Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

uwot wrote:It's yer basic Newton, Arising: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The thrust the engines produce is nothing to do with any contact with the surface and everything to do with the air it is pushing against.

So far so good, but you went astray when you went on about pushing on the air, it is a simple matter of Newtonion physics, the exhaust goes in one direction at high velocity and the engine and ship go in the other direction, but because they are more massive the movement is less than the exhaust relative to the ship.

Let me rephrase that, then:

uwot wrote:It's yer basic Newton, Arising
and thedoc.

cladking wrote:
As things stand today our ignorance is vast, profound, and invisible. We are reduced to considering the chronological order of chickens and eggs. We can't return to a natural metaphysical language nor can we possibly invent a new metaphysical language. But we can easily do as the hard sciences do and create a language with defined perspectives that uses key words that aren't dependent on context. Such a language might be much easier to develop and expand than seems possible at first blush. Since many words are standardized it would be obvious when it is being used. I believe that such a language would at least give us insight into the depth of our ignorance. I would hope that using such a language it would become possible to build on the work of others.

Modern language probably does contain a great deal of information about its origin and human nature but modern language is like "word soup" and it might never give up very many of its secrets. But using modern knowledge and modern tools we can come to understand any metaphysical language. We can come to understand human origins. This understanding will almost certainly aid us in understanding ourselves and our real place in nature.

But, aren't these two paragraphs in conflict? Can we or can we not understand a "metaphysical" language? Having said that, I have never heard of the term so I have no idea what a metaphysical language might consist of. It is definitely a new one on me. On the other hand, I know what a metalanguage is.

Ginkgo wrote: But, aren't these two paragraphs in conflict? Can we or can we not understand a "metaphysical" language? Having said that, I have never heard of the term so I have no idea what a metaphysical language might consist of. It is definitely a new one on me. On the other hand, I know what a metalanguage is.

I'm not certain what concept you find contradictory. While our ignorance is nearly complete it doesn't involve those few things we do know and do "understand". We understand things like processing of electrical signals in wires and diodes so we can do this. What we don't understand is how why things exist. We see what we know. We see what we expect. We act on our beliefs. Our perspective shows us the vast amount that we know but hides away everything else; which is most of reality. We surround ourselves with technology and tools and we see only those parts of nature which are visible from our own specialties.

Even specialization is largely an effect of language directly and indirectly. Not only did language create the vast amount of information that can't be understood by individuals but it is a natural outgrowth from language which sees things from infinite distance. We can't see everything at once so we must specialize to focus on more limited phenomena.

Metaphysical language is a breeze so long as it is simple. Before 2000 BC knowledge was simple enough that even the common man could use it. But today's science is somewhat more complex than the science of the ancient metaphysical language and no individual could use a language derived from modern knowledge. The ancients derived their knowledge from observation and the logic of language where we derive our knowledge from observation and experiment. We surpassed ancient science several decades ago.

But my point here is simply that while a metaphysical language has become impossible there is no reason we can't adapt modern language to philosophical constructs by simply defining and standardizing terms. I believe it could become possible to directly build on the thinking of those who came before. We could make progress in philosophy and even extend its applicability and influence to a wider range of human knowledge.

I believe philosophy and applied science could become nearly synonymous.

cladking wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: But, aren't these two paragraphs in conflict? Can we or can we not understand a "metaphysical" language? Having said that, I have never heard of the term so I have no idea what a metaphysical language might consist of. It is definitely a new one on me. On the other hand, I know what a metalanguage is.

I'm not certain what concept you find contradictory. While our ignorance is nearly complete it doesn't involve those few things we do know and do "understand". We understand things like processing of electrical signals in wires and diodes so we can do this. What we don't understand is how why things exist. We see what we know. We see what we expect. We act on our beliefs. Our perspective shows us the vast amount that we know but hides away everything else; which is most of reality. We surround ourselves with technology and tools and we see only those parts of nature which are visible from our own specialties.

