What's the most interesting philosophical thing you've ever heard?

[uwot]

But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different. I would love a specific example...or two. Thanks.

There's a book called Through the Language Glass, by Guy Deutscher ('Jaw droppingly wonderful', according to Stephen Fry). I read it a while ago, so from memory an example that springs to mind are the different words that Russian has for dark blue and light blue. Apparently this makes Russian speakers quicker to identify the change from blue to green (or something). It's much more interesting than I am making it sound; there's a review of it here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011 ... her-review

[uwot]

So I say the sufficient condition for being good is being "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways."

By whose standards are you judging good and bad?

Also, yes. I'm fairly certain reason and I are in agreement.

Have you ever met some one who believes they are not in agreement with reason?

[Jaded Sage]

So I say the sufficient condition for being good is being "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways."

By whose standards are you judging good and bad?

Also, yes. I'm fairly certain reason and I are in agreement.

Have you ever met some one who believes they are not in agreement with reason?

I kinda already answered that first question.

Absurdists?

[Obvious Leo]

JS. Absurdism in philosophy is not seen as a refutation of reason but rather a refutation of an underpinning meaning to it. It's not a philosophical stance which I'm attracted to but it's soundly logically grounded, (which in itself might seem absurd.)

[Jaded Sage]

I think it's still fair to say they don't agree with it. Or is meaninglessness reasonable to agree with? I mean it seems regarding it as meaningless is the same as disagreeing with it.

Either way, the point is that, yes, reason and I agree on this issue. A lot of people do shit they later admit was unreasonable. But to guarantee that my approach is rational, I share it with you guys. Who better to point out my mistakes than my fellow thinkers?

[uwot]

So I say the sufficient condition for being good is being "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways."

By whose standards are you judging good and bad?

I kinda already answered that first question.

Do you mean in the original context?

Well, "we" do. I just say "I" because I'm the only one I know who is doing this. I suppose if someone else's reason disagrees with mine, we work together to see whose reason is more reasonable, or which solves the problem better, or which explains more.

So I say the sufficient condition for being good is being "that which is good in at least one way and bad in no more than zero ways." If another says, for instance, that more than a single good way is required, or that a single bad way is allowable, then we will have to debate it out.

If so, what are the terms of the debate? What are the standards of good and bad "we" or they are using to judge the outcome of the debate? If there are no objective criteria, is there anyway to avoid totalitarian oppression, or the tyranny of democracy?

[marjoram_blues]

But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different. I would love a specific example...or two. Thanks.

There's a book called Through the Language Glass, by Guy Deutscher ('Jaw droppingly wonderful', according to Stephen Fry). I read it a while ago, so from memory an example that springs to mind are the different words that Russian has for dark blue and light blue. Apparently this makes Russian speakers quicker to identify the change from blue to green (or something). It's much more interesting than I am making it sound; there's a review of it here: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011 ... her-review

Thanks for that, uwot. I'll look it up.

[marjoram_blues]

You are talking about your thought processes - the way you think. So, how come the way you think in a different language allows for different thoughts. How are your thoughts different? I can see that there would be a different way to express a thought - that's the nature of the lingo beast. But I can't see how the actual thoughts are different.

I may be over-reaching myself here and claiming something I can't explain, MB, but I'm not the only one to have noticed this. English is a finely nuanced language with an enormous vocabulary and this allows for a very finely nuanced structure to be applied to the way we express our thoughts. I'm probably not the best example to use to illustrate the significance of this because the only other language in which I am equally fluent is Dutch, and Dutch is not such a language. By comparison Dutch is a very simple language with a far narrower suite of words to choose from when it to comes to expressing a complex idea. It comes as no surprise to me that none of the great works of artistic literature have come from the pens of Dutch writers and yet this cannot be because the Dutch culture does not lend itself to high art. The Dutch have a tradition in the visual arts which is arguably second to none. Possibly the best way I can put this is to say that the simplicity of the rules of syntax in Dutch, along with its limited vocabulary, simply don't allow for the sort of richness of expression which is the wordsmith's stock in trade. This then raises the sort of chicken and egg dichotomy beloved of the philosophers of language. Do our words beget our ideas or do our ideas beget our words? As a writer I place myself firmly in the former camp. Writers continuously play with words as if they were toys to experiment with and very often it is in the way that words of very similar meaning are juxtaposed that the idea which the writer is trying to express is fully developed.

