Forums > Social Discussion > Metaphysics
Login/Join to Participateanalytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
And, over here, the metaphysics thread.
For all your UTOR needs . . .
And, over here, the metaphysics thread.
For all your UTOR needs . . .
ture na sig
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I remain unconvinced that good and evil exist. I think it is far more likely that they are abstract concepts by which we measure things... psychologically speeking simple moving towards / away behavior. Why do we AGREE? The BEST answer that was supplied to me that I think makes the most sense is the sociological one, which is that societies only function, given the kind of things we are, if behavioral codes became enforced. Ethics would be LEARNED, and not inherently biological except for basic sympathy and empathy emotives which develop with the child's cognitive ability to ascertain itself from its environment.
I suppose that'd be an almost evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon.
Don't worry, the rapist is still wrong, but he isnt wrong because its wrong in an absolute sense, he's wrong because he's gone against the socially acceptable limit. But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.
I remain unconvinced that good and evil exist. I think it is far more likely that they are abstract concepts by which we measure things... psychologically speeking simple moving towards / away behavior. Why do we AGREE? The BEST answer that was supplied to me that I think makes the most sense is the sociological one, which is that societies only function, given the kind of things we are, if behavioral codes became enforced. Ethics would be LEARNED, and not inherently biological except for basic sympathy and empathy emotives which develop with the child's cognitive ability to ascertain itself from its environment.
I suppose that'd be an almost evolutionary explanation of the phenomenon.
Don't worry, the rapist is still wrong, but he isnt wrong because its wrong in an absolute sense, he's wrong because he's gone against the socially acceptable limit. But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.
BRONZE Member
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Posted:
1x0=0
2x0=0
1x0=2x0
1=2
A valid and mathematically correct statement!
but it's still not true!
Proof is merely perception!
Written by: onewheeldave
If 'x' is proved, it means that 'x' is true.
1x0=0
2x0=0
1x0=2x0
1=2
A valid and mathematically correct statement!
but it's still not true!
Proof is merely perception!
Regards 
Shu
(Ice-E FyreStorm - Group Manager & Performer)
You know those people your parentals warned you about?... I'M ONE OF THEM! 
Yes, i do bite!!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's not a valid and mathematically correct statement; you've divided by zero, which is invaild and mathematically incorrect.
It's not a valid and mathematically correct statement; you've divided by zero, which is invaild and mathematically incorrect.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
wouldn't it be better to say;
If 'x' is proved, it means 'x' is correct given the initial axioms
Because there is no way to prove the axioms are correct, therefore there is no way to prove 'x' is true.
As for dividing by zero, i'm thinking mathematicians kinda fudged that rule after they figured out 1=2
Quiet you still quite woefully miss the point.
Rape is bad, yes. It's a really really horrible thing and i'm sorry for anyone who has experienced it
But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter in the slightest, it is mearly a human condition. A natural phenomenon. Is it evil if an adult Male lion kills a young lion cub? No, it's nature isn't it, cause and effect, or effect and cause
ibeefy8~
This i totally agree with.
The point that you seem blind to mr quiet is where do you draw the line between good and evil? I had sex before marriage, so does that make me evil? Does it make me as evil as the rapist? Can there be degrees of evil or is evil an absolute value? Because if something is less evil than something else doesn't that make it relatively Good?
What does the word Evil mean to you anyway?
But quiet if you choose to ignore all the valid points again, just answer this;
Where do you draw the line between good and evil?
Written by:
If 'x' is proved, it means that 'x' is true.
wouldn't it be better to say;
If 'x' is proved, it means 'x' is correct given the initial axioms
Because there is no way to prove the axioms are correct, therefore there is no way to prove 'x' is true.
As for dividing by zero, i'm thinking mathematicians kinda fudged that rule after they figured out 1=2
Quiet you still quite woefully miss the point.
Rape is bad, yes. It's a really really horrible thing and i'm sorry for anyone who has experienced it
But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter in the slightest, it is mearly a human condition. A natural phenomenon. Is it evil if an adult Male lion kills a young lion cub? No, it's nature isn't it, cause and effect, or effect and cause
ibeefy8~
Written by:
Don't worry, the rapist is still wrong, but he isnt wrong because its wrong in an absolute sense, he's wrong because he's gone against the socially acceptable limit. But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.
This i totally agree with.
