Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:Agreed! We create purposes for objects. But that has nothing to do with the topic.

raw_thought wrote:perhaps if you read the posts , you will get back on topic.
Labels have a purpose. For example, if I put "
&2#?€" on 12 things, I could then tell someone to collect everything with a "&2#?€" on it. However "&2#?€" is meaningless because it does not tell me anything about the object.
Yes, symbols are not intrinsically purposeful, we create their purpose.
I gave other proofs that words are meaningless ( correspondence theory of truth is inadequate, quines indeterminacy of translation,Wittgenstein *). However, lets just look at the symbol grounding problem. What is a tooth pick? Wood. What is wood? Cellulose fibers...ad infinitum. If the definitions terminate then the last definition is meaningless, which means that the penultimate definition is meaningless.... Which means that "tooth pick" is meaningless. If the chain of definitions is infinite, "tooth pick" is meaningless. If I explain that the earth is stable because it rests on an elephant and that elephant on an elephant.... I have not explained why they are elephants and not lets say turtles.
* Another proof is to replace "forms" with "concepts" in Plato's third man argument.
Well OK, you want precision."&2#?€" tells you that you should pick that object up (purpose). However, it does not tell you anything about what the object is.
Spirituality is about meaning. Religion is about purpose.
I am currently exploring alternative ways of knowing. In particular mysticism. Mysticism is the direct perception of reality without the intermediary of words,symbols, icons. Most people get mysticism confused with the occult. Mysticism is not about propositions (such as, chant this and this will happen or even the proposition, there is a God. God is ineffable )
Briefly put, everything is ineffable!!! Everything is a miracle! There is a great song, "Holy Now". I will post a link when I get off my tablet.
Yes, all those proofs were in words. As Wittgenstein said his purpose will be achieved when one realizes that everything he said was meaningless. His words are a ladder that once one climbs it is thrown away.
The muses said that Socrates was the wisest man. Socrates tried to define words. (What is X). However, he never arrived at a definition. Examples are not definitions. He then was the most wise because he was the only one that knew that he knew nothing.
Here is that “Holy Now “song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiypaURysz4
“Supposing I teach someone the use of the word "yellow" by repeatedly pointing to a yellow patch and pronouncing the word. On another occasion I make him apply what he has learnt by giving him the order, "choose a yellow ball out of this bag". What was it that happened when he obeyed my order? I say "possibly just this: he heard my words and took a yellow ball from the bag". Now you may be inclined to think that this couldn't possibly have been all; and the kind of the thing that you would suggest is that he imagined something yellow when he understood the order, and then chose a ball according to his image. To see that this is not necessary remember that I could have given him the order, "Imagine a yellow patch". Would you still be inclined to assume that he first imagines a yellow patch, just understanding my order, and then imagines a yellow patch to match the first?”
Wittgenstein
FROM
http://www.geocities.jp/mickindex/wittg ... ue_en.html
Think of the yellow patch as the concept. You will see that it is unnecessary to identify the yellow patch.
……………………….
“Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.”
Wittegenstein
A hammer has a purpose, to nail boards together. Yes, we give it that purpose. As I said , the purpose is not intrinsic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic . Words are not intrinsically purposeful. They are arbitrary conventions invented by humans. There is no resemblance between the words "pick that up" and the act of picking it up."

Obvious Leo wrote:

raw_thought wrote:Agreed! We create purposes for objects. But that has nothing to do with the topic.

Are you suggesting that this topic has a point to it?

Obvious Leo wrote:A hammer does not have a purpose. I can bash my nails in with a rock if I prefer but that doesn't mean that the purpose of rocks is to nail boards together.

Obvious Leo wrote:Miracles!! If that's what you reckon philosophy is all about then you've made a navigational error and landed in the wrong forum. Try down the hallway with the preachers in their pulpits.

raw_thought wrote: I am not talking about turning water into wine etc.

The Inglorious One wrote:Raw Thought, have you read Evelyn Underhill?