Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: It still seems as though you don't understand my absolute truth. For me all it means is that each object has contained within itself, it's absolute truth. Which is to say that just because a particular human says something about a particular object doesn't necessarily mean that it's based in the absolute truth of that object.

I think I do understand.
'each object has containted within itself, its absolute truth'. OK: what is it? what is that Ab Truth?.
It's nature; It's essence! In their entirety, different for each particular object.

And, am I correct in your view that through knowledge, that is, through a particular method of knowledge, say, the scientific or experimental method, we one day will discover this Absolute Truth of the object? Or will we not? or is it unknown whether we will (in that to suggest that a method could discover the 'AbT' would be to suggest that its is an Absolutly True method) ?
With any particular object, Correct, we cannot say we can, only that we have (even that is debatable). A priori can only initially be said to be belief and a posteriori can either initially be said to be belief or truth, but the truth is not necessarily definite.

For instance in quantum mechanics there is an experiment whereby electrons are fired through a plate with two vertical slits to a sensor. The patterns of sensed hits are multiple vertical bars exceeding two such that their hypothesis is that the particles, after passing through the two slits form combined wave patterns having multiple peaks that coincide with the positions of the sensed bar patterns.

The first thing I thought was, I wonder if they considered that the number of possible deflection angles of the electrons that struck the edge of the slits may coincide with the distinct vertical bar patterns, such that their findings are merely a function of the parts used in the experiment. So that my questions as to the plate would be what is it's material, how thick, what's the cross-sectional shape of it's edges, was the material permeable, could the material maintain a static charge, would it support eddy currents, it's porosity, etc. All of these questions could play a part and should be eliminated.

so at what point in finding particles of matter/the universe will we say we have discovered the Absolute Truth of our universe? Do you think it is plausible that one day we will find that particle? what would happen if we did?
To both questions, I don't know! You're guess is as good as mine, Lance.

When the definitions and terms indicate a circularity, what does that mean?
As far as I'm concerned, the fact of perceived circular reference in a dictionary, does not undermine a words associated meaning, but is merely a method used by the dictionary writers, in teaching synonyms, thus allowing for a more thorough understanding of a particular word, via a potentially more commonly associated word. So it's merely cross reference.

what does this say of my/our knowledge by which we maintain Ab Truth?
I don't see the preconceived correlation.
Is the method by which we add knowledge/new terms gaining upon the Absolute Truth of the matter?
Of course we've made some progress, Lance.

Personally,
I dont know if I would want to be around when we found the particle which explains the whole Absolute Truth of existence. I think life would be kinda boreing after that; dont you?
Lance, I'm not worried about boring, that would be a good thing, I'm worried about annihilation of the species. I believe I truthfully speak for everyone when I say that I'm not afraid of death, but I am afraid of dying. But beyond all that, I don't want mankind to kill himself off due to his current selfish nature. I have children, and so do they, etc. I want something better for them than selfish annihilation.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:WRITTEN OR VERBAL, I figure sooner or later you'll get it. You have merely failed to entertain a particular scenario in your head, If you continually fail to do so, you shall continually appear to be ever increasingly silly.

Yes and no, Women just have some peculiar issues dealing with comprehension and logic. They're better at nurturing and love though, you got to give them that victory.

There you go again, straying. I shall not argue the argument, that's your responsibility.

There you go again. We are in fact using language, are we not! (<-hint: for the previous)[/color]

Covering doesn't matter, insuring understanding does, however.

lancek4 wrote:I think huge text is the way to absolute truth.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:WRITTEN OR VERBAL, I figure sooner or later you'll get it. You have merely failed to entertain a particular scenario in your head, If you continually fail to do so, you shall continually appear to be ever increasingly silly.

That would depend upon who I thought was judging, as I've appeared silly to some very smart people and so far you are not one of them.
The truth is that I'm one of them. And I shall do you the courtesy of showing you your error instead of calling you stupid, as you have called me, if only, in so far as. But because of this I shall not entertain anything further in this message of yours, such that if you want me to consider it, you shall have to say it all over again after your apology. I think that a fitting punishment for your insolence in the face of your error.

First, I believe your errors (<--Plural) are due to your, only including a previous quote of the one you're addressing, such that you forget what it is that's being talked about and you only address the point you think you see. Because of this the conversation meanders and nothing gets said about the original point. With you it's just a never ending montage of "circular responses." I'm sure it's coincidence that you see them in dictionaries as well!