The point that you seem blind to mr quiet is where do you draw the line between good and evil? I had sex before marriage, so does that make me evil? Does it make me as evil as the rapist? Can there be degrees of evil or is evil an absolute value? Because if something is less evil than something else doesn't that make it relatively Good?
What does the word Evil mean to you anyway?
But quiet if you choose to ignore all the valid points again, just answer this;
Where do you draw the line between good and evil?
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
re: right/wrong: i8beefy's: 'But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.'
Yeah, OK - I can live with that
Spherculist, if you can cite the 'valid points' that you made, then I'll start to believe that you made some. In response to your question, however:
1. The line between good and evil is specified by the categorical imperative: 'act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law.', or, equivalently, 'act in such a way as to treat other people never as mere means, but as ends in themselves.'
2. Sex before marriage doesn't make you evil in any way, shape, or form.
3. There can be degrees of evil.
4. But even if you don't agree with (1), that isn't a problem: just because you don't know where to draw the line between two categories doesn't mean that the categories don't exist. The problem might be epistemic - i.e. you might not be able to *know* which category a certain deed falls into - or it might be metaphysical, i.e. the objects might be 'vague' objects (for instance, when does a heap of sand stop being a heap of sand? how many grains do you need to remove before this happens?)
Your post contains the following sizeable blunder:
and I quote: 'Is it evil if an adult Male lion kills a young lion cub? No, it's nature isn't it, cause and effect, or effect and cause '
- Right: that's because the adult Male lion doesn't have a conscience, and cannot choose to act otherwise. Lions cannot decide to do things 'because they are right', and this is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal. This is the trivial truth that 'ought' implies 'can'. So your example fails.
re: right/wrong: i8beefy's: 'But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.'
Yeah, OK - I can live with that
Spherculist, if you can cite the 'valid points' that you made, then I'll start to believe that you made some. In response to your question, however:
1. The line between good and evil is specified by the categorical imperative: 'act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law.', or, equivalently, 'act in such a way as to treat other people never as mere means, but as ends in themselves.'
2. Sex before marriage doesn't make you evil in any way, shape, or form.
3. There can be degrees of evil.
4. But even if you don't agree with (1), that isn't a problem: just because you don't know where to draw the line between two categories doesn't mean that the categories don't exist. The problem might be epistemic - i.e. you might not be able to *know* which category a certain deed falls into - or it might be metaphysical, i.e. the objects might be 'vague' objects (for instance, when does a heap of sand stop being a heap of sand? how many grains do you need to remove before this happens?)
Your post contains the following sizeable blunder:
and I quote: 'Is it evil if an adult Male lion kills a young lion cub? No, it's nature isn't it, cause and effect, or effect and cause '
- Right: that's because the adult Male lion doesn't have a conscience, and cannot choose to act otherwise. Lions cannot decide to do things 'because they are right', and this is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal. This is the trivial truth that 'ought' implies 'can'. So your example fails.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As you say, the axioms of a system can't be proved by the system, as anything the system says about them pre-supposes their truth.
My take on this is that I use axioms that I can see to be true.
Before there's an outcry about that, I'll say that, at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to- a proof IMO, is a method whereby a view whose truth is not clear, is made so; generally by a series of easy-to-'see' (understand) steps- but other methods are valid (eg, certain mathematical 'truths' can be well expressed by a drawing).
So, IMO, if they are axioms, they are not in need of proof (which is good, because, as we both agree, they can't be proved from within the system for which they are axiomatic).
Written by: spherculist
wouldn't it be better to say;
If 'x' is proved, it means 'x' is correct given the initial axioms
Because there is no way to prove the axioms are correct, therefore there is no way to prove 'x' is true.
As you say, the axioms of a system can't be proved by the system, as anything the system says about them pre-supposes their truth.
My take on this is that I use axioms that I can see to be true.
Before there's an outcry about that, I'll say that, at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to- a proof IMO, is a method whereby a view whose truth is not clear, is made so; generally by a series of easy-to-'see' (understand) steps- but other methods are valid (eg, certain mathematical 'truths' can be well expressed by a drawing).
So, IMO, if they are axioms, they are not in need of proof (which is good, because, as we both agree, they can't be proved from within the system for which they are axiomatic).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
good and evil, this and that , life and death, awake and asleep,all modifications of the ultimate dream...
good and evil, this and that , life and death, awake and asleep,all modifications of the ultimate dream...
