Philosophy Now Forum

You might also enjoy his semi-historical novel "King Jesus", my copy of which was purloined by a bloke and never returned. A hanging offence.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I love I, Claudius. One of the few series I have on DVD

Get the books, Dalek, both of which are masterpieces of English literature as well as significant works of Roman history. Robert Graves was not only one of the most significant poets of the early 20th century he was also a very highly regarded historian and prose writer. "I Claudius" and "Claudius the God" are two of my most treasured books

I can't believe I forgot they were originally books, Leo! Thanks for the reminder! I'll see if they're available in epub. Really stoked to read them. Those are the only two, or are there others?

Everything by Robert Graves is well worth reading but these are the only two which deal specifically with Roman history. Graves fought in the trenches in France and was best known for his WWI poetry alongside names such as Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. After the war he became a renowned scholar of ancient history and wrote many academic texts on historical events. However he was first and foremost a literary man and his great love was for comedic prose, a style he develops exquisitely in his characterisation of the early Roman emperors and the other significant historical figures of this era. The dry historical facts are very accurately portrayed but he brings this history to life with his piercing insights into the psyches of the major players of the period.

I've always loved great literature, Dalek, but I can honestly say that Graves was one of my first great loves who dates all the way back to my student days. Even as I write this tribute to him I shed a nostalgic tear. The man was a genius.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:There is a scene in I Claudius right after he was made emperor, and some of the senators were making fun of his speech impediment. Claudius told them "I always thought what a man said was more important than how he said it".

I love I, Claudius. One of the few series I have on DVD.

I had the TV series on VHS, but that's gone now, the one with Derek Jacobi, perhaps that was the only one, I also liked him as Brother Cadfael.

I believe Derek Jacobi was one of the many actors who made the series "Playing Shakespeare" so great. So worthwhile to see if you can. Gratefully, it's also available on DVD.

Jaded Sage wrote:

cladking wrote:It is language that makes us appear intelligent to ourselves.

I gotta be honest: that is the most intelligent thing I've read on this website. You didn't just pull one of those tricks on me, did ya?

Not intentionally.

When I elaborate on it your opinion may change.

thedoc wrote:

cladking wrote: Few people will think this post is very smart (~4% of the general population). Most people will get the idea I'm no smarter than a rabbit (and they won't be far wrong).

Did you know that 63% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

All of mine are... ...well... ...99% anyway.

cladking wrote:When I elaborate on it your opinion may change.

By all means, please elaborate.

The most dramatic evidence that it's language that fools us into believing we are intelligent is the best known statement by Descartes and virtually the foundation of modern philosophy; "I think therefore I am". This statement simply resonates with us but it is utter nonsense and rather a reflection from language. We are taught modern language as children so that we can acquire the knowledge that humans have learned from 4000 years of progress. Much of this knowledge is language itself and the perspective it provides. We essentially "learn how to think" but this process is nearly invisible and mistaken for mere language acquisition. We come to believe we thought ourselves into existence; "I think therefore I am". Without realizing we think in language the concept makes perfect sense. If intelligence is merely a warped reflection caused by language then intentionally warping language to appear intelligent is a mere parlour trick.

Some of this is actually even taught which gives rise to jokes, songs, puns, poetry, etc, etc. These all resonate with us as well because the brain is still wired the way it was when vocabulary was invented but language was different and universal. It's still wired the same way as when we didn't believe we were intelligent and the language was a reflection of this wiring.

cladking wrote:We essentially "learn how to think" but this process is nearly invisible and mistaken for mere language acquisition.

This, I'm inclided to agree with. We also learn stale and standard objections and think ourselves smart. I saw that on another post yesterday!

Mr. Cogito was a little different. He was trying to prove he existed. He noticed that even if the entire world was an illusion, there still had to be someone there to be fooled by the illusion. That someone is what he called "a thinking thing"—that's what he called human beings. Even if we are just brains in vats, to be fooled by the illusion requires thinking. That's how I know I exist: because thinking is occuring, I am the one doing it, and because there is someone there doing it, that someone doing it must exist. Even if I am not the one doing it, but it is being done to me, there still must be someone for it to be done to. I perceive, or, I cogitate, therefore I am.

