Philosophy Now Forum

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw

-1- wrote

Now tell me, Nick_A, if a person encounters another person who ignores reality, who renders the power of language nil, who does not believe that language is an evolving, reflective thing of reality, yet you only have words to communicate with that person... how would you face that person, what would you say to him, to make him understand anything you say?

I mean, let's drop this education debate. I wish to open a new debate with you, in which you explain to us in clear, precise language, how to communicate with someone who denies any value in communication, yet does not shut up and does not go away.

If Shaw is right and communication is an illusion, why is it so? Before assuming value in communication through words, isn’t it better to agree on the difficulties of communication through words and why Shaw thought it to be an illusion?

If nothing else we lack a universal language. We don’t even know what it would be. How can we communicate in words without a universal language?

Take a phrase like "he is an educated man" or "he is an artist" Can words define an educated man or an artist by objective standards ? No. Since we live by subjective standards people will disagree. What does it take for words to have objective meaning? For a universal language words would have objective meanings

Is Shaw right that the belief in communication is an illusion?

The parent thread went from 1)Orwell v Huxley to 2)education v indoctrination to 3)education_1 v education_2 to 4)language v idiosyncratic language, and I love it.

Not that it’s been exhausted, but there’s little more to be said about 1). Next, 2) depends on 3), which depends on 4). So, clearly we need to begin with 4).

If one person speaks Language A and another person speaks Language B, I suspect that they could communicate with each other quite well, eventually. One could, e.g., learn the other’s vocabulary and syntax. Or they could gradually develop a new language together.

Worse than that is the situation above where “education” is being used as a homonym for “education”. Even worse yet is when the verbiage is covert.

For example, one speaker is using standard American English and another one is using a provincial version of American English. In this case, there can be lots of hidden homonyms. In Wisconsin, this can be as simple as “fine” (terrific, great, wonderful) and “fine” (ho-hum, mediocre).

Unless the 2 speakers recognize the possibility for miscommunication, the words, “The meal was just fine”, could delight one party while deflating another.

Because an idiosyncratic usage isn’t readily identified, the primary tool for untangling the confusion is a high index of suspicion.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:16 pm What does it take for words to have objective meaning?

A dictionary.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:26 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:16 pm What does it take for words to have objective meaning?

A dictionary.

The dictionary can provide one literal meaning but cannot provide its emotional meaning. For example, the word sunset has the literal meaning of the position of the sun in the sky. However a person reading the word may have a positive experience remembering a beautiful sunset. Another person mugged during a sunset experiences the word in a negative light.

Emotion is relative. Also the literal meaning of educated man may differ. One person may define an educated man by academic standards. Another may define an educated man as a man of the world who is largely self taught and has learned by experience.

The same sentence can be experienced differently both emotionally and literally
Considering these limitations can people learn to communicate by words? It would take more than a dictionary.

Shaw means that even the plainest, most umabiguous, communication fails if one or more of the communicaters is thick-headed, or just willful.

Folks with a couple or three brain cells, and a willingness to communicate, 'do'.

You can only have agreement, never objectivity.

Agreements that these (clusters of) sounds, or squiggles, or movements of the hands and arms signify 'this' or 'that'.

A dictionary is simply a codification of this agreement.

The word 'table', for example, and the accompanying definition(s) are only coherent cuz a whole whack of people over a long stretch of time have agreed to it. And this agreement is subject to shifting with new definitions added, old definitions discarded, and spelling/pronunciation changing.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:48 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:26 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 9:16 pm What does it take for words to have objective meaning?

A dictionary.

The dictionary can provide one literal meaning but cannot provide its emotional meaning. For example, the word sunset has the literal meaning of the position of the sun in the sky. However a person reading the word may have a positive experience remembering a beautiful sunset. Another person mugged during a sunset experiences the word in a negative light.

Emotion is relative. Also the literal meaning of educated man may differ. One person may define an educated man by academic standards. Another may define an educated man as a man of the world who is largely self taught and has learned by experience.

The same sentence can be experienced differently both emotionally and literally
Considering these limitations can people learn to communicate by words? It would take more than a dictionary.

If one is happy, in a good mood and in possession of a positive disposition, "sunset" means the position of the sun in the sky at a particular time. If one remembers a mugging, recalls a trauma, is anxious or depressed, "sunset" means the position of the sun in the sky at a particular time.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:32 pm You can only have agreement, never objectivity.

Agreements that these (clusters of) sounds, or squiggles, or movements of the hands and arms signify 'this' or 'that'.

A dictionary is simply a codification of this agreement.

The word 'table', for example, and the accompanying definition(s) are only coherent cuz a whole whack of people over a long stretch of time have agreed to it. And this agreement is subject to shifting with new definitions added, old definitions discarded, and spelling/pronunciation changing.

Yes. I think I was misusing objective to mean agreed upon.

So in reality it seems people talk at each other not with each other because words have different literal and emotional connotations for those seeking to communicate.

So it isn't what you say that is important but rather how it is said. Karl Kraus had it right when he described the demagogue: "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.” Sort of reminds one of Obama.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:49 am So in reality it seems people talk at each other not with each other because words have different literal and emotional connotations for those seeking to communicate.

It depends on the people, don't you think?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:49 amSo it isn't what you say that is important but rather how it is said.

Aren't both important?

As usual, in your attempt to proclaim ultimate answers, you answer nothing.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:49 amKarl Kraus had it right when he described the demagogue: "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.”

Interesting. Might be some truth in it... but there's a lot more to it too.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:49 amSort of reminds one of Obama.

Ah... the perfect childish and dishonest ending to the rest of your nonsense.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:27 am Ah... the perfect childish and dishonest ending to the rest of your nonsense.

Don’t be naive. What’s dishonest is how Obama’s linquistic patterns change according to the audience. It’s called pandering.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:15 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:27 am Ah... the perfect childish and dishonest ending to the rest of your nonsense.

Don’t be naive. What’s dishonest is how Obama’s linquistic patterns change according to the audience. It’s called pandering.

It's called paying attention to other people, flexibility and intelligence. Never mind, no one expects you to comprehend such concepts.

Of course, as long as the message is consistent and something even vaguely like TRUTH is told, the use of language is not important (unless designed to harm like hate speech). The problem is when the message changes - like the almost-unbelievable chronic lying of Comrade Trump.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:15 am Don’t be naive. What’s dishonest is how Obama’s linquistic patterns change according to the audience. It’s called pandering.

Don't be an asshole. What's dishonest (as well as stupid) is your narrow, distorted focus.

Not so narrow. Clinton also panders although it’s mechanical and brassy, and those cutting hard Chicago rrr’s betray the folksy act down south. Trump won and spared the ears of a generation … who says there’s no God.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:40 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:15 am Don’t be naive. What’s dishonest is how Obama’s linquistic patterns change according to the audience. It’s called pandering.

Don't be an asshole. What's dishonest (as well as stupid) is your narrow, distorted focus.

Why all this blatant bigotry? Don't you know that all bodily parts like all people are considered equal for progressives. Perhaps you don't know your ass from your elbow which is why you didn't write: "don't be an elbow" A clear case of bigotry and bias against equality