BRONZE Member
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Posted:
death cannot exist without life... but life can without death! So is death real, or is it a trasition!?
death cannot exist without life... but life can without death! So is death real, or is it a trasition!?
Regards
Shu
(Ice-E FyreStorm - Group Manager & Performer)
You know those people your parentals warned you about?... I'M ONE OF THEM!
Yes, i do bite!!
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
Yeah dave i argee with you on that.
Yeah dave i argee with you on that.
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
Ah quiet, i see your blunder now, and i quote "Lions cannot decide to do things 'because they are right', and this is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal."
You think of human kind as a superior race to other animals, how frightfully naive of you
I see human kind as a rather feable race on the planet, the only one dumb enough to destroy it's environment and live beyond the means the planet can maintain. This mainly comes down to the superiority complex people like you maintain. Which seems to have stemmed from the christian God giving the earth to humans to do with as we wish, leading the western world to rape and pillage the earth for finacial gain.
You are an animal like every other on this planet IMO. You really ain't all that special and nor am I.
m
Ah quiet, i see your blunder now, and i quote "Lions cannot decide to do things 'because they are right', and this is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal."
You think of human kind as a superior race to other animals, how frightfully naive of you
I see human kind as a rather feable race on the planet, the only one dumb enough to destroy it's environment and live beyond the means the planet can maintain. This mainly comes down to the superiority complex people like you maintain. Which seems to have stemmed from the christian God giving the earth to humans to do with as we wish, leading the western world to rape and pillage the earth for finacial gain.
You are an animal like every other on this planet IMO. You really ain't all that special and nor am I.
m
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
What on earth are you banging on about?
Will you kindly stop attributing to me beliefs which I do not hold, and statements which I did not make.
I don't think that humans are a 'superior race'. I agree fully that we are a 'feeble' (as it were) race, etc, etc, etc. I agree that I'm an animal 'like every other'.
My claim was: "'to [be able to ] do things 'because they are right' . . . is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal.'"
This doesn't mean that humans are better than animals: it simply means that we, UNLIKE ANIMALS, are fit for moral appraisal. Just as we're fit for linguistic appraisal, whereas animals are not. NOT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE SUPERIOR, but because there *are* differences between us and animals, and these differences render us - but not animals - fit for some kinds of appraisal. Moral and linguistic action being two prime examples.
What on earth are you banging on about?
Will you kindly stop attributing to me beliefs which I do not hold, and statements which I did not make.
I don't think that humans are a 'superior race'. I agree fully that we are a 'feeble' (as it were) race, etc, etc, etc. I agree that I'm an animal 'like every other'.
My claim was: "'to [be able to ] do things 'because they are right' . . . is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal.'"
This doesn't mean that humans are better than animals: it simply means that we, UNLIKE ANIMALS, are fit for moral appraisal. Just as we're fit for linguistic appraisal, whereas animals are not. NOT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE SUPERIOR, but because there *are* differences between us and animals, and these differences render us - but not animals - fit for some kinds of appraisal. Moral and linguistic action being two prime examples.
ture na sig
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
"What on earth are you banging on about?"
Much as this discussion has been amusing so far, quiet, that's a bit rude. You have to respect everyones views - even if you can't see their point.
Enough said. I hope.
"What on earth are you banging on about?"
Much as this discussion has been amusing so far, quiet, that's a bit rude. You have to respect everyones views - even if you can't see their point.
Enough said. I hope.
Getting to the other side 
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Firepoise: yes, it's rude, and it's meant to be. It was in response to spherculist saying:
'You think of human kind as a superior race to other animals, how frightfully naive of you '
Which:
i) I don't think
ii) I never said (or implied) that I think
and
iii) Shows that spherculist just can't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading my posts carefully enough to work out what I'm actually saying.
(iii), in particular, winds me up.
Firepoise: yes, it's rude, and it's meant to be. It was in response to spherculist saying:
'You think of human kind as a superior race to other animals, how frightfully naive of you '
Which:
i) I don't think
ii) I never said (or implied) that I think
and
iii) Shows that spherculist just can't be bothered to do me the courtesy of reading my posts carefully enough to work out what I'm actually saying.
(iii), in particular, winds me up.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
haha, quiet, you seriously think animals can't talk to each other?
