LogicMania

Isn't it crazy, the very nature of our language? We can never truly communicate what we mean 100% because we sometimes attach very personal meanings to words that other people couldn't fully understand or appreciate. A lot of problems could be completely avoided in politics, philosophy, and pretty much everything if people knew what everybody else meant by what they said completely. Of course that's why we should be as specific as possible with what we mean by our words. No matter how much we try to have our words match reality and attempt to make them describe reality perfectly we never fully can. We're trapped in our own little worlds in our heads never quite leaving us to understand and appreciate "it"...it being reality! That is our duty. We can with great methods of empiricism and our sharp consistent tools of rationalism try to leave our own subjective world and try to agree with each other on words and greatly increase our understanding of the world. That's really what it is all about isn't it? Being clear and concise about what we're talking about? With these wonderful tools (rationalism and empiricism) not only can we understand the world but we can understand the very thing that uses these tools: the brain! "The brain," as someone said, "is 3 pounds of spongy goop that can comprehend a universe lightyears in expanse" Ok so those weren't the exact words but you get the point. For a metaphysical system is inevitable that we must start with human concepts since that's all we have. We can further fashion these concepts and increase our awareness of the laws of nature. With logic and skilled empiricism we can conquer our selfishness, our nationalism, our anthropomorphism, and even our carbon-basedcentricism. We just need to learn to leave our own worlds before we can fully comprehend this world and that's not going to happen anytime soon if we can't put our own words in terms of reality instead of in terms of other words that we don't fully know in terms of reality. Hehe. We also need to agree on meanings. I guess this information is redundant but I think it needs to be stressed just as much as open-mindedness needs to be stressed. You can never over-stress concepts that better your psychological condition of life. So many ambiguities and problems with our daily communication just caused by selfishness, laziness, and perhaps fear.

LogicMania

Please post your comments. I'd deeply enjoy them.

Crito

Hey, LogicMania

I'm not too sure on this. Perhaps I misunderstood, but from my added emphasis above, it seems parallel to "I never eat because sometimes I'm full." And then I must ask, "But what about the times when you're not full?" So if I don't attach personal meanings--such as "I saw a dog"--am I still unable to truly communicate?

With this, I agree. Plato spent some time pointing out the importance of definition, because even a nuance in definition can cause serious miscommunication.

Again, I agree. Indeed, there are times we think we are clear, when we are actually the opposite. Sometimes, it's unintentional. But other times, we may intentionally be vague--as to avoid criticism or deceive.

Regardless, I think the emphasis should be on the concepts communicated. If a person with poor grammar or spelling communicates a brilliant idea, should the idea itself be degraded?

-Crito

tronvillain

Well, I think that sometimes we can "truly communicate what we mean"", but I think I see what you're trying to get at. Have you considered using paragraphs?

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Christopher Lord

Normal english is very informal, and words change quite often over time and space.

Lawyers, doctors, scientists, and other professionals who need 'perfect' transmission solve this by using 'option strict' on english.

What strikes me as odd is that philosophic professionals sometimes keep normal english in place of a strongly defined 'option strict' version. Perhaps this is due to the topic being fuzzy?

Synaesthesia

I suspect that is because the multiplicity of individual word's meaning is an integral aspect of the human language. Some philosophers opt for common language simply because human beings have invested (unconsciously) more energies in developing an understanding of these words and phrases. We are more likely to make useful connections and to be able to relate what the philosopher is saying to what we ourselves have been thinking.

three4jump

Let me see if I can guess what you are trying to communicate here.

A. You're a jerk.
B. You're very clever.
C. You are genuinely interested in discussing the topic, and you are just trying to be helpful.

Danya

Just a quick question. Can someone explain what 'option strict' means? I feel dumb asking but I have never heard of it before.

LogicMania

Crito said:I'm not too sure on this. Perhaps I misunderstood, but from my added emphasis above, it seems parallel to "I never eat because sometimes I'm full." And then I must ask, "But what about the times when you're not full?" So if I don't attach personal meanings--such as "I saw a dog"--am I still unable to truly communicate?

What I meant was that we attach different meanings to words. "I saw a dog" -well of course you're communicating that there was a dog that you saw. But perhaps there's a meaning behind it that I couldn't fully acknowledge because you have a fear of dogs and I don't. So when you say "I saw a dog" you're thinking "ahhhh...scary evil crazed animal going to kill me and bite my head off" and I stating the same proposition think "wow, it's a dog, wow".

Of course then you have the proposition "Christianity is stupid" and you say this because of your past experience with Christians never feeling secure at churches with them so you have just a bad feeling towards the entire religion to begin with. I having the same proposition "Christianity is stupid" but instead think this for an entirely different reason feeling that the doctrine of Holy Trinity is completely absurd and unsupported by even the Bible itself and the Doctrine of Original Sin could not be since how could I have sinned just for being born into this world when I didn't even make the moral choice?

Really the point that I was just trying to make was what others had caught onto and that was that we humans can not fully communicate things to each other and even to ourselves because we're impatient when it comes to agreeing on meanings to the words and phrases we use, we might deliberately not understand the meanings because of fear and arrogance, and it just takes a long time to just try to agree word for word what words means what.

LogicMania

What exactly is option strict? Are you just talking about words that people in a basic profession agree on the meanings of? I can understand why this isn't so in philosophy. Not many philosophers can agree on what anything means even what "philosophy" really means. Hehe.