Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Week 2: Language

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?
4b) If so, what are the implications?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:51:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

No. Yes.

2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

No, though it is an important and necessary one. I would argue that logic is the most fundamental discipline, and it doesn't require language except to express it to others.

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

No. Because it self-contradicts--it says colorless and green, a contradiction in terms.

4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?

Heap has a subjective definition.

4a) Is this actually a paradox?

No, it's merely an example of a definition which has poor boundaries, unless we accept as a premise that removing one grain can NEVER take something from heap to nonheap status. A single grain is not a heap. Whether 2 grains is is up for debate.

4b) If so, what are the implications?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 8:28:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?
Objective communication is possible if you define your terms. Definitions refer to concrete existents, and, since the qualities and perceptions of these concretes are objective, so are definitions.
2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?
It depends on how strictly you define language. Concepts are only manageable because they have "names", even if they're not communicable. To form a concept to be named, though, you must both manage sense data by means of a conceptual process (the discipline of conceptualizat) and do so according to the most fundamental rules of the universe (by way of logic).

Linguistics is the most fundamental discipline in communication apart from those previously mentioned which make the concept of "communication" possible, in the same way as the study of astrophysics is dependant on the study of quantum physics which is dependant on math, etc, to logic and conceptualization. It all depends on what you mean by "most fundamental".
3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?
It's syntaxically correct. It's also meaningless and self-contradictory, which is kind of the point - it only shows that there is a difference between syntax and mesning/coherence.
4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?
No. It relies on you being too much of a spineless pansy to put your foot down and define "heap".
4b) If so, what are the implications?
None.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Subutai
Posts: 3,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 5:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?


This is a tough question. The way I see it, the use of language is subjective. Even concrete terms conjure up individual differences for each person. Even the "language connectors" are interpretable.
2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?


A world with no life is a world without language, so I'd say that linguistics is not fundamental. In the sense that we can only express knowledge about anything through language, language is probably the most important thing explicitly, but I'd say logic is mostly the basis of language.
3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?


Since you can't identify a contradiction, it's not contradictory, it just makes no sense (however, in this case, "colorless green" does contradict).
4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?

Not really. What defines "heap" is too vague. We can agree with a billion grains of sand is a heap, whereas one grain of sand is not a heap. There's a certain point that's "murky", but this is only due to an ambiguous definitions.
4b) If so, what are the implications?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.

So yes and no and yes and no.

2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

Yes, because it is our foundation for meaning and understanding, and therefore thought.

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

No, it is an example of an inconsistent and meaningless statement.


4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?
4b) If so, what are the implications?

It's not a paradox, it's merely an example of how our language - like pretty much everything else - works based along fuzzy boundaries.
NoTomorrow
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

I'd suggest the study of language is of utmost importance. How else would the language grow and be refined as our knowledge grows and is refined?

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

Maybe if we consider some of the words, like, "ideas sleep". Couldn't that refer to dreams? "Furiously" has a synonym of intently, so maybe we are talking about intense dreams?
I'm reminded of the childhood poem:
"One fine day in the middle of the night
Two dead men got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other."


If we think of "one fine day" as a day without rain, a "day" as a period of 24 hours and the "middle of the night" as midnight, then the poem starts to make some sense.

Many puzzles and much prose relies on such colourful language. I'd hate to see all that lost just for the sake of avoiding misinterpretation.
Clearly however, ambiguity in science should be avoided. For all other cases, maybe readers should try harder to understand what others are trying to say. We can do it, but we often get lazy and want everything spelled out in the language that we ourselves would use.

Some of the best quotes I've seen not only express the ideas that I've had, but do so concisely, succinctly and beautifully, that I wish I had that talent.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

I don't think that dichotomy exists in the way that Anglo-analytic philosophy has portrays it. It's not that objective expression should be necessarily valued above subjectivity (which is often viewed as a cause of conflict e.g. Habermas, Hoppe, Enlightenment rationalists). I think philosophy has often misconstrued subjective interpretation and non-objective language games as a Hobbesian "war of all against all" without final arbitration or judgement. Rather, so-called objectivity should be analysed more critically as a historical-political mechanism in, I guess, a Foucauldian-Lyotardian sort of way. That is, historical reason is less the product of an engaged, unprejudiced method of lessening conflict (that would appear as a result of a lack of any intelligible, intersubjective way of resolving conflict) and mores so a way of ideologically subjugating non-"approved" language games (games which are othered due to material, ethnic, or philosophical prejudices). The "myth" of objectivity would thus appear as prejudiced at the outset as opposed to a protection from it.

I have other thoughts on the matter but they swerve into different directions which would require more time and space to resolve (Horkheimer/Adorno's writings on mechanical reason, Foucault's specific thoughts on the origination of modern political subjectivity and its relation to truth, even Marx's seminal works on the relationship between philosophical truth and material-economic interests or Derrida's work on interpretation).