Dolphins, elephants, chimps, bees, birds, ants......they all talk just fine. You just don't understand their language.
As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
So what you are saying is that good and evil don't exist in animals but they do exist in humans?
If so then i'd suggest to you that perhaps good and evil are a mental creation of a human mind and not as absolute as you once believed.
haha, quiet, you seriously think animals can't talk to each other?
Dolphins, elephants, chimps, bees, birds, ants......they all talk just fine. You just don't understand their language.
As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
So what you are saying is that good and evil don't exist in animals but they do exist in humans?
If so then i'd suggest to you that perhaps good and evil are a mental creation of a human mind and not as absolute as you once believed.
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
Now asuming you have a conscience then you are definitely implying that humans are superior to animals because
i) Animals have no conscience
ii) They have no free will
iii) They have no morals
m
Written by:
Right: that's because the adult Male lion doesn't have a conscience, and cannot choose to act otherwise. Lions cannot decide to do things 'because they are right', and this is a necessary requirement for any kind of moral appraisal.
Now asuming you have a conscience then you are definitely implying that humans are superior to animals because
i) Animals have no conscience
ii) They have no free will
iii) They have no morals
m
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Oh, christ.
1. If you're right in thinking that (i)-(iii) imply superiority, then a) yes, I'm implying that we're superior, but b) I'm right in doing so, because animals don't have conscience, free will, or morals. And vice versa.
2. But I don't think that (i)-(iii) imply superiority: please don't attribute to me beliefs which I don't have.
3. Ants can't talk to each other. YOU ARE CONFUSING COMMUNICATION WITH LANGUAGE. I can communicate my feelings (e.g. via facial expressions) without using language. Language has GRAMMAR, and is COMPOSITIONAL. Ants communicate with pheremones: pheremones don't have grammar, and aren't compositional. ffs.
4. Maybe dolphins can talk. I dunno.
5. AND I QUOTE:
---re: right/wrong: i8beefy's: 'But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.'
Yeah, OK - I can live with that '
So you still reckon that I think ethics is 'absolute'?
6. WILL YOU KINDLY READ MY F*CKING POSTS A BIT MORE CAREFULLY, AND DO ME THE KINDNESS OF RESPONDING TO WHAT I SAY?
if you can't be bothered to respond to what I've said, rather than stuff which you've made up and attributed to me, then I'm going to discontinue this discussion.
Oh, christ.
1. If you're right in thinking that (i)-(iii) imply superiority, then a) yes, I'm implying that we're superior, but b) I'm right in doing so, because animals don't have conscience, free will, or morals. And vice versa.
2. But I don't think that (i)-(iii) imply superiority: please don't attribute to me beliefs which I don't have.
3. Ants can't talk to each other. YOU ARE CONFUSING COMMUNICATION WITH LANGUAGE. I can communicate my feelings (e.g. via facial expressions) without using language. Language has GRAMMAR, and is COMPOSITIONAL. Ants communicate with pheremones: pheremones don't have grammar, and aren't compositional. ffs.
4. Maybe dolphins can talk. I dunno.
5. AND I QUOTE:
---re: right/wrong: i8beefy's: 'But right and wrong don't really exist without us, or something similar enough in ability to give rise to developed social structure.'
Yeah, OK - I can live with that '
So you still reckon that I think ethics is 'absolute'?
6. WILL YOU KINDLY READ MY F*CKING POSTS A BIT MORE CAREFULLY, AND DO ME THE KINDNESS OF RESPONDING TO WHAT I SAY?
if you can't be bothered to respond to what I've said, rather than stuff which you've made up and attributed to me, then I'm going to discontinue this discussion.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
That's odd I always thought it was called 'body language'
Oh yeah, by remarkable coincidence (or divine fate, whichever you adhear to) there is a 12 page special in new scientist at the moment about our relationship with animals, makes for very interesting reading. There is an interesting part about how philosophy likes to draw a line between human and nonhuman animals, but how art and now science have blurred that line.
Certainly when i gaze into a cats eye's i see a conscious, sentient being with feelings and emotions not dissimiar to my own.
I wonder if elephants have spiritual beliefs?
m
That's odd I always thought it was called 'body language'
Oh yeah, by remarkable coincidence (or divine fate, whichever you adhear to) there is a 12 page special in new scientist at the moment about our relationship with animals, makes for very interesting reading. There is an interesting part about how philosophy likes to draw a line between human and nonhuman animals, but how art and now science have blurred that line.