Even specialization is largely an effect of language directly and indirectly. Not only did language create the vast amount of information that can't be understood by individuals but it is a natural outgrowth from language which sees things from infinite distance. We can't see everything at once so we must specialize to focus on more limited phenomena.

Metaphysical language is a breeze so long as it is simple. Before 2000 BC knowledge was simple enough that even the common man could use it. But today's science is somewhat more complex than the science of the ancient metaphysical language and no individual could use a language derived from modern knowledge. The ancients derived their knowledge from observation and the logic of language where we derive our knowledge from observation and experiment. We surpassed ancient science several decades ago.

But my point here is simply that while a metaphysical language has become impossible there is no reason we can't adapt modern language to philosophical constructs by simply defining and standardizing terms. I believe it could become possible to directly build on the thinking of those who came before. We could make progress in philosophy and even extend its applicability and influence to a wider range of human knowledge.

I believe philosophy and applied science could become nearly synonymous.

I think I see what you are getting at.

Metaphysics explains how the world is. Ontology on the other hand is a branch of metaphysics that explains the types of things than can exist. Science has an ontology and this is the reason why specialization is important. Over the last 300 years, ontology combined with the scientific method has result in an explosion of knowledge and specialization.

The ancients use metaphysical explanations in order to explain the way the world is and tended to ignore the ontological question. For example, the ancients could not measure distances involving micrometres, so such small distances didn't exist. However, everyone has a distance from the tip of their fingers to their elbow so everyman understands measurement and can use measurement in a practical type of way. The ontological problem is solved because we don't do ontology.


So I would agree that if we use metaphysics to describe the way the world is and ignore the ontological possibility that automatically arises from this question then we can come up with a simple language and therefore a simple explanation for reality. OK, that's fine, but such a philosophy would result in the two of us communicating using two tin cans and a string rather than a computer.

We live in a complex world because science has in the past done ontology and will probably continue to do so in the future, and no doubt explains why we use language in a complex fashion. Complexity and ontology go together. Leaving out the ontology we can come up with a metalanguage to explain the way the world is.

Ginkgo wrote:

I think I see what you are getting at.

Metaphysics explains how the world is. Ontology on the other hand is a branch of metaphysics that explains the types of things than can exist. Science has an ontology and this is the reason why specialization is important. Over the last 300 years, ontology combined with the scientific method has result in an explosion of knowledge and specialization.

The ancients use metaphysical explanations in order to explain the way the world is and tended to ignore the ontological question. For example, the ancients could not measure distances involving micrometres, so such small distances didn't exist. However, everyone has a distance from the tip of their fingers to their elbow so everyman understands measurement and can use measurement in a practical type of way. The ontological problem is solved because we don't do ontology.


So I would agree that if we use metaphysics to describe the way the world is and ignore the ontological possibility that automatically arises from this question then we can come up with a simple language and therefore a simple explanation for reality. OK, that's fine, but such a philosophy would result in the two of us communicating using two tin cans and a string rather than a computer.

We live in a complex world because science has in the past done ontology and will probably continue to do so in the future, and no doubt explains why we use language in a complex fashion. Complexity and ontology go together. Leaving out the ontology we can come up with a metalanguage to explain the way the world is.

I think you've almost nailed what I'm trying to get at here.

The complexity of the world is far more apparent than real. In aggregate it is extraordinarily complex that even its simpler systems are no longer understood by even a single individual. Everything is layer upon layer of complexity and each time a system fails more layers are added to try to prevent it again. Planes fall out of the sky because pilots no longer are able to fly them and some planes are designed to not even take instruction from the pilot except through a computer that has to OK them first. Many things are more complex than planes.

All these layers though are actually relatively simple or they couldn't have been designed. They are just multitudes of simple processes that add up to complexity. In a way this is reminecsent of the way nature works. Nature is millions of simple rules that all are in effect at all times and they add up to a complexity we've still barely begun to unravel. The big difference here though is that we fully understand all of the simple rules that cause human systems to become so "complex" but we are terrible at predicting the unusual situations that nature throws at us which causes them to fail.