OK now, I'll remind you of what it was that we were originally talking about that you seem to be attempting to side step. Remember I gave you an out, in your only quoting the immediately preceding message.

We were talking on the internet in a forum like we are now, using LANGUAGE, and I quoted a dictionary and you said it was circular thus trying to undermine my using it, or why else bring it up, AS YOU WERE USING LANGUAGE TOO. WHICH WOULD DEFEAT YOURSELF AS WELL, AS WE WERE BOTH USING LANGUAGE!!!! AND AS SUCH WE OWE it to each other to use universal dictionary meanings and not some half baked mental interpretation that ARISING_UK might see differently due to her STUBBORNESS! because the one you are talking to has no way of knowing that you've decided to you your OWN MENTAL DICTIONARY. Otherwise we might as well not speak at all because we then say nothing at all, just spout our OWN PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS which is worthless and a waste of time, because in that case neither one necessarily knows what the other is talking about.

You see it has nothing to do with how we learn but how we should TALK IN A FORUM USING LANGUAGE.

Do you finally get it now or do you want to ignore it and meander some more? And don't use your fall back of "why didn't you say so" it was contextually understood, which you could have seen had you not deleted all the prior quotes from your immediate response message. Well at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


Have you watched children learn a language? The meaning of words are in the states of mind produced, not the symbols used to produce them. That when you have a language you can talk to oneself is its genius and confusion.

Yes and no, Women just have some peculiar issues dealing with comprehension and logic. They're better at nurturing and love though, you got to give them that victory.

I think this you just talking out of your cultural arse. But lets say its true, if so then given that from my experience 90+% of men appear to have the same issues it appears, to me, to not be a gender issue but just ignorance. I find this reinforced by my experience of meeting some very smart women in the field of linguistics and artificial intelligence. We can also find women of great comprehension and logic in History, as many as men? No, but given the world they made it in, they must have been doubly smart.

There you go again, straying. I shall not argue the argument, that's your responsibility.

I'm not 'straying', I'm trying to clarify for myself what it is you are saying.

There you go again. We are in fact using language, are we not! (<-hint: for the previous)[/color]

We are and a very specific form, writing. Do you think the illiterate unable to use a language?

Covering doesn't matter, insuring understanding does, however.

No-eyed deer what you mean by "Covering"? And did you mean "insuring" or ensuring?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The truth is that I'm one of them. And I shall do you the courtesy of showing you your error instead of calling you stupid, as you have called me, if only, in so far as. ...

But because of this I shall not entertain anything further in this message of yours, such that if you want me to consider it, you shall have to say it all over again after your apology. I think that a fitting punishment for your insolence in the face of your error.

First, I believe your errors (<--Plural) are due to your, only including a previous quote of the one you're addressing, such that you forget what it is that's being talked about and you only address the point you think you see. Because of this the conversation meanders and nothing gets said about the original point. With you it's just a never ending montage of "circular responses." I'm sure it's coincidence that you see them in dictionaries as well!

OK now, I'll remind you of what it was that we were originally talking about that you seem to be attempting to side step. Remember I gave you an out, in your only quoting the immediately preceding message.

We were talking on the internet in a forum like we are now, using LANGUAGE, and I quoted a dictionary and you said it was circular thus trying to undermine my using it, or why else bring it up, AS YOU WERE USING LANGUAGE TOO. WHICH WOULD DEFEAT YOURSELF AS WELL, AS WE WERE BOTH USING LANGUAGE!!!! AND AS SUCH WE OWE it to each other to use universal dictionary meanings and not some half baked mental interpretation that ARISING_UK might see differently due to her STUBBORNESS! because the one you are talking to has no way of knowing that you've decided to you your OWN MENTAL DICTIONARY. Otherwise we might as well not speak at all because we then say nothing at all, just spout our OWN PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS which is worthless and a waste of time, because in that case neither one necessarily knows what the other is talking about.[/size]

You see it has nothing to do with how we learn but how we should TALK IN A FORUM USING LANGUAGE.

Do you finally get it now or do you want to ignore it and meander some more? And don't use your fall back of "why didn't you say so" it was contextually understood, which you could have seen had you not deleted all the prior quotes from your immediate response message. Well at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The truth is that I'm one of them. And I shall do you the courtesy of showing you your error instead of calling you stupid, as you have called me, if only, in so far as. ...

In so far as what?

So you can call me silly and I can't point out that you're not as smart of those I've met who have called me that? Aw! Boo! Boos!