And honestly, I think the way the question is worded (pitting the hopeful possibility of objectivity against the "problem" of subjectivity) reflects the main difference (imo) between so-called Analytic and Continental philosophy as a whole (discounting outliers like Habermas, Rorty, or Wittgenstein). For while analytic philosophy tends to view objectivity as the solution to subjectivity's problem (going back to Descartes), continental philosophy is often more interested in the ways in which objectivity is produced (starting perhaps with Kant), finding in subjectivity much more than mere non-reason.

And whatever the other questions seem boring so I'll leave it at this.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that
2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

Maybe. Without a proper linguistics, understanding various topics would be much harder. Furthermore, language could be the medium of cognition. This would make it perhaps the post fundamental discipline.

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

I think consistent would assume there exists meaning. I'm not sure we can apply terms like consistent or inconsistent to that sentence. It's like applying scent to colors. Asking if it's consistent simply isn't a valid question
4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?
4b) If so, what are the implications?

A heap is relativity defined.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.
2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?

I'd suggest the study of language is of utmost importance. How else would the language grow and be refined as our knowledge grows and is refined?

3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?

Maybe if we consider some of the words, like, "ideas sleep". Couldn't that refer to dreams? "Furiously" has a synonym of intently, so maybe we are talking about intense dreams?
I'm reminded of the childhood poem:
"One fine day in the middle of the night
Two dead men got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other."


If we think of "one fine day" as a day without rain, a "day" as a period of 24 hours and the "middle of the night" as midnight, then the poem starts to make some sense.

Many puzzles and much prose relies on such colourful language. I'd hate to see all that lost just for the sake of avoiding misinterpretation.
Clearly however, ambiguity in science should be avoided. For all other cases, maybe readers should try harder to understand what others are trying to say. We can do it, but we often get lazy and want everything spelled out in the language that we ourselves would use.

Some of the best quotes I've seen not only express the ideas that I've had, but do so concisely, succinctly and beautifully, that I wish I had that talent.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
NoTomorrow
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:26:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.

You could be right, however if we were having that conversation, I'd have to ask why you are peeling , slicing and deep frying puppies.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:39:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:26:44 PM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.

You could be right, however if we were having that conversation, I'd have to ask why you are peeling , slicing and deep frying puppies.

Not if we have different interpretations of those words.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:43:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate

I think language's meaning is within the context of behavior. To have a subjective language would be absurd and as Wittgenstein says contradiction.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 1:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:39:29 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:26:44 PM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.

You could be right, however if we were having that conversation, I'd have to ask why you are peeling , slicing and deep frying puppies.

Not if we have different interpretations of those words.

mean
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.
Subutai
Posts: 3,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 4:28:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:10:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Can someone think of how to fix question 3 so it's actually interesting?

Well, aside from the fact that you have "colorless green" in it, asking if an incomprehensible sentence is consistent is a good question. Besides the specific sentence, I don't see anything wrong with the question
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 5:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:43:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate

I think language's meaning is within the context of behavior. To have a subjective language would be absurd and as Wittgenstein says contradiction.

Where did he say that exactly though?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
NoTomorrow
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 10:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:44:06 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:39:29 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:26:44 PM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.

You could be right, however if we were having that conversation, I'd have to ask why you are peeling , slicing and deep frying puppies.

Not if we have different interpretations of those words.

I'd think that if in our conversation we were confusing potatoes with puppies then we have even more serious problems than mere interpretations. I'd suggest that we either weren't talking the same language, or, one of us (probably me) is insane.


mean

Your one word reply, "mean", I think, demonstrates my point. From one word, you are asking me to make a subjective interpretation of what you mean. For example, did you mean that I was being mean to you by suggesting that you might the kind of person who prefers their puppies deep fried? Or that I'm being mean to the puppies to even associate them with deep frying? Or, do you mean both interpretations are applicable?:)
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:41:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 1:43:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate

I think language's meaning is within the context of behavior. To have a subjective language would be absurd and as Wittgenstein says contradiction.

He does? It sounds a bit like you're somewhat confused about the meaning and implications of the Private Language Argument.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 2:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.

Then you should re-read what I just wrote, where I explained that there may be some areas which can be objective and others that are necessarily subjective. I don't know how you got that I think that objective communication is impossible from that; I was pretty clear that I think not only is it possible in some areas but in fact necessary.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 9:35:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.

That's a very obvious false dichotomy. It's surprising you don't see it immediately.

Are you saying that if there exists one statement which does not communicate objectively, then all of communication is non-objective (i.e., all possible statements are not objective)?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:54:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 10:40:13 PM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:44:06 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:39:29 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:26:44 PM, NoTomorrow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:07:40 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 9:08:33 AM, NoTomorrow wrote:
I'd ask whether subjective interpretation is a problem, or is it what makes the language so vibrant?

I would think so. We could be having a conversation and what it means to me could be about potatoes and to you could be about puppies. We could never know the true intent of the speaker.

You could be right, however if we were having that conversation, I'd have to ask why you are peeling , slicing and deep frying puppies.

Not if we have different interpretations of those words.