Certainly when i gaze into a cats eye's i see a conscious, sentient being with feelings and emotions not dissimiar to my own.
I wonder if elephants have spiritual beliefs?
m
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
BRONZE Member
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Posted:
I had a long drawn out response to this...
but it's not worth the effort when it's clear that objectivity is SO not a part of this!
I had a long drawn out response to this...
but it's not worth the effort when it's clear that objectivity is SO not a part of this!
Regards
Shu
(Ice-E FyreStorm - Group Manager & Performer)
You know those people your parentals warned you about?... I'M ONE OF THEM!
Yes, i do bite!!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
-----spherculist: 'As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
Um.
1. 'Rational' means 'for a (good) reason'.
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be able to recognise that reason.
3. But reasons are linguistic entities.
4. And dogs don't have language.
5. So dogs can't engage in rational thought.
QED.
Come on, read some Aristotle: we're rational animals, dogs aren't.
-----spherculist: 'As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
Um.
1. 'Rational' means 'for a (good) reason'.
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be able to recognise that reason.
3. But reasons are linguistic entities.
4. And dogs don't have language.
5. So dogs can't engage in rational thought.
QED.
Come on, read some Aristotle: we're rational animals, dogs aren't.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
-----spherculist: 'As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
Um.
1. 'Rational' means ' Of sound mind, sane.'
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be a positive being.
3. Positive beings are independant from linguistics.
4. And dogs have language humans cannot understand.
5. So dogs can engage in rational thought.
QED.
Come on, Aristotle is soooo passe, get with the program, thinking for yourself can produce fine results.
-----spherculist: 'As for morals. My dog was perfectly able to kill me, but he never did, not even when I pissed him off. I'd call that a rational moral judgement.
Um.
1. 'Rational' means ' Of sound mind, sane.'
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be a positive being.
3. Positive beings are independant from linguistics.
4. And dogs have language humans cannot understand.
5. So dogs can engage in rational thought.
QED.
Come on, Aristotle is soooo passe, get with the program, thinking for yourself can produce fine results.
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
i think sphereculist may only have meant that we are animals, hence "other animals" being applicable, or "the human animal".
For a great read on this humanist oversight see:
Straw Dogs-Thoughts on humans and other animals_by John Gray
Written by: quiet
. I agree that I'm an animal 'like every other'...
This doesn't mean that humans are better than animals...
because there *are* differences between us and animals
i think sphereculist may only have meant that we are animals, hence "other animals" being applicable, or "the human animal".
For a great read on this humanist oversight see:
Straw Dogs-Thoughts on humans and other animals_by John Gray
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
I was wondering about this the other day and I think, through observing and testing the phenomenon, perhaps dogs have a quasi-language made up of intervals of the breath when they put their heads close together and sniff in eachother's ears. So guys...get cracking and start dceiphering that language and ask the dogs whether or not ye are right or wrong, or if there is such a thing, for that matter.
Written by: quiet
4. And dogs don't have language.
I was wondering about this the other day and I think, through observing and testing the phenomenon, perhaps dogs have a quasi-language made up of intervals of the breath when they put their heads close together and sniff in eachother's ears. So guys...get cracking and start dceiphering that language and ask the dogs whether or not ye are right or wrong, or if there is such a thing, for that matter.
BRONZE Member
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Retro Fyre Wizzard
538 posts
Location: Pietermaritzburg (KZN), South Africa
Posted:
animals respond to audio stimulous... surely this can be translated into a form of language... not the same language as we understand it...
"Communicating" (so to speak) with animals is really easy once you understand that their language (so to speak) is on a different level from ours.
animals lack comprehensive vocabulary! but "bark" and "bark" can mean 2 very different things, as well as "tweet" and "tweet". and just because the human use of "language" is comprehensive, it does not neccessarily mean that that we are in any way superior to any other creature on this plannet (or universe, if you will). All are equal... and to go with that, if you really want to make a distinction, some may just be more equal than others! :P
animals respond to audio stimulous... surely this can be translated into a form of language... not the same language as we understand it...