What gives you this truth that you claim?

But because of this I shall not entertain anything further in this message of yours, such that if you want me to consider it, you shall have to say it all over again after your apology. I think that a fitting punishment for your insolence in the face of your error.

Ooo! Whats your dom name you big butch man you!

LMAO! At the prissy little patriarchal world you live in, you think your demands and tantrums cut much ice here? Don't hold your breath waiting for this apology.

First, I believe your errors (<--Plural) are due to your, only including a previous quote of the one you're addressing, such that you forget what it is that's being talked about and you only address the point you think you see. Because of this the conversation meanders and nothing gets said about the original point. With you it's just a never ending montage of "circular responses." I'm sure it's coincidence that you see them in dictionaries as well!

Unfortunately for you I've been trained in academic philosophy, as such I can keep a train of thought and don't need your colourful approach to quotes. If I'm informed I've missed the point then I just read back and so far its been far and few between where this has been necessary. Whereas you appear to have great trouble with nuance.

OK now, I'll remind you of what it was that we were originally talking about that you seem to be attempting to side step. Remember I gave you an out, in your only quoting the immediately preceding message.

We were talking on the internet in a forum like we are now, using LANGUAGE, and I quoted a dictionary and you said it was circular thus trying to undermine my using it, or why else bring it up, AS YOU WERE USING LANGUAGE TOO. WHICH WOULD DEFEAT YOURSELF AS WELL, AS WE WERE BOTH USING LANGUAGE!!!! AND AS SUCH WE OWE it to each other to use universal dictionary meanings and not some half baked mental interpretation that ARISING_UK might see differently due to her STUBBORNESS! because the one you are talking to has no way of knowing that you've decided to you your OWN MENTAL DICTIONARY. Otherwise we might as well not speak at all because we then say nothing at all, just spout our OWN PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS which is worthless and a waste of time, because in that case neither one necessarily knows what the other is talking about.[/size]

You sound like a petulant child or a disturbed adult. I said dictionaries are essentially circular, not that Language is, as I understand the meaning of a language to be the representation of thoughts or states of 'mind', which are essentially perceptions. Whereas you appear to think it in the symbols or writing?
It would seem you're just dense, can you say "Super Massive Black Hole?"
Did you teach your kids to speak?

You see it has nothing to do with how we learn but how we should TALK IN A FORUM USING LANGUAGE.

No idea what you are talking about here?

Do you finally get it now or do you want to ignore it and meander some more? And don't use your fall back of "why didn't you say so" it was contextually understood, which you could have seen had you not deleted all the prior quotes from your immediate response message. Well at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You ever going to answer a question? I need not your benefit. Nor to know about your thoughts about it?
A Dictionary is standardization, my fool, so that we can agree or disagree, without it, it's impossible. Where do you think a dictionary came from sweetheart?

Teach a child a "with" better yet teach them a "for" Oh I got it, if you're consistent in your teaching model I can only imagine how you taught your children sex, You pervert!

Did I make my point oh you Black Hole?
...

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The truth is that I'm one of them. And I shall do you the courtesy of showing you your error instead of calling you stupid, as you have called me, if only, in so far as. ...

In so far as what?

So you can call me silly and I can't point out that you're not as smart of those I've met who have called me that? Aw! Boo! Boos!

What gives you this truth that you claim?

But because of this I shall not entertain anything further in this message of yours, such that if you want me to consider it, you shall have to say it all over again after your apology. I think that a fitting punishment for your insolence in the face of your error.

Ooo! Whats your dom name you big butch man you!

LMAO! At the prissy little patriarchal world you live in, you think your demands and tantrums cut much ice here? Don't hold your breath waiting for this apology.

First, I believe your errors (<--Plural) are due to your, only including a previous quote of the one you're addressing, such that you forget what it is that's being talked about and you only address the point you think you see. Because of this the conversation meanders and nothing gets said about the original point. With you it's just a never ending montage of "circular responses." I'm sure it's coincidence that you see them in dictionaries as well!

Unfortunately for you I've been trained in academic philosophy, as such I can keep a train of thought and don't need your colourful approach to quotes. If I'm informed I've missed the point then I just read back and so far its been far and few between where this has been necessary. Whereas you appear to have great trouble with nuance.

OK now, I'll remind you of what it was that we were originally talking about that you seem to be attempting to side step. Remember I gave you an out, in your only quoting the immediately preceding message.