I'd think that if in our conversation we were confusing potatoes with puppies then we have even more serious problems than mere interpretations. I'd suggest that we either weren't talking the same language, or, one of us (probably me) is insane.


mean

Your one word reply, "mean", I think, demonstrates my point. From one word, you are asking me to make a subjective interpretation of what you mean. For example, did you mean that I was being mean to you by suggesting that you might the kind of person who prefers their puppies deep fried? Or that I'm being mean to the puppies to even associate them with deep frying? Or, do you mean both interpretations are applicable?:)

Now it seems you believe objective communication is possible. You're arguing that if there was some miscommunication between puppies and potatoes one of us is insane. That's what I'm saying! But anyway you answer your own question in why the problem is important.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 11:56:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 5:02:26 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:43:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate

I think language's meaning is within the context of behavior. To have a subjective language would be absurd and as Wittgenstein says contradiction.

Where did he say that exactly though?

Philosophical investigations. The private language argument.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:11:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 2:41:59 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/14/2015 1:43:48 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:15:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 4/14/2015 12:04:54 PM, n7 wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

Yes, objective communication is possible. I think Wittgenstein's argument shows that

Elaborate

I think language's meaning is within the context of behavior. To have a subjective language would be absurd and as Wittgenstein says contradiction.

He does? It sounds a bit like you're somewhat confused about the meaning and implications of the Private Language Argument.

I am?? How?


"The issue's significance can be seen by considering how the argument is embedded in the structure of Philosophical Investigations. Immediately prior to the introduction of the argument (""241f), Wittgenstein suggests that the existence of the rules governing the use of language and making communication possible depends on agreement in human behaviour"such as the uniformity in normal human reaction which makes it possible to train most children to look at something by pointing at it. (Unlike cats, which react in a seemingly random variety of ways to pointing.) One function of the private language argument is to show that not only actual languages but the very possibility of language and concept formation depends on the possibility of such agreement."

http://plato.stanford.edu...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?
The sun rises from the west <- Possible
The sun is beautiful <- Not possible

In the end of the day it depends on whether it's normative or positive, and whether there's a universal definition. The definition of 'sun'

(Just my layman opinion; I've read very little on semantics - although what little I've read interest me, I've forgotten most of it - and no pragmatics.)

2. Is linguistics the most fundamental discipline? Why or why not?
Yes... although I just say that because I'm biased towards it. It's my favourite area of study, particularly syntax.
3. Is the sentence "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" an example of a consistent yet meaningless statement?
If you mean syntactically accurate yet meaningless, then yes, as bossyburrito said.
4. The Sorites Paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? (Or are even no grains at all a heap?) If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
4a) Is this actually a paradox?
I don't think so. Heap is 'collection of sand' with the [+many] attribute, and 'many' is subjective.

In any case:
Given P1: a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap
It does not follow that 'removing n - 1 grains from the heap does not turn a heap into a non-heap, where n is the original number of grains in the heap. That would be a fallacy of composition.

4b) If so, what are the implications?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 2:44:14 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.

Then you should re-read what I just wrote, where I explained that there may be some areas which can be objective and others that are necessarily subjective.

If objective communication is possible in some instance, then it is possible period. My phrasing may have been vague, but it wasn't necessarily incorrect. Necessity and possibility are not the same thing.

It is possible to fly, but impossible when, for example, you are not aboard an airplane or something. We still consider it "possible to fly".

I don't know how you got that I think that objective communication is impossible from that; I was pretty clear that I think not only is it possible in some areas but in fact necessary.

When did I say that? I suggested that you thought it was possible.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 12:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 9:35:27 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.

That's a very obvious false dichotomy. It's surprising you don't see it immediately.

Are you saying that if there exists one statement which does not communicate objectively, then all of communication is non-objective (i.e., all possible statements are not objective)?

Do you really think this is what I'm arguing?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 1:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, "necessity and possibility are not the same thing" is incorrect. I was trying to say that "possibility" does not imply "ubiquitous possibility". Necessity =/= ubiquitous possibility.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 4:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 12:58:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/15/2015 9:35:27 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 4/14/2015 4:09:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2015 3:04:34 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:58:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1. Is objective communication/expression possible, or will subjective interpretation always be a problem?

There's a problem with this question, in that it presents a false dichotomy; a further option would be that some matters may be inherently subjective while others may have the potentital for objective communication. I'm not entirely convinced that the objective/subjective divide is as clear as generally held, but there are certainly statements that I think can be meaningfully held to be objectively true, within the linguistic framework from which that meaning is drawn. I'd even go as far as to say that there are objective statements that are necessarily expressible in any possible linguistic framework, such as "there is existence". Similarly though, it also seems that linguistics has requirements (i.e. multiple language users) that mean certain subjective expressions are necessarily going to exist as well.


I don't see how the dichotomy is false. Either objective communication is possible or it's impossible. You seem to think the former.

That's a very obvious false dichotomy. It's surprising you don't see it immediately.

Are you saying that if there exists one statement which does not communicate objectively, then all of communication is non-objective (i.e., all possible statements are not objective)?

Do you really think this is what I'm arguing?

You clarified what you meant in your response to Graincruncher, and that cleared it up for me. Thanks.