We can't factor out natural processes because we don't understand them and can't even name most of them. But everything we've done can be named and communicated such that it can be understood. This applies even to the terms we use to think, though this isn't apparent because of the language in which we think and view this question. From our perspective we see a need for flexibility in language to communicate ever more complex ideas. I believe the reality is very different. We aren't communicating very well because language is always used in non-standard ways, words take definition from context, and every utterance can be deconstructed.

Worse is that our language creates constructs from which all people share a perspective. This construct is always changing and evolving so great thinkers of the past can seem passe or even confused from modern perspectives. Ideas come in and go out of style.

I believe this problem and many allied problems can be redressed by merely inventing a philosophical language for use in all ontological contexts. While there's too much complexity in modern understanding for this language to be metaphysical it could take on some properties of one. It wouldn't even be necessary to avoid drift in the language since this should occur naturally. It could be tuned with other modern languages so translation is simplified.

This coupled with far more emphasis on metaphysics in education, and teaching more students generalism, would be most highly beneficial in integrating scientific breakthroughs with culture and industry. As is now industry is a mess because it's just a bunch of specialists all bumping heads trying to provide a product or service. Success is the rarity. The best thing that might result will come in time if each new generation is able to build on the work of previous generations. But huge strides in economic efficiency are easily within our grasp. Even little steps in efficiency have huge affects on total wealth so large strides would be transformative.

cladking wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

I think I see what you are getting at.

Metaphysics explains how the world is. Ontology on the other hand is a branch of metaphysics that explains the types of things than can exist. Science has an ontology and this is the reason why specialization is important. Over the last 300 years, ontology combined with the scientific method has result in an explosion of knowledge and specialization.

The ancients use metaphysical explanations in order to explain the way the world is and tended to ignore the ontological question. For example, the ancients could not measure distances involving micrometres, so such small distances didn't exist. However, everyone has a distance from the tip of their fingers to their elbow so everyman understands measurement and can use measurement in a practical type of way. The ontological problem is solved because we don't do ontology.


So I would agree that if we use metaphysics to describe the way the world is and ignore the ontological possibility that automatically arises from this question then we can come up with a simple language and therefore a simple explanation for reality. OK, that's fine, but such a philosophy would result in the two of us communicating using two tin cans and a string rather than a computer.

We live in a complex world because science has in the past done ontology and will probably continue to do so in the future, and no doubt explains why we use language in a complex fashion. Complexity and ontology go together. Leaving out the ontology we can come up with a metalanguage to explain the way the world is.

I think you've almost nailed what I'm trying to get at here.

The complexity of the world is far more apparent than real. In aggregate it is extraordinarily complex that even its simpler systems are no longer understood by even a single individual. Everything is layer upon layer of complexity and each time a system fails more layers are added to try to prevent it again. Planes fall out of the sky because pilots no longer are able to fly them and some planes are designed to not even take instruction from the pilot except through a computer that has to OK them first. Many things are more complex than planes.

All these layers though are actually relatively simple or they couldn't have been designed. They are just multitudes of simple processes that add up to complexity. In a way this is reminecsent of the way nature works. Nature is millions of simple rules that all are in effect at all times and they add up to a complexity we've still barely begun to unravel. The big difference here though is that we fully understand all of the simple rules that cause human systems to become so "complex" but we are terrible at predicting the unusual situations that nature throws at us which causes them to fail.

We can't factor out natural processes because we don't understand them and can't even name most of them. But everything we've done can be named and communicated such that it can be understood. This applies even to the terms we use to think, though this isn't apparent because of the language in which we think and view this question. From our perspective we see a need for flexibility in language to communicate ever more complex ideas. I believe the reality is very different. We aren't communicating very well because language is always used in non-standard ways, words take definition from context, and every utterance can be deconstructed.

Worse is that our language creates constructs from which all people share a perspective. This construct is always changing and evolving so great thinkers of the past can seem passe or even confused from modern perspectives. Ideas come in and go out of style.