We were talking on the internet in a forum like we are now, using LANGUAGE, and I quoted a dictionary and you said it was circular thus trying to undermine my using it, or why else bring it up, AS YOU WERE USING LANGUAGE TOO. WHICH WOULD DEFEAT YOURSELF AS WELL, AS WE WERE BOTH USING LANGUAGE!!!! AND AS SUCH WE OWE it to each other to use universal dictionary meanings and not some half baked mental interpretation that ARISING_UK might see differently due to her STUBBORNESS! because the one you are talking to has no way of knowing that you've decided to you your OWN MENTAL DICTIONARY. Otherwise we might as well not speak at all because we then say nothing at all, just spout our OWN PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS which is worthless and a waste of time, because in that case neither one necessarily knows what the other is talking about.[/size]

You sound like a petulant child or a disturbed adult. I said dictionaries are essentially circular, not that Language is, as I understand the meaning of a language to be the representation of thoughts or states of 'mind', which are essentially perceptions. Whereas you appear to think it in the symbols or writing?

Did you teach your kids to speak?

You see it has nothing to do with how we learn but how we should TALK IN A FORUM USING LANGUAGE.

No idea what you are talking about here?

Do you finally get it now or do you want to ignore it and meander some more? And don't use your fall back of "why didn't you say so" it was contextually understood, which you could have seen had you not deleted all the prior quotes from your immediate response message. Well at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You ever going to answer a question? I need not your benefit. Nor to know about your thoughts about it?

...

SpheresOfBalance wrote:It would seem you're just dense, can you say "Super Massive Black Hole?"

A Dictionary is standardization, my fool, so that we can agree or disagree, without it, it's impossible. Where do you think a dictionary came from sweetheart?

Teach a child a "with" better yet teach them a "for" Oh I got it, if you're consistent in your teaching model I can only imagine how you taught your children sex, You pervert!

Did I make my point oh you Black Hole?
...

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Yeah, I'm done with you, I refuse to respond to your absurd "Circular" notions, the putting words in my mouth, ignoring words. Sweetheart I submit that it's your mind that works in circles, not dictionaries.

From now on as far as I'm concerned your name is SMBH as it fits you well!

Have a good life! I'll talk to you again once you've found no circular reference in the words "Honesty" and "Truth." Because at this point you seem to be stuck in the circular vortex of "lies" and "falsehoods." I know, damn that dictionary.

Have a good one sweetie!

Seriously, Happy Holidays!

lancek4 wrote:There are a few points to address in our last post, but I am limited to my blkbrry so I will address the 'circularity' issue.

My point is not that terms somehow lose their meaning because of the circularity. More that one term implies every term. In the attempt to pinpoint a meaning of an object to a term/definition, in the process of defining every 'defining term' that constitutes the 'term to be defined', every term in the lexicon will inevitably be mentioned and eventually lead one in the 'definitional stream', so to speak, back to the original tern to be defined, which is proposed to identify a particular object.

Say, For example: chair. An object to sit upon. So we move to define 'an', 'object', 'to', 'sit', 'upon'. Each of these terms will have their definitions refered to the original term 'chair', which will necessitate further defining of terms in the coveyances which ar given to describe the subsequent relations. In this way,Eventually the whole lexicon of terms will be brought into the definition of 'chair'.
In an opposite movement, the effort will bring the chiar to not exist as such, in the well argued contradiction that occurs in discourse.

Thus, I am relying upon a 'faith' in what I define to myself what 'humanity' is so I may establish for myself a definate object 'chair'. And because I am relying upon such faith to 'stop' or 'place' the object in reality, there is no 'actual' chair: there is only some object there which I cannot know absolutly.

This is not to say that there is no object there, or particular objects there, only that what I rely upon to situate what each object is, is an scheme of definition which argues itself, cirtcularly, such that individual objects exist as an identity only to the extent and manner ( the scheme) that I deny the nature and character of that implicitly indefinate scheme i use to grant me reality -- as I have stated above.

The confirmation of my truth is implicit in the scheme as I come upon it and it me to establish what and who I am in reality and existance. Thus as I notice and see a 'true' object, or an actual universe of objects that contain or have of their nature a potential for absolution in knowledge, I am a being who is established in that particular faith that grants me reality. I cannot, by my own intellectual effort, abolish or alter this route that grants me my identity, since all meaning is routed into that scheme which is supplying the very meaning that is myself in the world, which is reality. Every meaning that can be gained confirms my Truth of the world, argues within that route by which I understand the universe. '

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:There are a few points to address in our last post, but I am limited to my blkbrry so I will address the 'circularity' issue.