"Communicating" (so to speak) with animals is really easy once you understand that their language (so to speak) is on a different level from ours.
animals lack comprehensive vocabulary! but "bark" and "bark" can mean 2 very different things, as well as "tweet" and "tweet". and just because the human use of "language" is comprehensive, it does not neccessarily mean that that we are in any way superior to any other creature on this plannet (or universe, if you will). All are equal... and to go with that, if you really want to make a distinction, some may just be more equal than others! :P
Regards
Shu
(Ice-E FyreStorm - Group Manager & Performer)
You know those people your parentals warned you about?... I'M ONE OF THEM!
Yes, i do bite!!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Spherculist: 'Come on, Aristotle is soooo passe, get with the program, thinking for yourself can produce fine results. '
Oh, really? Aristotle is passe? You obviously don't read much contemporary philosophy, mate. The recent virtue-ethicist movement (which has been going for the last 40-odd years) is based largely on Aristotelian thought. Ditto papers such as Doyle: Rationalism in Ethics.
But I suppose you realised that the argument which I generated was mine own, rather than Aristotle's. Since you're obviously familiar with Aristotle, this shouldn't be a surprise.
Further quote:
'1. 'Rational' means ' Of sound mind, sane.'
---No, it doesn't. It means, broadly, 'responsive to reasons'. I'm giving a paper on this at St Andrews on the 20th June, at the 'Unity of Reason' conference, if you're interested in coming along. I'm sure your input would be valuable.
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be a positive being.
------Would you care to explain what a 'positive being' is?
3. Positive beings are independant from linguistics.
----------What does this mean?
4. And dogs have language humans cannot understand.
----------It's not even a language: because languages necessarily have grammar, and are compositional.
I have to have to resort to dictionary definitions, but - from the OED:
'language' (n) 1. a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc., by the use of _spoken sounds or conventional symbols_, 2. the faculty for the use of such systems, _which is a distinguishing characteristic of man as compared with other animals_ [my underlining]
5. So dogs can engage in rational thought.'
Furthermore, on your model (4) is completely irrelevant. You can leave it out, since (5) depends on (3). But I suspect that (2) and (3) are meaningless; they're certainly not phrases that I've encountered in the past 4 years of analytic philosophy, so if you'd be kind enough to explain what they mean, I'd be grateful.
Maybe you should try reading some Davidson: you might find it educational.
Spherculist: 'Come on, Aristotle is soooo passe, get with the program, thinking for yourself can produce fine results. '
Oh, really? Aristotle is passe? You obviously don't read much contemporary philosophy, mate. The recent virtue-ethicist movement (which has been going for the last 40-odd years) is based largely on Aristotelian thought. Ditto papers such as Doyle: Rationalism in Ethics.
But I suppose you realised that the argument which I generated was mine own, rather than Aristotle's. Since you're obviously familiar with Aristotle, this shouldn't be a surprise.
Further quote:
'1. 'Rational' means ' Of sound mind, sane.'
---No, it doesn't. It means, broadly, 'responsive to reasons'. I'm giving a paper on this at St Andrews on the 20th June, at the 'Unity of Reason' conference, if you're interested in coming along. I'm sure your input would be valuable.
2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be a positive being.
------Would you care to explain what a 'positive being' is?
3. Positive beings are independant from linguistics.
----------What does this mean?
4. And dogs have language humans cannot understand.
----------It's not even a language: because languages necessarily have grammar, and are compositional.
I have to have to resort to dictionary definitions, but - from the OED:
'language' (n) 1. a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc., by the use of _spoken sounds or conventional symbols_, 2. the faculty for the use of such systems, _which is a distinguishing characteristic of man as compared with other animals_ [my underlining]
5. So dogs can engage in rational thought.'
Furthermore, on your model (4) is completely irrelevant. You can leave it out, since (5) depends on (3). But I suspect that (2) and (3) are meaningless; they're certainly not phrases that I've encountered in the past 4 years of analytic philosophy, so if you'd be kind enough to explain what they mean, I'd be grateful.
Maybe you should try reading some Davidson: you might find it educational.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
The 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 refer directly to the ussuptions you made in your prior 'proof'
If it's dictionary definitions you like then you'll be glad to know i got my definition of the word rational from dictionary.com, it was right next to the one you used
your second point "2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be able to recognise that reason." and your third point "3. But reasons are linguistic entities."
Simple doesn't follow a logical train of thought for me. I might buy my girlfriend flowers because i love her. That is a good reason. I don't need to recognise that love is the reason, nor understand what love is, nor do i need to be able to spell or speak the word LOVE. I just need to feel it.