Now look at that whole thing. I was taught that in school, and it makes me feel intelligent. But I put it to you that it is the exact same illusion (how fitting, lol) being pulled that you describe as being restricted to language. Wouldn't you agree? After all, I didn't come up with it. I only regurgitated it.

Jaded Sage wrote:

cladking wrote:We essentially "learn how to think" but this process is nearly invisible and mistaken for mere language acquisition.

This, I'm inclided to agree with. We also learn stale and standard objections and think ourselves smart. I saw that on another post yesterday!

Mr. Cogito was a little different. He was trying to prove he existed. He noticed that even if the entire world was an illusion, there still had to be someone there to be fooled by the illusion. That someone is what he called "a thinking thing"—that's what he called human beings. Even if we are just brains in vats, to be fooled by the illusion requires thinking. That's how I know I exist: because thinking is occuring, I am the one doing it, and because there is someone there doing it, that someone doing it must exist. Even if I am not the one doing it, but it is being done to me, there still must be someone for it to be done to. I perceive, or, I cogitate, therefore I am.

Of course we're thinking machines. I'd guess even an oak tree is well aware it exists and doesn't require years of language acquisition to know it. If a rabbit pondered such a question is would soon be a fox's meal rather than than a rabbit. Descartes simply didn't want to postulate the obvious; that reality exists just as we each percieve it. He wanted thought founded on reality as it's expressed through experiment rather than observation or the apparent.

Now look at that whole thing. I was taught that in school, and it makes me feel intelligent. But I put it to you that it is the exact same illusion (how fitting, lol) being pulled that you describe as being restricted to language. Wouldn't you agree? After all, I didn't come up with it. I only regurgitated it.

I think I understand you.

Yes, we all "feel" intelligent and this goes far deeper than just Descartes since his expression was an effect of language. It also contributed to the totality of the human existence. We are each collectively and individually a product of language. Our science and everything is a product of language as even our understanding of science is a result of language. It is all intimately interwoven and our perspective is from language.

But our language is not the only way that people can think and understand. Our language drives a wedge between individuals and causes misconceptions through misunderstanding. It causes us to waste resources in the name of wealth and it has caused science to bog down in the 1920's. It has even led to increased CO2 production in the name of reducing it.

I wager I'm not looking so smart now, am I?

cladking wrote: Descartes simply didn't want to postulate the obvious; that reality exists just as we each percieve it. He wanted thought founded on reality as it's expressed through experiment rather than observation or the apparent.

The reason he did this was really quite simple; language is confused and it has given rise to all sorts of "realities" that are very different from person to person. Each person believes what he wants to believe and then can only see these beliefs rather than the reality. This is a defect of our specific modern languages and not the human species. Confused language has resulted in confused people. We don't see that even the science that sprang from a new set of postulates is understood in a confused way and its extrapolations are applied to things inappropriately.

So language is the root of all evil, eh?

Jaded Sage wrote:So language is the root of all evil, eh?

Sure!!! It's the root of all good as well.

It is my contention that once we address the weaknesses of language most of them can be solved or mitigated. The benefits will be widespread and profound.

The principle problem isn't that it leads directly to confusion because we each understand what we're thinking. Modern language is superior for thought. The problem is in communication and how it can indirectly lead to confused thought. We don't know what each other mean so we get confused messages and these can be incorporated into our own thought. The reality is that almost nothing is known so we fill the void with ideas that we come up with ourselves or appropriate from others. We think everything is known but no two people view the same thing the same way because we each have our own individual knowledge, belief, and perspective.

It's not so much language that is good or evil but the ideas we are (mis)communicating. Good and evil are the actions of people now that we think in modern language and these actions are predicated on our beliefs which are predicated on language.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I love I, Claudius. One of the few series I have on DVD

Get the books, Dalek, both of which are masterpieces of English literature as well as significant works of Roman history. Robert Graves was not only one of the most significant poets of the early 20th century he was also a very highly regarded historian and prose writer. "I Claudius" and "Claudius the God" are two of my most treasured books

There is no doubt that they are monuments of English Literature. I've read them both twice after having seen the TV series on BBC in 1976. Also, when I was in the depths of my cancer treatment, I listened to Derek Jacobi read them as Audio Books.
But they are not to be confused with history. If you want that you have to read Suetonius - and even then with a pinch of salt.