My point is not that terms somehow lose their meaning because of the circularity. More that one term implies every term. In the attempt to pinpoint a meaning of an object to a term/definition, in the process of defining every 'defining term' that constitutes the 'term to be defined', every term in the lexicon will inevitably be mentioned and eventually lead one in the 'definitional stream', so to speak, back to the original tern to be defined, which is proposed to identify a particular object.

Say, For example: chair. An object to sit upon. So we move to define 'an', 'object', 'to', 'sit', 'upon'. Each of these terms will have their definitions refered to the original term 'chair', which will necessitate further defining of terms in the coveyances which ar given to describe the subsequent relations. In this way,Eventually the whole lexicon of terms will be brought into the definition of 'chair'.
In an opposite movement, the effort will bring the chiar to not exist as such, in the well argued contradiction that occurs in discourse.

Thus, I am relying upon a 'faith' in what I define to myself what 'humanity' is so I may establish for myself a definate object 'chair'. And because I am relying upon such faith to 'stop' or 'place' the object in reality, there is no 'actual' chair: there is only some object there which I cannot know absolutly.

This is not to say that there is no object there, or particular objects there, only that what I rely upon to situate what each object is, is an scheme of definition which argues itself, cirtcularly, such that individual objects exist as an identity only to the extent and manner ( the scheme) that I deny the nature and character of that implicitly indefinate scheme i use to grant me reality -- as I have stated above.

The confirmation of my truth is implicit in the scheme as I come upon it and it me to establish what and who I am in reality and existance. Thus as I notice and see a 'true' object, or an actual universe of objects that contain or have of their nature a potential for absolution in knowledge, I am a being who is established in that particular faith that grants me reality. I cannot, by my own intellectual effort, abolish or alter this route that grants me my identity, since all meaning is routed into that scheme which is supplying the very meaning that is myself in the world, which is reality. Every meaning that can be gained confirms my Truth of the world, argues within that route by which I understand the universe. '

Let's see if you're correct. In all cases I'll use the 1st definition as they're presented in hierarchy.

Chair: (Noun) a seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms.

A: (indefinite article) not any particular or certain one of a class or group: a man; a chemical; a house.

Seat: (Noun) something designed to support a person in a sitting position, as a chair, bench, or pew; a place on or in which one sits.

Especially: (adverb) particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.

For: (preposition) with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise.

One: (adjective) being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.

Person: (noun) a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

Usually: (adverb) habitual or customary: her usual skill.

I could continue, but so far, I see no circular reference causing any problems. Oh wait, I see one potential:

Sitting: (noun) the act of a person or thing that sits.

Sit: (verb {used without object}) to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.

--All definitions from: dictionary.reference.com--

I see nothing circular about the definition at all, point it out if you see it. If you investigate other words please use the same reference source as mentioned above.

Some people just find complication where there is none, for the sake of their self image. I call them, plastic people, PP's for short; Pseudo-intellectuals. I believe that when one considers effective communication, intellect would actually dictate simplicity. Because the idea of being effective is to ensure the accomplishment. I have found that some here seem to be more concerned about their self image, than the point of their argument. Of course, everyone is concerned about it to some extent. It's consideration is therefore only important when it's the main thrust of their reason.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:There are a few points to address in our last post, but I am limited to my blkbrry so I will address the 'circularity' issue.

My point is not that terms somehow lose their meaning because of the circularity. More that one term implies every term. In the attempt to pinpoint a meaning of an object to a term/definition, in the process of defining every 'defining term' that constitutes the 'term to be defined', every term in the lexicon will inevitably be mentioned and eventually lead one in the 'definitional stream', so to speak, back to the original tern to be defined, which is proposed to identify a particular object.

Say, For example: chair. An object to sit upon. So we move to define 'an', 'object', 'to', 'sit', 'upon'. Each of these terms will have their definitions refered to the original term 'chair', which will necessitate further defining of terms in the coveyances which ar given to describe the subsequent relations. In this way,Eventually the whole lexicon of terms will be brought into the definition of 'chair'.
In an opposite movement, the effort will bring the chiar to not exist as such, in the well argued contradiction that occurs in discourse.