The word language as dictionary.com has it:
1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
3. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
I draw your attention to: .....such as voice sounds, gestures,.... aka barking and peeing on teritory.......and.....or other distinct community.....such as dogkind
Then you say again "It's not even a language: because languages necessarily have grammar, and are compositional. "
To which my reply is of course going to be:
i) just because you are too dumb to understand don't be so dumb as to think other dogs cannot understand
ii) Body language and sign language don't to my knowledge use grammar or words.
iii) Language to me refers to the use of symbolism, symbols come in many forms,
I have read precicely no aristotle whatsoever. However I do know that much of philosophy makes a strong distinction between humans and non humans. Perhaps their biggest blunder. It is this facet of aristotle which i refer to as out dated by modern thinking, the 12 page special in new scientist explains this in great detail as it happens.
I am also aware that according to Darwin, animals must have a similar quality of mind in lesser quantity otherwise there would have needed to be a giant evolutionary leap from monkey to man. Perhaps you can explain this?
I'll be sure to read some Davidson, thanks.
Perhaps you should read some Darwin or Gurdjieff, you may find it enlightening
m
The 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 refer directly to the ussuptions you made in your prior 'proof'
If it's dictionary definitions you like then you'll be glad to know i got my definition of the word rational from dictionary.com, it was right next to the one you used
your second point "2. To do something for a good reason, you need to be able to recognise that reason." and your third point "3. But reasons are linguistic entities."
Simple doesn't follow a logical train of thought for me. I might buy my girlfriend flowers because i love her. That is a good reason. I don't need to recognise that love is the reason, nor understand what love is, nor do i need to be able to spell or speak the word LOVE. I just need to feel it.
The word language as dictionary.com has it:
1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
3. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
I draw your attention to: .....such as voice sounds, gestures,.... aka barking and peeing on teritory.......and.....or other distinct community.....such as dogkind
Then you say again "It's not even a language: because languages necessarily have grammar, and are compositional. "
To which my reply is of course going to be:
i) just because you are too dumb to understand don't be so dumb as to think other dogs cannot understand
ii) Body language and sign language don't to my knowledge use grammar or words.
iii) Language to me refers to the use of symbolism, symbols come in many forms,
I have read precicely no aristotle whatsoever. However I do know that much of philosophy makes a strong distinction between humans and non humans. Perhaps their biggest blunder. It is this facet of aristotle which i refer to as out dated by modern thinking, the 12 page special in new scientist explains this in great detail as it happens.
I am also aware that according to Darwin, animals must have a similar quality of mind in lesser quantity otherwise there would have needed to be a giant evolutionary leap from monkey to man. Perhaps you can explain this?
I'll be sure to read some Davidson, thanks.
Perhaps you should read some Darwin or Gurdjieff, you may find it enlightening
m
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
GOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand
Posted:
Flip:
Have you ever listened to a cat purrr. It is a very bizarre sound which resonates through the whole body. Perhaps it could be the language of cats.
Also I hear the birds in brighton every morning. Most make fairly basic sounds but there's this one that goes on for ages with really distinct kinds of [words and sentances].
Also whilst humans have good use of vocal chords who's to say they didn't develop because we lost our animal '6th sense'? Perhaps the animals view us as having 'no language'.
m
Flip:
Have you ever listened to a cat purrr. It is a very bizarre sound which resonates through the whole body. Perhaps it could be the language of cats.
Also I hear the birds in brighton every morning. Most make fairly basic sounds but there's this one that goes on for ages with really distinct kinds of [words and sentances].
Also whilst humans have good use of vocal chords who's to say they didn't develop because we lost our animal '6th sense'? Perhaps the animals view us as having 'no language'.
m
Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
spherculist: I draw your attention to (2) of your own definition:
'2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.'
Peeing on territory doesn't have rules for combining components. Ex hypothesi, dogs don't have language.
and furthermore:
quote: 'I have read precicely no aristotle whatsoever. '
really? so you think you're in a position to comment on what he said? if not - don't.
//
Yes, Darwin was absolutely right re: your point. But that doesn't entail that there isn't a sharp distinction between linguistic & non-linguistic creatures. There *was* a sharp evolutionary jump from monkey to man: that is why we're so successful, and that is why we can build aeroplanes, spaceships, guns, and computers, whilst monkeys cannot. On your own account, there IS a sharp distinction.
