Was Wittgenstein a fool?

[Jehu]

ughaibu,

 

On the contrary Sir, the reason that the definitions in question appear to you to be contradictory is that you hold a metaphysical view of reality that is itself rife with logical contradictions. Some of the greatest thinkers in history (Zeno, Nagarjuna, Hume, Berkley, McTaggart, etc.) have tried to point out these contradictions, but to little avail. The reason for their failure is, as A.J Ayers insinuates in “The Central Questions of Philosophy”, because naive realism offers a more satisfying explanation of the world than does the idea that we are all under the influence of an illusion. In other words, people will accept that view which is most simple, regardless of whether it is logically tenable.

 

The truth of the matter is, that given all of the mind-power and technological resources that have been expended in pursuit of this elusive “material substance” that physicalists hold to be the essential element of reality, no such element has ever been isolated. In fact, it would appear that the more fundamental the objects of our observation, the less matter-like they appear to be. Actually, many realists have now abandoned to notion of a particle altogether, and are now claiming that matter is nothing more than complex wave patterns in space. This theory, although closer to the truth than the materialistic view, is still well off the mark.

 

Ayers was himself a realist, though not of the naïve variety, but admitted that he could not refute the sceptic’s arguments, but maintained that there were three criteria for a thing to be real; (1) that they were accessible to more than one sense, (2) that they were accessible to more than one observer, and (3) that they continued to exist even when completely unobserved. The third criterion is of course inadmissible because it does not submit to scientific verification, therefore, like “Schrodinger’s Cat” we shall never know unless we look. The logical flaw in the remain criteria are that both presuppose that there are independent entities, senses in the first case, and observers in the second. Now, as the sceptical view holds that all reality is unified, and that there is only the appearance of separateness, these criteria prove nothing whatsoever.

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

None of which changes the fact that reality and illusion, and existence and non-existence, are incompatible pairs. A logical fallacy isn't removed by asserting that you have a system which is exempt from the fallacy, in fact, as such a claim also constitutes a fallacy, the fallacy is compounded.

[Kriminal99]

I sorry Sir, but you hold any entirely erroneous view of the way that languages operate. The words in a language mean whatever the users of a language (as a whole) prescribe them to mean, this is what enables them to communicate at all. Words are merely pointers, and in this way they are ostensive, but the objects to which they point are mental concepts, and so are not perceptible to others, and so cannot be defined ostensively. By this I mean that we cannot literally point to a mental concept, as we would say to a bicycle.

 

What makes it possible to communicate a concept is that we have developed a language which comprises conventionally prescribed pointers (symbols) with which we have previously agreed to associate certain kinds of basic concepts. Now, if we do not know what these associated concepts are, such as with a foreign language that we do not know, or if we decide to associate some other concept of our own with the same symbol, the ability to communicate is completely lost. So you see, we cannot simply disregard what the general user of the language hold a word to mean, and still expect that they will understand what we are saying. Is this not reasonable Sir?

 

The philosophical meaning of a term, is a precise meaning that has been agreed upon by the philosophical community, so as ensure that philosophers are able to understand one another, and not become embroiled in endless arguments as to what a given term means. Could you imagine Sir, if one simple used whatever symbols one wished to express a mathematical formula, what sort of nonsense would that produce?

 

Jehu

 

What are you talking about pointing? I am outlining the function of discrete sensory memories that makes up the concept of "real". The way in which we use it allows one to deductively reason what that function is. Or you can just say how we use it is the function.

 

I can point to the way in which the concept real is used, and someone reading can say "yeah that is the way it is used" or "no it isn't". If there were another use of the word real though, and I was paying attention, then I would have seen it to. Then I can deductively reason from there and people can share and follow that deductive reasoning. Whether or not this has anything to do with "pointing" it can certainly be done.

 

As for your defense of the dictionary, yes if you completely destroy all standards then languages spin off into dialects each representing a group of people that commonly interact with one another... But it is nonetheless a fallacy to refer to a definition as support for an argument. Anyone who talks about the definition of real is talking about what it should be not what it is in a certain dictionary. And frankly the definition you gave has no place in a dictionary because it is completely arbitrary in that it is not what the average person would say about the word real. Not to mention its just flat out wrong, but any determination of right or wrong that doesn't refer to the average person's understanding of the concept doesn't belong in the dictionary because you should be able to convince everyone if your definition is correct without trying to force it on them by sneaking it in the dictionary.

