I wish it were possible.
Truth is relative to the audience's vocabulary, not the speaker's.
By teaching, I mean teaching all sorts of things most importantly morality.
First, they need to develop an analytical way of thinking. They also need to become critical thinkers. Then I teach them some and let them decide about their life when they are almost ready. They do mistakes and they learn from their mistakes.
They need a base for how to think. We need to provide our children with this base otherwise they cannot think on their own.
It is not. Hating and loving are quite situational.
All sorts of emotions are useful.
For example when a terrorist put a bomb in a location in the city. The location is unknown to us so we cannot find the bomb and neutralize it. I would kick his balls until she/he tells us the location of the bomb.
No, because I am a mature person. But anybody's children need to follow the command of the supreme beings, mothers, fathers, teachers, etc. until they become mature.
I am a mature person so I follow my own way. However, when it comes to treating people just and fair, I cannot know what is right and what is fair, since I cannot put myself in their shoes. So the situation becomes difficult. That is where when the proper communication becomes handy.
But intuition could be wrong.
By talking, inspiring me, etc.
Be wrong on what?
Of course, I am free. But I need the support of someone else until I become mature. Even then I cannot do whatever I like.
It has. You are talking from your own perspective, which is the perspective of a mature person. we are not born mature so we need guideness.
I agree.
No, the scriptures were written by people but they are words of God, at least people believe so.
I don't.
I don't know. Some are stupid, some are stubborn, etc.
It is not useless if there is someone who knows things better than you.
By, trial and error, I can realize what I was told was right for me. So I realize that those people who told me to do X and not do Y has better knowledge than I have.
True. But I realize the truth given enough amount of time.
True.
Not necessarily a human being. I think that there is a spiritual reality as well.
But I need a minimal amount of education until I can find my own way. Again, you are talking about the perspective of a person who is mature.
Well, no. People blindly, without any justification, follow a holy book.
So you agree, that a bad system can change the behavior of good people?
For example, there is no God. Etc.
Sure, but it took me a long time to reach here, where I am now. I learn from my mistake and there were people who thought me things that I am grateful for that.
Yeah, it is very difficult.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:40 am It seems to me you understand the problem with fundamentalism (reading holy books literally) quite perfectly.
When you read everything as literal; when you think God is ontological - you submit to the authority and question no commandments. Cruelty ensues.
That's the problem and the conundrum.
If other people aren't open to reason and to pursuing a better way... I have nothing else to say to you but my most heartfelt compassion and sorrow. I can't imagine what it's like to live in such a mental prison.
Sure, there's flexibility in symbolism, but you must, at the very least, know your audience and adjust your language use to get your point across for different audiences. If your audience doesn't get the gist of what you're saying, you've effectively made scribbles and sounds and didn't say anything. How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman? It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:22 pmIt doesn't matter what I am talking ABOUT. What matters is WHY I am talking about whatever it is that I am talking about.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:16 pmDepends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about being a Frenchman, Spaniard or Italian, then yes. If you're a Frenchman talking about being a Spaniard, could it even be possible for you to mean it? Words are about things. There's a difference between knowing what you're talking about and just mimicking sounds or scribbles you hear and see. You seem to be saying that you're doing the latter. In other words you never say anything about anything.
I could say "I am being a Frenchman" sarcastically (I've lived in france 15 years - I might as well be french)
I could say "I am being a Spaniard" meaning "Yeah, I have Spanish citizenship. As well as Italian citizenship."
Language is incredibly flexible in this regard. The message matters far more than the actual words used.
There's no need for the level of precision you demand. Language is incredibly imprecise and fuzzy and approximate. And it works just fine.
That's precisely what I am doing.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm Sure, there's flexibility in symbolism, but you must, at the very least, know your audience and adjust your language use to get your point across for different audiences.
Obviously! Which that's the whole point of code-switching.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm If your audience doesn't get the gist of what you're saying, you've effectively made scribbles and sounds and didn't say anything.
Because I would use a sarcastic tone of voice? Or whatever other intonation or linguistic trick there is to express/communicate sarcasm.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman?
No. That's not how language works. What's sarcasm "about" ? I suspect you are going to start speaking in circles now...Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).
Were the words "specific"? There's more than one way to express sarcasm about the exact same thing.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even say that your language use is about your sarcasm, as your intent to be sarcastic is why you said anything at all, and why you used those specific words.
Ok. So what is language "about" then?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even gather information about the languages you know and your level of education with those languages by your language use. Your language use is about those things as well. All these various types of information are found in language use - what the scribbles and utterances are about, as in all the causes that are involved in any use of language.