I believe this problem and many allied problems can be redressed by merely inventing a philosophical language for use in all ontological contexts. While there's too much complexity in modern understanding for this language to be metaphysical it could take on some properties of one. It wouldn't even be necessary to avoid drift in the language since this should occur naturally. It could be tuned with other modern languages so translation is simplified.

This coupled with far more emphasis on metaphysics in education, and teaching more students generalism, would be most highly beneficial in integrating scientific breakthroughs with culture and industry. As is now industry is a mess because it's just a bunch of specialists all bumping heads trying to provide a product or service. Success is the rarity. The best thing that might result will come in time if each new generation is able to build on the work of previous generations. But huge strides in economic efficiency are easily within our grasp. Even little steps in efficiency have huge affects on total wealth so large strides would be transformative.

Sounds like a nice idea but philosophy of language has already been down that path with Plato, Aristotle and Russell. Words cannot be successfully deconstructed to reveal some type of basic grammatical machinery. Context is everything when it comes to language. Black gains its meaning contrasted with white. Something only has meaning when it is contrasted with nothing. There is no such thing (as Plato would suggest) as blackness itself, or nothing itself.

Plato was of course a realist so he actually did think that universals existed. Nonetheless, we can use Plato to illustrate the point I am trying to make. The reality is that a modern day Plato could not deconstruct the word "dog" without running into category errors.

From a modern Platonic point of view we might argue that the word "dog" can be deconstructed to reveal its universal and basic meaning. Such a Plato might also want to point out that in the modern world the term "dog" has become lost in a variety of contexts and meanings and thus we have confused its true and exact meaning. We need to get back to a basic and unambiguous meaning that denotes this particular type of four legged animal.

Is this the basis of your argument?

I believe this problem and many allied problems can be redressed by merely inventing a philosophical language for use in all ontological contexts. While there's too much complexity in modern understanding for this language to be metaphysical it could take on some properties of one. It wouldn't even be necessary to avoid drift in the language since this should occur naturally. It could be tuned with other modern languages so translation is simplified.

I think this is what analytic philosophy tried to do and it is the basis of my recent post about computer languages (as an analogy) and foundationalism in general. Quine's 'Word and Object' is a culmination of that tradition, which started with Russel and Wittgenstein and Carnap. They thought the propositional calculus of mathematical logic (think p, q, etc.), coupled with empirical philosophy and science (think Locke and Hume updated and applied to Einstein) could provide a grounding for all of modern science.

One of Quine's main tenets (Two Dogmas of Empiricism and elsewhere) was that translation from one language - such as ordinary language - to another is impossible, strictly speaking. So going from ordinary language to a technical language and vice versa is problematic. A translation from ordinary language to a logical calculus, or a technical physics notation, for instance, produces only subjective, approximate results.

If a 'philosophical language' such as you propose were carried out, what would be gained? That was the import of my other post. If you are looking for a shared basis for communication, I think ordinary language is as good as it gets (I think the later Wittgenstein and Quine and Rorty would agree here). If you are looking for a technical language different from the technical languages, such as they, are, of the branches of science and mathematics, you would be retreading the ground of a century of analytic philosophers.

Not that there's anything wrong with retreading some old ground. At least you have the same ideas as many brilliant minds before you.

Wyman wrote:One of Quine's main tenets (Two Dogmas of Empiricism and elsewhere) was that translation from one language - such as ordinary language - to another is impossible, strictly speaking. So going from ordinary language to a technical language and vice versa is problematic. A translation from ordinary language to a logical calculus, or a technical physics notation, for instance, produces only subjective, approximate results.