 

Arguing over definitions is what philosophers do. There is no philosophical hivemind that agrees on a given definition of the word real. This is the same with every discipline, but ESPECIALLY with philosophers. You are referring to some bias process by which the definition of the word real is determined such as whichever school donated the most money to the dictionary makers gets to have their philosophy department define words.

 

Many mathematicians have created their own mathematical symbols and systems. As long as you give someone the information to build an understanding of the new mathematical symbols it is fine. By the way, this is exactly what argument is. Someone provides an argument in an attempt to cause you to attach more information to certain concepts... Thats why it is a fallacy to refer to a concept's textbook definition in an argument...

 

If you go listen to a rap song by ludicris and he says " I B ROLLIN ON 22's" people aren't like "oh the dictionary says this statement makes no sense". What this means is the dictionary does not represent or dictate anything. The meaning of a word changes every time it is used. The dictionary is just to prevent the tower of babble scenario from occuring.

[Jehu]

None of which changes the fact that reality and illusion, and existence and non-existence, are incompatible pairs. A logical fallacy isn't removed by asserting that you have a system which is exempt from the fallacy, in fact, as such a claim also constitutes a fallacy, the fallacy is compounded.

Why Sir do you keep insisting that reality and illusion are incompatible, that existence and non-existence are incompatible? Can you not see that these pairs are not opposites, but complements. Can you not see how reality and illusion complete one another in a higher “universe of discourse”, for what possible sense would it make to say that something was real, if there were nothing that was illusory (not real). These pairs do not abide in dynamic opposition, but in harmonic accord. Although I said that there was nothing that could be said to be non-existent, this does not deny non-existence categorically, but merely says that as it can have distinguishable characteristics, it cannot be taken as an object of mind, that is, it cannot be a thing. However, if it were not for non-existence, everything that did exist would be crammed together so tightly as to preclude any activity at all.

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: Yes, a husband and wife are complimentary, that doesn't mean that the wife is the husband or vice versa. Existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive by virtue of the "non"! You have a contradiction. Misrepresenting my meaning doesn't answer my objection, it is trivial and wastes my time.

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

Very well Sir, by what mechanism are you “outlining the function of discrete sensory memories that makes up the concept of "real"? You have put forward this proposition and now I would like to know how you are able to make public what is an entirely private concept. Let me be perfectly clear here, for I do not want there to be any doubt as to what I am asking. I would like to hear precisely how it is that one person can communicate a concept to another, without that they use some symbol, the meaning or association of which, is conventionally prescribed. And also, how exactly do we know in what way a word is to be used, if there is no collective and prior agreement? You have convinced me Sir that you may be right in this matter, and now there is only the matter of your providing a logical demonstration. However, keep in mind that I am to be free to interpret your words however I see fit!

 

Jehu

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal99

 

Very well Sir, by what mechanism are you “outlining the function of discrete sensory memories that makes up the concept of "real"? You have put forward this proposition and now I would like to know how you are able to make public what is an entirely private concept. Let me be perfectly clear here, for I do not want there to be any doubt as to what I am asking. I would like to hear precisely how it is that one person can communicate a concept to another, without that they use some symbol, the meaning or association of which, is conventionally prescribed. And also, how exactly do we know in what way a word is to be used, if there is no collective and prior agreement? You have convinced me Sir that you may be right in this matter, and now there is only the matter of your providing a logical demonstration. However, keep in mind that I am to be free to interpret your words however I see fit!

 

Jehu

 

A language may be a collective and prior agreement as to meanings of words, but the words that are so easily agreed upon are not complex ones such as real or time. We have both seen that the result of people harboring different beliefs as to what complex ideas like "reasoning" are causes difficulty in communication. And I think this is a pretty common thing. But you are not going to see much disagreement on the vast majority of words.

