Philosophy Now Forum

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

Jaded Sage wrote: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."

Jaded Sage wrote:Also, yes. I'm fairly certain reason and I are in agreement.

uwot wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: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?

Jaded Sage wrote: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 wrote:

uwot wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: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.

Jaded Sage wrote: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.

uwot wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: 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

Obvious Leo wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote: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.

uwot wrote: 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?

Jaded Sage wrote:Like I was just thinking maybe frequency should be a part of it.

Jaded Sage wrote:Always good or usually good or not never good. Never bad or not usually bad.

Jaded Sage wrote:Then you put that together with the other one I came up with.

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

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

uwot wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Like I was just thinking maybe frequency should be a part of it.

That's democracy.

Jaded Sage wrote:Always good or usually good or not never good. Never bad or not usually bad.

Who for?

Jaded Sage wrote: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"?

Jaded Sage wrote: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 wrote:

uwot wrote: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 wrote: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.

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

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