I haven't read Two Dogma's properly for over 20 years, so I will have to accept your interpretation. The thing that occurs to me, from what you say, is that there is an implicit assumption that logical calculus or technical physics notation can be understood, by fallible humans, in a way that is not subjective or approximate. It's the same old song: language, any language, can only be perfect if it isn't about the real world, or used by beings who live in the real world.

uwot wrote:

Wyman wrote:One of Quine's main tenets (Two Dogmas of Empiricism and elsewhere) was that translation from one language - such as ordinary language - to another is impossible, strictly speaking. So going from ordinary language to a technical language and vice versa is problematic. A translation from ordinary language to a logical calculus, or a technical physics notation, for instance, produces only subjective, approximate results.

I haven't read Two Dogma's properly for over 20 years, so I will have to accept your interpretation. The thing that occurs to me, from what you say, is that there is an implicit assumption that logical calculus or technical physics notation can be understood, by fallible humans, in a way that is not subjective or approximate. It's the same old song: language, any language, can only be perfect if it isn't about the real world, or used by beings who live in the real world.

But it is more an argument about language itself than the application of language to reality (with the problems of subjectivity I think you are alluding to). There is/was the idea that whatever ambiguities exist could be at least funneled into a common language that reduces those ambiguities to the extent humanly possible. Then at least we would all be on the same page as to what is most subjective and approximate and be in the best position to minimize those aspects.

I am painting with severely broad strokes here in my history of analytic philosophy, but I think that by Quine's time, any hopes - held perhaps by Russell on the realist side or Carnap on the empiricist side - of some truly foundational project in the sense of 'Truth' with a capital 'T' were waning. But some professional philosophers may have thought (and may still think) that some usefulness would come of 'clarifying' the scientific, rational endeavor of Western culture by philosophy. I think Quine (with Sellars and Wittgenstein among others) did his best to kill that idea.

But as with so much of philosophy, you may be able to dovetail it back into the problem you allude to, that the relation of language to reality is itself inherently subjective.

Wyman wrote: But as with so much of philosophy, you may be able to dovetail it back into the problem you allude to, that the relation of language to reality is itself inherently subjective.

For now just let me address this single point.

I believe that it's only modern human languages from which reality is subjective. We "think therefore we are" but other language doesn't work this way. A computer doesn't need to know it thinks before processing language. A toad doesn't need to solve epistomological questions before sticking out its tongue to make a fly appear on it or fertilizing eggs.

I believe other languages, if they consider reality at all, simply take reality as a given. Language is a means to communicate first and foremost in all non-modern human applications. Individuals who use such language may not even be aware they are thinking.

I've read a little on Quine and, perhaps mistakingly, believe that I understand his point. Indeed, I even agree with it to a large extent. You can't really differentiate between metaphysical and theoretical "truth" in science. Even using language to evaluate science is somewhat iffy.

But in my opinion these problems all arise not from the nature of science, truth, or metaphysics but from the nature of language. I believe that any philosophy that attempts to build on the work of earlier philosophers must have a basis in epistomology and must accept some simple definitions. This is the point of a metaphysical language to start with; to make it applicable to humans. This means we each must accept that reality is exactly what it appears to be regardless of our perceptions. Of course we are often wrong so we're always striving to understand the actuality rather than our senses or paradigms. We must adapt to reality we percieve and strive to percieve it as it actuality exists while using definitions with fixed or unflexible meaning. This language has to be able to evolve to better reflect nature as defined by theory which is in turn defined by experiment. If this actually works then perhaps theory can come to be determined by the logic of philsophy, or at the very least, hypothesis can be generated.

Perhaps I'm being somewhat naive but so long as our words can be deconstructed by each listener and we can even change our perspective to see our own utterances in different lights then any attempt to build on such a foundation is bound to failure and collapse. We are trying to build foundations for philosophical paradigms with mud instead of stone.

Our language failed and we can neither see that it did nor see that it no longer works. Human progress would have ceased altogether were it not for the invention of modern science and the LANGUAGE, the scientific metaphysics, that powers it. We don't see this because of the perspective forced by modern language. We can't even see that it is and always was language and science that drives human progress and this same exact thing applies to all species. Only humans have a confused language and only humans have always, for 40,000 years of our existence, had a complex language that makes it possible to build on the work of the giants of the past.

cladking wrote:

Wyman wrote: But as with so much of philosophy, you may be able to dovetail it back into the problem you allude to, that the relation of language to reality is itself inherently subjective.