 

You say that definitions should be chosen as best they can and then everyone should use these definitions. I believe this would force people to create completely new words (something that is quite hard to do) whenever they want to label a new concept, even if that concept is meant to replace a previously existing one or provide a slight modification to a previously existing one. So if a bear was previously defined as a brown haired large mammal and then a polar bear was discovered, you couldn't say "brown should be stricken from the definition of bear because if the polar wasn't brown then by current definition it wasn't a bear. Never mind it shared all those characteristics with brown haired bears. Instead you would have to call it something new and define it similarly to bears but that had white hair.

 

I think the alternative is to create a possible model for what a word really is and then to make sure that other people can recreate this model in the same way you did. Then if the other people can follow your reasoning and your model explains what they see better than their previous one they will start using your definition instead. So in other words if you were to say, what if we were to define bears as animals with all the features that bears previously had, but instead of only having brown hair they could have white hair as well. If after this, the person went on to use the term bear to refer to polars, then anyone that read the previous sentence would know what was meant. Then when all was said in done they would look at the two models they had seen and decide which one was better. Should I remain to think of a bear as a brown haired mammal or should I define a bear as being able to have different color hair?

 

All that is neccessary for this to work is some common ground somewhere that a person can use to initiate communication and then they can use that communication to explain how they define the rest of things. Language contains enough concepts that are so simple they would not likely be debated and these can be used as a foundation to initiate communication, and if not there is still non verbal communication to serve as a foundation.

[Jehu]

Jehu: Yes, a husband and wife are complimentary, that doesn't mean that the wife is the husband or vice versa. Existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive by virtue of the "non"! You have a contradiction. Misrepresenting my meaning doesn't answer my objection, it is trivial and wastes my time.

ughaibu

 

Take a universe of discourse such as “all declarative propositions”, and you will find that it may be divided into two sub-sets; those proposition that are “true”, and those that are “not true”. Now, although these two sub-sets are mutually exclusory, that is, a proposition cannot belong to both sets a once, a proposition might rightfully belong to one set now, and to the other set at some later date. For instance, I might say that I am of a certain age today, but because tomorrow is my birthday, today’s statement may no longer be true. In any event, nothing may be said to be true except for the possibility that they might be something that is untrue, and the converse is true as well, for the two terms are complementary (not complimentary). Clearly, the terms “existent” and “nonexistent” simply denote the two interdependent and complementary elements of what might be called the “absolute universe of discourse”, that is, the totality of all that can be perceived or thought about. I see no contradiction here!

 

Jehu

[Jehu]

Kriminal 99

 

I am afraid that you have misconstrued my statements regarding the use of a dictionary. I did not imply that “definitions should be chosen as best they can and then everyone should use these definitions”. Definitions are derived by lexicographer by analysis of their common usage. They do this by examining a large sample of current writings, representing a broad range different professions and disciplines, all in an attempt to capture the many different ways that we currently use a term. So you see, it is we, the users of the language, that collectively determine what its words mean, and so their meanings may drift as time progresses, sometime to the point that we no longer understand their original meanings, for example, the term “vain” originally meant “empty”, but has now come to mean something quite different. Clearly then we cannot use the present meaning of the word “vain” to interpret writings from periods where the word meant “empty”.

 

With respect to your example of the bear. Brown is not a quality or characteristic that is unique to a “bear”, but only to a “brown bear”. When we wish to distinguish between things of the same class, such as bears, we simply modify the term to reflect the distinguishing characteristic such as: brown, black, grisly, polar, etc., we need not alter the definition of a bear, for this definition is common to all bears. It would seem to me Sir, that you are trying to fix something that is not broken! Perhaps you time might be better served if you put your efforts into fully utilizing the language we already have, than in trying to create a new one?

 

Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu:

Your post is yet again irrelevant, false reasoning. Your position was 'A is B' and 'A is not B', it wasn't 'A is B' and 'A was not B'.

That your original argument is false by contradiction was pointed out to you in post 22, this is now post 44, I have no intention of addressing further false "supporting" arguments, it's boring. The credibility, to me, of your claims to be a philosopher, seeker of truth and champion of logic, depend entirely on your reply to this post.