Yes!! You're almost there! Your tone of voice or the emoji you use would be about your (intent at) sarcasm.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pmBecause I would use a sarcastic tone of voice? Or whatever other intonation or linguistic trick there is to express/communicate sarcasm.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm How would someone know that you are being sarcastic if you said that you are a Frenchman?
Oh no! You're regressing! What other words could you have used to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? Could you have said, "You are what you eat." to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? No? Then it seems that the words you use are restricted at least to some degree in order to communicate your intentions, and it seems that the restrictions come primarily from the audience your are communicating with. There may be many ways to symbolize something, but your audience will dictate which symbols you use. You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pmWere the words "specific"? There's more than one way to express sarcasm about the exact same thing.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even say that your language use is about your sarcasm, as your intent to be sarcastic is why you said anything at all, and why you used those specific words.
You are confusing the specific linguistic expressions I am using with the meaning of those expressions.
It's obvious what I've been saying has been going over your head. Symbols are about things. To know what the scribbles, "sarcasm" and "language" are about, go look in a dictionary. If you're asking what the actual processes of sarcasm and language are about/mean, you must be asking what caused them, so go read about how sarcasm and languages came about. In reading about how languages came about you will probably find how sarcasm came about as it is a type of language use. You'll probably find books on the evolution of language and evolutionary psychology helpful.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:47 pmNo. That's not how language works. What's sarcasm "about" ? I suspect you are going to start speaking in circles now...Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm It seems to me that to know why you said something, one would need to know what your scribbles or utterances are about (about having lived in France for 15 years as opposed to having been born there and are a citizen).
Ok. So what is language "about" then?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:36 pm One could even gather information about the languages you know and your level of education with those languages by your language use. Your language use is about those things as well. All these various types of information are found in language use - what the scribbles and utterances are about, as in all the causes that are involved in any use of language.
The aboutness of language is so abstract and unspecific!
I am almost there? You appear to be talking to yourself.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm Yes!! You're almost there! Your tone of voice or the emoji you use would be about your (intent at) sarcasm.
No I am not. I am intentionally saying things which move us away from the point you are trying to make. Because I already know what point you are trying to make; so I am already a step ahead of you in the conversation by giving you counter-examples.
My words are only restricted by my lack of imagination. I could have used an in-joke. People develop rapport and shared sense of humour. I could have appealed to any of our past conversations; or used language in a sarcastic way.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm What other words could you have used to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? Could you have said, "You are what you eat." to be sarcastic about being a Frenchman? No? Then it seems that the words you use are restricted at least to some degree in order to communicate your intentions, and it seems that the restrictions come primarily from the audience your are communicating with.
Not only my audience. My rapport with my audience. My shared experiences with my audience. My shared background with the audience.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm There may be many ways to symbolize something, but your audience will dictate which symbols you use.
And you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
OK! Show me!Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm It's obvious what I've been saying has been going over your head. Symbols are about things.
What?!? That's idiotic. Using dictionaries to navigate language is like using training wheels to ride a bycicle.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm To know what the scribbles, "sarcasm" and "language" are about, go look in a dictionary.
No. I am not asking you that. I am asking you what "sarcasm" is about. You made the claim that language is ABOUT stuff.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm If you're asking what the actual processes of sarcasm and language are about/mean, you must be asking what caused them, so go read about how sarcasm and languages came about. In reading about how languages came about you will probably find how sarcasm came about as it is a type of language use. You'll probably find books on the evolution of language and evolutionary psychology helpful.
That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
If the spirit of the conversation is collaborative/cooperative - that's usually the case, but if the langage game becomes in any way adverserial there's literally no advantage to reifying one's position in words.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:21 pm That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
Adversarial conversations are good when the common will is towards a synthesis. Adversarial conversations are bad or useless when there is no such common will. By "a synthesis" I don't mean a compromise I mean a new paradigm, although a compromise may be the best we can get for the short term.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:44 pmIf the spirit of the conversation is collaborative/cooperative - that's usually the case, but if the langage game becomes in any way adverserial there's literally no advantage to reifying one's position in words.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:21 pm That's a problem. However what sometimes happens is when a word of phrase is new to the receiver he thinks "that seems to mean something; I wonder what it means." And in the circumstances when the participants know the idioms or jargon it's easy to nail one's colours to the mast.
If you don't make your position explicit - the other party has nothing to atack.