For now just let me address this single point.

I believe that it's only modern human languages from which reality is subjective. We "think therefore we are" but other language doesn't work this way. A computer doesn't need to know it thinks before processing language. A toad doesn't need to solve epistomological questions before sticking out its tongue to make a fly appear on it or fertilizing eggs.

I believe other languages, if they consider reality at all, simply take reality as a given. Language is a means to communicate first and foremost in all non-modern human applications. Individuals who use such language may not even be aware they are thinking.

Well, subjective in the sense that certain concepts are found within particular disciplines and professions. Take the word "particle" for instance. A physicists understanding of a particle could be different to a chemists understanding of a particle.

Another example of this 'specialist language' can be found when we go shopping. I went to a furniture shop hoping to buy a sofa armchair. The first thing I came across in the shop was an armchair that didn't have arms. Upon pointing out this mistake to the salesperson they informed me that there was no mistake. Armchairs also come without arms.

Not happy with this I collected a variety of catalogues from a variety of stores and to my surprise this arm chair concept is accepted industry wide. Within the industry the defining feature of an armchair does not have to be the fact that it has arms. Obviously an armchair can and usually does have arms, but it doesn't have to be the case.

This type of specialized language is not a problem in the modern world. I simply store this relevant information in my iPhone for future reference and the problem is now solved. I now have the capacity to extend my consciousness and understanding. We just carry an extension of our brain in our pocket.

Wyman wrote:But it is more an argument about language itself than the application of language to reality (with the problems of subjectivity I think you are alluding to). There is/was the idea that whatever ambiguities exist could be at least funneled into a common language that reduces those ambiguities to the extent humanly possible.

The irony is that advocates couldn't even find the language to persuade everyone that such a project would bare fruit.

Ginkgo wrote:

cladking wrote:

Wyman wrote: But as with so much of philosophy, you may be able to dovetail it back into the problem you allude to, that the relation of language to reality is itself inherently subjective.

For now just let me address this single point.

I believe that it's only modern human languages from which reality is subjective. We "think therefore we are" but other language doesn't work this way. A computer doesn't need to know it thinks before processing language. A toad doesn't need to solve epistomological questions before sticking out its tongue to make a fly appear on it or fertilizing eggs.

I believe other languages, if they consider reality at all, simply take reality as a given. Language is a means to communicate first and foremost in all non-modern human applications. Individuals who use such language may not even be aware they are thinking.

Well, subjective in the sense that certain concepts are found within particular disciplines and professions. Take the word "particle" for instance. A physicists understanding of a particle could be different to a chemists understanding of a particle.

Another example of this 'specialist language' can be found when we go shopping. I went to a furniture shop hoping to buy a sofa armchair. The first thing I came across in the shop was an armchair that didn't have arms. Upon pointing out this mistake to the salesperson they informed me that there was no mistake. Armchairs also come without arms.

Not happy with this I collected a variety of catalogues from a variety of stores and to my surprise this arm chair concept is accepted industry wide. Within the industry the defining feature of an armchair does not have to be the fact that it has arms. Obviously an armchair can and usually does have arms, but it doesn't have to be the case.

This type of specialized language is not a problem in the modern world. I simply store this relevant information in my iPhone for future reference and the problem is now solved. I now have the capacity to extend my consciousness and understanding. We just carry an extension of our brain in our pocket.

That should be the basis of a joke - Did you hear the one about the philosopher who walked into an armchair store...'
I foresee a new post from Philx in the future - Is an armchair without arms really an armchair? What say you?

uwot wrote: The irony is that advocates couldn't even find the language to persuade everyone that such a project would bare fruit.

I've found the language. It will be understood as soon as I can prove the great pyramids were built with water. Ramps are debunked and the paradigm s collapsing.