[Jehu]

ughaibu

 

Very well Sir, as you appear to be earnest in your desire to see what I am saying, I will make one last attempt to communicate it, however, you must make an effort to follow the logic of it, an not simply dismiss it because it seems strange or contradictory. Because you appear to be a physicalist, I shall offer a material example of the principle in question, and I am able to do so, because this same principle underlies all things, regardless of their class.

 

Consider a lump of clay, it possesses both a substance as well as a structure, and this is true of all material things, for it is implicit in the definition of, “matter”, that it both possess mass and occupy space. If I form this clay so that it has a bowl-like structure, then people will say that it is a “bowl”, but if I form it so as to have a plate-like structure, then people will say that it is a “plate”. Thus, the exact same clay can be first a lump (indeterminate thing), then a bowl, then a plate.

 

However, whatever sort of thing I form the clay into, it still only clay, for whatever structure I may impart upon it, that structure is non-substantial. Nevertheless, we are able to differentiate between the lump, the bowl, and the plate, even though they are substantially identical, therefore we cannot say that because the structure of a thing is non-substantial, that it is not an essential element of the thing, for how else would we differentiate one thing from another.

 

Thus, it may be asserted that the substantial element of a thing (substance) and its non-substantial element (structure) are both necessary and sufficient to our being able to perceive the thing. It follows then that these elements are interdependent, for we cannot perceive one without the other. By this, I mean that we cannot perceive any substance without that it have some structure, even though that structure be indeterminate (e.g., lump, glob, puddle, etc.), nor can we perceive a structure without that is embodied in some sort of substance, for what could we see. Now, as these two elements are necessary and sufficient to our perceiving a thing, they may be asserted to be complementary, for they complete one another in the thing-itself, and in the absence of either one there is nothing that can be perceived.

 

Here then is my demonstration Sir, of how that which is (substance) and that which is not (substance), are bound together in a single entity (a thing), by a principle that clearly refutes the so called “irrefutable principle”, the “Law of Excluded Middle.” This “Principle of Interdependent Complementarity” was embodied by the ancient Taoist philosophers in the symbol called the “Tai Chi Tu”, and though it true meaning has be long ago lost, it still remains on of the most potent of all ancient symbols.

 

I thank you for your patience Sir, but if you cannot see the truth in what I have written here, then as you say, we are wasting one another’s time. However, if you would like to pursue this principle with me in earnest then simply start a new thread entitled “Is there a Absolute Principle” or something like that, and I will be pleased to continue, but I am afraid that I have nothing more to offer on the subjects of either Wittgenstein or determinism.

 

Best regards, Jehu

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal 99

 

I am afraid that you have misconstrued my statements regarding the use of a dictionary. I did not imply that “definitions should be chosen as best they can and then everyone should use these definitions”. Definitions are derived by lexicographer by analysis of their common usage. They do this by examining a large sample of current writings, representing a broad range different professions and disciplines, all in an attempt to capture the many different ways that we currently use a term. So you see, it is we, the users of the language, that collectively determine what its words mean, and so their meanings may drift as time progresses, sometime to the point that we no longer understand their original meanings, for example, the term “vain” originally meant “empty”, but has now come to mean something quite different. Clearly then we cannot use the present meaning of the word “vain” to interpret writings from periods where the word meant “empty”.

 

With respect to your example of the bear. Brown is not a quality or characteristic that is unique to a “bear”, but only to a “brown bear”. When we wish to distinguish between things of the same class, such as bears, we simply modify the term to reflect the distinguishing characteristic such as: brown, black, grisly, polar, etc., we need not alter the definition of a bear, for this definition is common to all bears. It would seem to me Sir, that you are trying to fix something that is not broken! Perhaps you time might be better served if you put your efforts into fully utilizing the language we already have, than in trying to create a new one?

 

Jehu

 

If you understand that then why are you bringing up dictionary definitions in a debate as if they are to dictate what something should mean rather than just follow whatever conclusions people come to?

