User Tag List
-
04-26-2007, 01:27 PM #41
-
04-26-2007, 01:28 PM #42
-
04-26-2007, 01:33 PM #43
Well than we have the Kantian distinction between the noumena and the phenomena.
Many things just can not be experienced and this is exactly where we run into the limitations of language.
For whatever we can experience we can talk about as we can expand our language to be fitting in that case.
Here are things that cant be experienced, time, space, motion, heat, light. And infinity of space and time is the root to many of them.
We can feel many of those, but we can't experience them for their innermost essence. Hence since God is infinite, we can never know what he is because we can only hear about him from testimony or draw conclusions based on partial evidence but we know not enough about him to reflect on him with sufficient plausibility.
But again, even many things of this world are so subjective, like for instance, the taste in your mouth, or this or that feeling can be symbolized, but only vaguely, hence we can keep on going down that route till the point where we find ourselves where we cant find the words that adequately depict what we are experiencing for all our worth.
-
04-26-2007, 01:41 PM #44
You're suggesting we need to come up with words to describe novel phenomena, correct?
I'm suggesting that your experience of the novel phenomena is necessarily limited by language. It's how we assess and describe things. What we ultimately call the phenomenon is irrelevant.
I... suppose. Yeah!
-
04-26-2007, 01:45 PM #45
We can still have thoughts that we cant describe. For instance when I read in a novel something that is confined by words, I can go on to dream about it and come up with ideas that are not limited by words. I am sure many creative artists had ideas that are literally indescribable.
-
04-26-2007, 01:56 PM #46
-
04-26-2007, 02:01 PM #47
The definition of truth in philosophy is like Euclid's axioms in geometry. It is a dangerous term to fling round. I will accept that truth is immutable in the sense that in any particular instance, what is true shall remain true, and what is false shall remain false.
The definition of truth is not immutable however, in many areas (e.g. formal logic) it is defined through linguistics as a property belonging to sentences. In this context the concept of absolute truth is nonsensical.
In any case I don't see the relevance of this to the subject at hand. The thread is about modern linguistic determinism. Is our language a limiting factor for thought? Arguments on this topic usually include silly references to Eskimos and different words for snow, or not so silly references (i.e. based on actual research) to counting ability in remote tribes that have limited number systems.
The way we think depends on the neurological structure of the brain.
The properties of the brain depend on physical processes, not philosophical ones.I'll get you my pretty, and your little hermit crab too!
-
04-26-2007, 03:03 PM #48
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 365
Originally Posted by Rajah
-
04-26-2007, 06:15 PM #49
Hmm, I'll have to dig up some resources (remember, I'm years out of practice!). I'll see what I can find, then post. Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring your questions, but I have to think about them some more.
EDIT - And wow, this is a pretty cool article.
I... suppose. Yeah!
-
04-29-2007, 01:09 AM #50
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 365
Well, in between some papers I'll probably talk to my old Linguistics and Psychology professors and get some links from here, and post them when I get around to all that. Thanks for the link.
Similar Threads
-
Is Kindred better for Rationals than Irrationals, due to shared Rational functions?
By strychnine in forum SocionicsReplies: 16Last Post: 04-20-2016, 06:14 PM -
Am I as terribly impractical as people tell me? Or is this normal for an INFJ?
By Athenian200 in forum General PsychologyReplies: 36Last Post: 08-05-2007, 03:42 PM