//
12-page specials in New Scientist are targetted at the general populace; tend, therefore, to be exaggerated; and are cited by no academic journal that I know of. Of course, if you know differently, I'd be fascinated to hear of it.
//
I've read Darwin thoroughly; I've never heard of Gurdfjieff. Could you give me some references?
//
Lastly, you've failed to explain what 'a positive being' means. I've tried, very hard, to think of what a 'negative being' would be, and I'm stumped. Please help.
EDITED_BY: quiet (1118230736)
spherculist: I draw your attention to (2) of your own definition:
'2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.'
Peeing on territory doesn't have rules for combining components. Ex hypothesi, dogs don't have language.
and furthermore:
quote: 'I have read precicely no aristotle whatsoever. '
really? so you think you're in a position to comment on what he said? if not - don't.
//
Yes, Darwin was absolutely right re: your point. But that doesn't entail that there isn't a sharp distinction between linguistic & non-linguistic creatures. There *was* a sharp evolutionary jump from monkey to man: that is why we're so successful, and that is why we can build aeroplanes, spaceships, guns, and computers, whilst monkeys cannot. On your own account, there IS a sharp distinction.
//
12-page specials in New Scientist are targetted at the general populace; tend, therefore, to be exaggerated; and are cited by no academic journal that I know of. Of course, if you know differently, I'd be fascinated to hear of it.
//
I've read Darwin thoroughly; I've never heard of Gurdfjieff. Could you give me some references?
//
Lastly, you've failed to explain what 'a positive being' means. I've tried, very hard, to think of what a 'negative being' would be, and I'm stumped. Please help.
EDITED_BY: quiet (1118230736)
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
He's not calling you dumb, he's drawing an analogy between the way you consider dogs to be incapeable of human style communication, and his view that dogs communicate in a way that you cannot understand.
ie that, in his view, the reason humans do not acknowledge dog communication isn't that it doesn't exist, but that we are too 'dumb' to understand it.
I really don't think he's being insulting to you, and I think you're getting wound up unnecessarily, and I don't like to see the kind of bad language and hostility you're coming out with.
I'm not having a go at you here, just requesting that you tone it down, cos otherwise this whole thread will get deleted by a moderator.
Written by: quiet
and you say:
'i) just because you are too dumb to understand don't be so dumb as to think other dogs cannot understand'
To which I say: don't, for chrissake, call me 'dumb'. You utter muppet; this is one of the worst argumentative moves that you can make. I have three degrees in philosophy pending, and intend to begin a fourth in October. You'd presumably think that a professional engineer would have some sound ideas about engineering. Do the f*kin induction, mate.
He's not calling you dumb, he's drawing an analogy between the way you consider dogs to be incapeable of human style communication, and his view that dogs communicate in a way that you cannot understand.
ie that, in his view, the reason humans do not acknowledge dog communication isn't that it doesn't exist, but that we are too 'dumb' to understand it.
I really don't think he's being insulting to you, and I think you're getting wound up unnecessarily, and I don't like to see the kind of bad language and hostility you're coming out with.
I'm not having a go at you here, just requesting that you tone it down, cos otherwise this whole thread will get deleted by a moderator.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Its a bum with an afro...
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
223 posts
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posted:
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
apologies if i'm getting carried away, i've just ditched the cigarettes, so i'm a little tense . . .
--------'he's drawing an analogy between the way you consider dogs to be incapeable of human style communication, and his view that dogs communicate in a way that you cannot understand.'
arg. damnit. I THINK THAT DOGS COMMUNICATE. I never denied that they communicate in ways which we can't understand. I simply claim that there is a difference between communication and language (for instance, pheremones assist in communication, but don't constitute language), and whilst dogs possess the former, they don't have command of the latter.
apologies if i'm getting carried away, i've just ditched the cigarettes, so i'm a little tense . . .
--------'he's drawing an analogy between the way you consider dogs to be incapeable of human style communication, and his view that dogs communicate in a way that you cannot understand.'
arg. damnit. I THINK THAT DOGS COMMUNICATE. I never denied that they communicate in ways which we can't understand. I simply claim that there is a difference between communication and language (for instance, pheremones assist in communication, but don't constitute language), and whilst dogs possess the former, they don't have command of the latter.
ture na sig
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com