 

The example involving bears was a generality, and not meant to be connected to the actual real life definition of a bear. If it makes it easier, you can pick any trait of any grouping of life forms and then add another life form that shares all traits with that group except one and then modify the definition of the grouping or come up with a totally new name for the old grouping minus the differing trait and see which one is easier.

 

Or to be as general as possible and highlight the point of this exercise, you could take the definition of any concept, and gain more insight into what that concept really is and then choose to either redefine the concept to reflect what you now know about it or make up a new name for this better understood version of the concept. Personally I don't think there are enough names in the world to come up with a new one every time we realize a previously used definition of something was a mistake.

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

You have still missed my point Sir. It is not for you or I to arbitrarily redefine a term, though we are certainly included in the larger universe of English speaker, and so do have an impact on how a term is defined. My point al along has been, that if we are to communicate clearly and efficiently with one another, we must adopt the standard meaning of the terms we intend to use, otherwise, we simply will not understand which concept the given term is pointing to. If we truly wish to gain more insight into the meaning of a term, then we must carefully examine the subsidiary concepts (terms) that are embedded in the subject term’s definition. For example, you will not find a definition for the term “the nature of reality”, but you may derive such a definition from the definitions of it constituent terms, “nature” and “reality”. Certainly there is no problem with coining a new term to denote a new or foreign concept, for this is how it has always been done. But if we feel we have a better definition of an existing concept, then we had best be sure that our new definition encompasses all of the currently existing meanings.

 

As for the example of the bear, I am afraid that was fully aware of the fact that you were generalizing, and I apologize for taking advantage in that manner.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu:

1) The assertion, "the substantial element of a thing (substance) and its non-substantial element (structure) are both necessary and sufficient to our being able to perceive the thing", is false. There are substances, such as hydrogen cyanide or hydrogen sulphide, which are lethal, perception of these substances is extremely useful, yet they have no structure, so much so that in attempting to escape from these substances, the victim may easily move further into danger.

2) This post is also irrelevant. That a real object may have, simultaneously, both structure and substance doesn't imply that it also, simultaneously, can have both existence and non-existence. If the clay is a bowl, then it is not a vase, it can only have one structural state at any one time and it can only have one substantial state at any one time, likewise it can only have one existential state at any one time. In post 42, you suggest that existence and non-existence are both qualities of an object, because they may both describe that object but at different times, if such is the case, you will need to apply this to your lump of clay.

You aren't saying anything about reality, you are merely attempting to remove the reliability of language, and attempting to communicate this by using that very language.

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal99

 

You have still missed my point Sir. It is not for you or I to arbitrarily redefine a term, though we are certainly included in the larger universe of English speaker, and so do have an impact on how a term is defined. My point al along has been, that if we are to communicate clearly and efficiently with one another, we must adopt the standard meaning of the terms we intend to use, otherwise, we simply will not understand which concept the given term is pointing to. If we truly wish to gain more insight into the meaning of a term, then we must carefully examine the subsidiary concepts (terms) that are embedded in the subject term’s definition. For example, you will not find a definition for the term “the nature of reality”, but you may derive such a definition from the definitions of it constituent terms, “nature” and “reality”. Certainly there is no problem with coining a new term to denote a new or foreign concept, for this is how it has always been done. But if we feel we have a better definition of an existing concept, then we had best be sure that our new definition encompasses all of the currently existing meanings.

 

As for the example of the bear, I am afraid that was fully aware of the fact that you were generalizing, and I apologize for taking advantage in that manner.

 

Regards, Jehu

 

I don't think forcing a new definition to encompass old definitions to be a valid goal in every case. My response to what you have said here was that the definition of some words are not debated simply because they are such simple concepts that it is not neccessary. These words create a foundation such that we need not worry about eliminating the ability to communicate when redefining concepts.

 

Think of a concept like morality. You cannot define morality without including your beliefs about what constitutes moral and immoral acts or using some kind of fairly circular definition. Yet morality is something that has been debated forever. The idea of a definition that should not be tossed aside in favor of whatever the best understanding of morality a person has is to claim that people should arbitrarily accept your viewpoint. Thus it is fitting that everyone should have a different definition of morality until an argument has been made regarding it that everyone can agree to.

