing as the word
"table"... a real table.. of which I am currently writing on, is not the same as
the word, Table... it is a representation of the actual object, the table...
the two are not the same thing.. one is a representation of the other..
an assigned label and nothing more...

Kropotkin

Yes, and that assignment is the connection. Of course a word isn’t the same as an object and it cannot be the same as the object it references. But to the extent that experiences are shared, linguistic connections are shared.

[commonsense]

The same is true for words that reference concepts.

[attofishpi]

The same is true for words that reference concepts.

Yeah right?...and apparently it is more rational to believe in natural word etymology and that these below words with their linked logical concept connections are just a mere coincidence rather than ANY form of intelligent backbone to reality causing them to be such.



AN_ARCH_Y (take out any part of the ARCH, and the KEYSTONE will fall, the ARCH in fact will collapse, much like society under anarchy).

U = you
O = owe
Y = why
HELL O (our standard greeting embedded with such 'evil' consideration)
EVIL - reversed: LIVE ...it IS very hard to live when God is testing your faith, with evil.
DEVIL - reversed - LIVED.
DOG - a man's best friend. Reversed GOD.
BILL.....................B_ill......Be ill...cos u gotta pay them!
MONEY...............MONE_Y....moan why? ....cos u gotta earn it!
LEARN.................L_earn...learn to earn!
WEEK...................WEAK........too hard to make a week without that fix
FORTNIGHT..........FOUGHT NIGHT.........try the whole fought night to break its grip
PROPHET...............Profit......as so many have over the millenias
BIBLE...................BUY BULL.............not satisfied with the dogma (Question the bible)
DOGMA..................AM GOD..............bible dogma?
SON......................SUN of God........."I am the light"
RAPE.....................R_APE.................OUR APE
CHEAT...................C HEAT...............SEE HEAT...sometimes love burns.
HEAVEN................HEAVE n......Heave, work and strive to build utopia, our heaven.
JUSTICE...............Man's "JUSTICE" - JUST_ICE ...in comparison to God's JUSTICE.
SOLES...............We walk on them. ....SOULS.
SOLES................have a HEEL, can we HEAL our SOULS?
REALITY............REAL_IT_Y? ...did we evolve into an efficient simulation?


Apparently all the above LOGIC to these KEY words relating to life\God are random coincidence...BULLSHIT.


The Tree of Knowledge.
There is a Ledge when you eat from the Tree:--- KNOW_LEDGE.

BARK up the TREE of KNOWLEDGE ...SAP....LEAVE.
A man's best friend is a Dog - reversed - God - BARK protects the tree. SAP (a fool) feeds nutrients to the tree. LEAVES - leave the tree...do you twig?

PARANOID...............PA ANNOYED......God is v annoyed when you return to the Tree of Knowledge.
PARANOYA..............PA ANNOYA........God will annoya in the most evil way.


Of course, I am just the SAP.

[Harbal]

HELL O (our standard greeting embedded with such 'evil' consideration)
EVIL - reversed: LIVE ...it IS very hard to live when God is testing your faith, with evil.
DEVIL - reversed - LIVED.
DOG - a man's best friend. Reversed GOD.
BILL.....................B_ill......Be ill...cos u gotta pay them!
MONEY...............MONE_Y....moan why? ....cos u gotta earn it!
LEARN.................L_earn...learn to earn!
WEEK...................WEAK........too hard to make a week without that fix
FORTNIGHT..........FOUGHT NIGHT.........try the whole fought night to break its grip
PROPHET...............Profit......as so many have over the millenias
BIBLE...................BUY BULL.............not satisfied with the dogma (Question the bible)
DOGMA..................AM GOD..............bible dogma?
SON......................SUN of God........."I am the light"
RAPE.....................R_APE.................OUR APE
CHEAT...................C HEAT...............SEE HEAT...sometimes love burns.
HEAVEN................HEAVE n......Heave, work and strive to build utopia, our heaven.
JUSTICE...............Man's "JUSTICE" - JUST_ICE ...in comparison to God's JUSTICE.
SOLES...............We walk on them. ....SOULS.
SOLES................have a HEEL, can we HEAL our SOULS?
REALITY............REAL_IT_Y? ...did we evolve into an efficient simulation?

Worship..............Worse hip...all that kneeling down to pray is bad for the joints.
Preach.............P reach....how far up the wall can you urinate?
Devine............De vine...from whence cometh de grapes for de communion wine.