Thus, I am relying upon a 'faith' in what I define to myself what 'humanity' is so I may establish for myself a definate object 'chair'. And because I am relying upon such faith to 'stop' or 'place' the object in reality, there is no 'actual' chair: there is only some object there which I cannot know absolutly.

This is not to say that there is no object there, or particular objects there, only that what I rely upon to situate what each object is, is an scheme of definition which argues itself, cirtcularly, such that individual objects exist as an identity only to the extent and manner ( the scheme) that I deny the nature and character of that implicitly indefinate scheme i use to grant me reality -- as I have stated above.

The confirmation of my truth is implicit in the scheme as I come upon it and it me to establish what and who I am in reality and existance. Thus as I notice and see a 'true' object, or an actual universe of objects that contain or have of their nature a potential for absolution in knowledge, I am a being who is established in that particular faith that grants me reality. I cannot, by my own intellectual effort, abolish or alter this route that grants me my identity, since all meaning is routed into that scheme which is supplying the very meaning that is myself in the world, which is reality. Every meaning that can be gained confirms my Truth of the world, argues within that route by which I understand the universe. '

Let's see if you're correct. In all cases I'll use the 1st definition as they're presented in hierarchy.

Chair: (Noun) a seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms.

A: (indefinite article) not any particular or certain one of a class or group: a man; a chemical; a house.

Seat: (Noun) something designed to support a person in a sitting position, as a chair, bench, or pew; a place on or in which one sits.

Especially: (adverb) particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.

For: (preposition) with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise.

One: (adjective) being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.

Person: (noun) a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

Usually: (adverb) habitual or customary: her usual skill.

I could continue, but so far, I see no circular reference causing any problems. Oh wait, I see one potential:

Sitting: (noun) the act of a person or thing that sits.

Sit: (verb {used without object}) to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.

--All definitions from: dictionary.reference.com--

I see nothing circular about the definition at all, point it out if you see it. If you investigate other words please use the same reference source as mentioned above.

Some people just find complication where there is none, for the sake of their self image. I call them, plastic people, PP's for short; Pseudo-intellectuals. I believe that when one considers effective communication, intellect would actually dictate simplicity. Because the idea of being effective is to ensure the accomplishment. I have found that some here seem to be more concerned about their self image, than the point of their argument. Of course, everyone is concerned about it to some extent. It's consideration is therefore only important when it's the main thrust of their reason.

For one - you left out defining the terms of the definitions by which you defined the first terms. Continue, if you have the fortitude; you have barely begun.

Two- I am merely pointing out the true nature of the system by which we claim absolute truth.

lancek4 wrote:My point is not that terms somehow lose their meaning because of the circularity. More that one term implies every term. In the attempt to pinpoint a meaning of an object to a term/definition, in the process of defining every 'defining term' that constitutes the 'term to be defined', every term in the lexicon will inevitably be mentioned and eventually lead one in the 'definitional stream', so to speak, back to the original tern to be defined, which is proposed to identify a particular object.

Say, For example: chair. An object to sit upon. So we move to define 'an', 'object', 'to', 'sit', 'upon'. Each of these terms will have their definitions refered to the original term 'chair', which will necessitate further defining of terms in the coveyances which ar given to describe the subsequent relations. In this way,Eventually the whole lexicon of terms will be brought into the definition of 'chair'.
In an opposite movement, the effort will bring the chiar to not exist as such, in the well argued contradiction that occurs in discourse.

Thus, I am relying upon a 'faith' in what I define to myself what 'humanity' is so I may establish for myself a definate object 'chair'. And because I am relying upon such faith to 'stop' or 'place' the object in reality, there is no 'actual' chair: there is only some object there which I cannot know absolutly.

This is not to say that there is no object there, or particular objects there, only that what I rely upon to situate what each object is, is an scheme of definition which argues itself, cirtcularly, such that individual objects exist as an identity only to the extent and manner ( the scheme) that I deny the nature and character of that implicitly indefinate scheme i use to grant me reality -- as I have stated above.

The confirmation of my truth is implicit in the scheme as I come upon it and it me to establish what and who I am in reality and existance. Thus as I notice and see a 'true' object, or an actual universe of objects that contain or have of their nature a potential for absolution in knowledge, I am a being who is established in that particular faith that grants me reality. I cannot, by my own intellectual effort, abolish or alter this route that grants me my identity, since all meaning is routed into that scheme which is supplying the very meaning that is myself in the world, which is reality. Every meaning that can be gained confirms my Truth of the world, argues within that route by which I understand the universe.