 

On the other hand if you are talking about a word like green it is different. I wouldn't reverse the definitions of green and red simply to cause confusion.

 

I think the real issue here is that when you have 2 people with different beliefs, you have to find exactly where their 2 belief sets diverge and start the discussion from there. And not use any terms that depend on concepts that are past this point of divergence. No rules of definition are going to allow someone to circumvent this need.

[Jehu]

Jehu:

1) The assertion, "the substantial element of a thing (substance) and its non-substantial element (structure) are both necessary and sufficient to our being able to perceive the thing", is false. There are substances, such as hydrogen cyanide or hydrogen sulphide, which are lethal, perception of these substances is extremely useful, yet they have no structure, so much so that in attempting to escape from these substances, the victim may easily move further into danger.

2) This post is also irrelevant. That a real object may have, simultaneously, both structure and substance doesn't imply that it also, simultaneously, can have both existence and non-existence. If the clay is a bowl, then it is not a vase, it can only have one structural state at any one time and it can only have one substantial state at any one time, likewise it can only have one existential state at any one time. In post 42, you suggest that existence and non-existence are both qualities of an object, because they may both describe that object but at different times, if such is the case, you will need to apply this to your lump of clay.

You aren't saying anything about reality, you are merely attempting to remove the reliability of language, and attempting to communicate this by using that very language.

Ughaibu

 

I’m sorry Sir, but I find it exceedingly difficult to follow your argument. You claim that hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide do not have structures, but this is simply not true. Every molecule, simple or compound, has structure Sir, and this fact may be verified in any high school chemistry text. Now, you are either woefully lacking in scientific instruction, or you are trying to snow me. In either case, I see no point in our continuing our discourse, for it is obvious that your intention is simply to win the argument. If this is the case Sir, then I will happily concede!

 

Jehu

[Jehu]

Kriminal99

 

Let me see if I understand what you meant in your last post. You seem to be saying that there is some finite set of basic concepts (such as colours) for which it is important that we do not arbitrarily redefine them, lest it “cause confusion”. However, beyond that basic level, you believe that we must be free to define higher concepts as best suits us a individuals. And in your final paragraph you seem to imply that terms, or their definitions, are somehow related to beliefs. I hope that I have not misinterpreted you.

 

As you say, there must be some basic set of concepts upon which all higher concepts are founded, although no one has ever truly defined this set. Now, a definition is nothing more than a breaking down of a complex concept into its simpler constituent concepts. For example, one definition of a “thing”, is “any idea, object, or activity that can be perceived or thought about”. Another definition of a “thing” is “an unspecified object or item”. The reason there is more than one definition of a “thing” is because we, the English speaking world, use this same term in several slight different senses. The dictionary does dictate to us which sense of the word we are to use, but merely tells us in what senses that word will be understood by the English speaking world. However, if we as individuals or small groups, prescribe that same term to have a different meaning (definition), then we will only be understood within that small group. This is the problem with using jargon.

 

Now, clearly we each have our own mental concept that we associate with a particular term (e.g., morality), for we do not generally develop our concepts by using a dictionary, but pick them up from conversations, by inference. As a result, there is an inherent uncertainty in our discourse with others, for the concept the we have in mind when we use a certain term is not the exact same concept that arises in the mind of the listener when they hear the term. Morality means one thing to me and another to you, and yet there must be some similarity in the two concepts, else we could not communicate at all. Now, if our particular concept of morality is not represented among the various common uses that occur in the dictionary, then we must resort to the use of simpler concepts to get our meaning across, for we cannot simply redefine the term, that is, not if we wish to be understood.

 

One last point. I’m not certain as to what rules of definition you refer. The only rules that apply to a definition is that must contain the essence of the term’s meaning, expressed in concepts that are simpler and so more widely understood. Philosophical definitions, for example, are attempts by philosophers to more precisely sum up what is meant by all the various senses of a term, and in this way, a philosophical definition is more complex, for it conveys more information. So you see, when I say that a term is defined in a certain way, I am saying that this is the common understanding of the word, as I intend to use it, and not that it is the only understanding of the word.

 

Jehu