If you ask any writer how he does what he does he'll give you a similar answer. He just does it. He sits down with an embryonic germ of an idea and just starts constructing words around it with only the vaguest of notions as to what might come of it, if anything. You get better at this after 40 years of practice but essentially what happens is that the idea and the words used to express the idea evolve together from very humble origins. The idea and the words become inseparable and as many experts in the art of poetry will tell you many such co-evolutions are untranslatable into a different language. As an essayist in matters philosophical I've discovered that the same holds true for prose. Our thought processes are very much driven by the forms of language we devise in order to express them, which is really just a fancy way of saying that we make it up as we go along, but this is very much the way I would describe the evolution of our minds as we pursue our life's journey. We make it up as we go along and over time a rich tapestry of meaning emerges from all these juxtaposed processes of thought, rather like gradually assembling the pieces together in a jigsaw puzzle. It's mostly just a matter of trial and error which is occasionally rewarded with a minor epiphany.

I'm not suggesting that this can't be done in any language but merely suggesting that this can't be done in the same way in any language.

Wow - that's a lot to chew over. Will read later...

[Jaded Sage]

If so, what are the terms of the debate? What are the standards of good and bad "we" or they are using to judge the outcome of the debate? If there are no objective criteria, is there anyway to avoid totalitarian oppression, or the tyranny of democracy?

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "standard," we are creating a standard. Perhaps debate is the wrong word. I mean a discussion. I just mean something like spitballing and then arguing or explaining why one idea is better than another if they conflict. It seems like you're over thinking it. I usually just wing it.

Like I was just thinking maybe frequency should be a part of it. Always good or usually good or not never good. Never bad or not usually bad. Then you put that together with the other one I came up with. Or you can help come up with an example of something that is bad in no way.

[uwot]

Like I was just thinking maybe frequency should be a part of it.

That's democracy.

Always good or usually good or not never good. Never bad or not usually bad.

Who for?

Then you put that together with the other one I came up with.

What are people debating about if something is good/bad in "no more than zero ways"?

Or you can help come up with an example of something that is bad in no way.

Toughie. The best I can come up with is a 1952 Vincent Black Shadow.

[Obvious Leo]

Toughie. The best I can come up with is a 1952 Vincent Black Shadow.

Hunter S Thompson said that if you chose to ride one at high speed for a significant length of time you would surely die. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1971).

[Jaded Sage]

Like I was just thinking maybe frequency should be a part of it.

That's democracy.

Always good or usually good or not never good. Never bad or not usually bad.

Who for?

Then you put that together with the other one I came up with.

What are people debating about if something is good/bad in "no more than zero ways"?

Or you can help come up with an example of something that is bad in no way.

Toughie. The best I can come up with is a 1952 Vincent Black Shadow.

I think I was unclear about frequency. There should be a colon after it.

Second quote: you are asking a second question before answering the first. You might not be the man for the job here.

Third quote: well, for instance, should it be always, usually or not never? Also, later, for who.

Forth: it is very tough. For instance, can you come up with at least one way in which peace is bad?

[uwot]

Toughie. The best I can come up with is a 1952 Vincent Black Shadow.

Hunter S Thompson said that if you chose to ride one at high speed for a significant length of time you would surely die. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1971).

Leo, me old mucker; whatever I do for a significant length of time, I will surely die. Weet je wel.

[Obvious Leo]

Ik weet dat het goed, uwot. I was a bike nut myself before I grasped the concept of mortality but I've discovered since that all we need to do in order to die is to live long enough.

[uwot]

I think I was unclear about frequency. There should be a colon after it.

Second quote: you are asking a second question before answering the first. You might not be the man for the job here.

Well, strictly speaking, I was asking a question about a proposition, which seems reasonable enough. The point being that deciding good/bad by reference to frequency is different to doing so with reference to any objective standard. It is simply deciding good and bad by vote.

Third quote: well, for instance, should it be always, usually or not never? Also, later, for who.

That's exactly the question I put to you that makes you think I'm not up to the job.

Forth: it is very tough. For instance, can you come up with at least one way in which peace is bad?

I'm sure that once Hitler had eliminated everyone that he didn't like, the world would have been very peaceful. Sometimes you have to fight.