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:10 pmAnd you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
Since the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pmYou've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:10 pmAnd you are forgetting that spoken language doesn't use symbols. Only written language does. So your frame of reference is already significantly narrowed down.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:44 pm You're forgetting that the arbitrary nature of symbols is checked by the rules of some language which restrict the open-ended arbitrary use of the symbols, and the audience you are attempting to communicate with, and what rules and experience with the rules and your past uses of language they have.
Ohhh, you are going for nastiness now, are you? Imbecille.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all.
What about non-linguistic forms of communication?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille.
You were arguing with the forum idiot? Tell me more! How does one argue with themselves?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
When language was invented, the symbols that were used had to be chosen and agreed upon. You wouldn't have to agree with others which symbols to use if which symbols we choose to use wasn't arbitrary, it would be obvious by observation, and we wouldn't have different languages we would have only one universal language. The fact that we have different languages in the first place is evidence that which symbols we use to represent something else is arbitrary.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:28 pmSince the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pmYou've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Language was not "invented" but was spontaneous as it still is for unselfconscious uninhibited native speakers. When native English speakers get together in the pub they don't take along a phrase book of correct word-symbols. we know the symbols others are using by context and continued usage. It seldom happens that friends indoctrinate each other and if they did so they would cease to be true friends. Language is not usually a power game but is a means of building community.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 3:55 pmWhen language was invented, the symbols that were used had to be chosen and agreed upon. You wouldn't have to agree with others which symbols to use if which symbols we choose to use wasn't arbitrary, it would be obvious by observation, and we wouldn't have different languages we would have only one universal language. The fact that we have different languages in the first place is evidence that which symbols we use to represent something else is arbitrary.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 3:28 pmSince the advent of universal literacy arbitrary symbols are written down. Sure, natural everyday language is a symbolic structure but its symbols are by common usage and are not arbitrary.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:27 pm
You've said a lot of stupid stuff, but this one is the winner of them all. All language use is symbol use, including verbal, sign language and braille. I'm finished arguing with the forum idiot for now. Thanks.
Symbolism is the process of choosing, arbitrarily, the rules by which we apply using something to represent something else. By creating a rule, we essentially remove part of the arbitrary nature of what we are using to represent something else, so much so that many people end up conflating the symbol with what it represents (see Skepdick's posts and the silly questions he asks).
We don't really ever agree with the symbols that are used in our native language. We are indoctrinated with it. We never really have a choice in what our native language is. We merely adapt and learn what symbols are being used and how. So it may seem like the symbols we use are not arbitrary as we tend to think of the world in our native language, as if those things actually are the things we symbolize them with, but that is an illusion created by our brain as a result of how it creates shortcuts and relegates habitual behaviors to subconscious processes of the brain.
So I will agree with you to a degree in that the rules of some language is what establishes a consistent (non-arbitrary) link with the symbol that was chosen arbitrarily when the language was first invented, and what it represents. Sure, you can use whatever symbols you want to represent whatever you want for yourself (not sure why anyone would bother doing that), but if you expect to communicate with others then you need to know the rules the others are using and the non-arbitrary links that they are using between some scribble or utterance and what it represents in the world.
How could we ever come to understand the concept of symbolism if our minds didn't already represent the world in some way. We know that colors don't exist out in the world. They are a product of the mind. So if the apple isn't really red, then the redness I experience must be a symbol, a representation of something else. The color of the apple seems to coincide with it's ripeness. So apples aren't red or black. They are ripe or rotten and the color is a representation of the state of the apple. There is an aboutness to the mind, a feeling of being informed of how things are like (indirect realism), not a clear window to how the world actually is (naive realism). So if indirect realism is the case, then our minds are representations, or maps if you will, of the territory and can help explain the basis of where the concept of language and representation evolved from.
Ok, so "invented" might have been the wrong term to use. How about "selected" as in natural selection?
Sure they do. The rules are stored in their memory. You had to learn the vocabulary, which means you had to learn what words referred to. Do you remember learning the vocabulary of your native language? You know the symbols others are using because you went to school and learned English.
Wow. Almost every sentence here is stating a negative without any reasons as to why you are disagreeing, which is effectively saying, "I just don't like what you've said and I'm not going to explain why". The only thing you've actually asserted here is that our minds create the world, but what does that even mean? What is a mind? What is the world? To say "our minds" is to imply that there are more than one. If there are more than one, then what is the medium that separates our minds, if not the world, for there to be more than one? This is a good example of misusing language in such a way as to create philosophical problems rather than solve them.