Search the Community

This is a post-call feedback. The call helped me to determine where's the problem. I have noticed that Stefan insists on logic very much. Nothing wrong with that. But what if two different people use logic correctly, but come to different results? How's that possible? I think Stefan does not realize that logic is not the same as input and output of the logic. And whatever is the logic, we can manipulate the output by manipulating input. The input of logic is the real world, which we share. So how can we manipulate input? By creating concepts and categories of things, about which we think and which we leave undefined and unthinkable. We can create a category which connects together concepts into one, and this mix will give us any output we want, even if our logic is flawless. The way we define and combine our concepts is very subjective and very,very tricky. Stef for example defined a category of a "child" for me, as "someone who has no rights and no duties". An existence of such a combination of concepts is very problematic. (doubly problematic from someone who talked about how children in 8 years are totally independent in some societies) The concept of rights is in itself problematic, because they do not exist objectively, they exist only within a given society. And if I propose a different society, then all the rights, duties, sins and virtues will change - some will cease to exist, some will change beyond recognition. And there's no point in enumerating them, because they are just outer signs of a society which produced them. It is more useful to understand the input, than trying to divine input from the output. You can not understand someone else's output if you keep using your own input, even if you both use the same logic. We may have all the same logical engine, but if we feed it a different mix of concepts, we end up with totally different results. And what is that mix of concepts? Each is a word, which together comprise a LANGUAGE. If you know more languages than one, you know that some words contain a mix of meanings that in other language they don't. In my language most vocational nouns have a male gender. Like in French, some things have a male gender (even if non-living), some have female gender and some neutral. French does not have the neutral, it is even more sexist. English is comparatively neutral. So an English speaksperson may think Czechs are sexists and the French are even worse. And Czechs think that it is inconvenient, because you don't know what gender that person has, if someone is a babysitter or a babysitteress, which is a useful information. So the first thing we need to know, that we use a different language. The sounds are the same, but each has multiple meanings and they are differently mixed. So however impeccable our logic is, we will come to different results. This is a serious problem. I realized that we can't just talk to each other. We have a different language, so whatever we say will be misunderstood. We have to realize that there are different languages even if the sounds are the same and even if the logic is the same. That is a serious problem, almost like realizing there are aliens living alongside us. That is a problem for anyone who think that just being logical is enough. Logic is a great achievement today - look at all these Christians. But logical people with different language are almost as useless as illogical people with the same language. If the sounds are different, you'll just realize, "I don't understand the guy, he's got a different laguage." But if the sounds are the same, but concepts aren't, you will think the guy is "illogical, bad at grammar, childish..." Do we ever choose the language? No, we don't. Vast majority of people do not think about languages or underlying concepts. What multitude of meanings can be hidden under one concept - "the heathen"? We do not shop for languages, because we can't know what good is it until we learn it. It's a take it or leave it. Logic is useless here, because you don't have the input info about how good a language it is. People mostly learn languages because of relationships. You need to have a relationship with a person in order to want to learn his or her language, because that helps you to have a better relationship. Imagine, I tell you about a language which is beautiful - a simple, logical, yet rich and colourful, very easy to combine, very intuitive yet logical, has only few grammar rules, does not marginalize people... And you tell me, so if this language is so great, then go talking it and you will out-compete those who talk in the old language! Obviously, this is nonsense. This is not how languages spread. A language is only as good as its access to people, to information, new books, films, science... If you talk a perfect language but few people around the world talk that way, you're as good as mute. And you're even worse off, if you use the same sounds, people will think you're crazy or illogical. So trying to out-compete another language is a Catch 22 situation. Stefan's suggestion "go try it if it's good and you will out-compete everyone" is as good as "fuck off". Language does not make people richer or more successful. That's the question of resources, energy, technology... We can only compare languages and their success if their content is equal. Not if one has all the content and the other has little content. That is not a fair comparison. I think I nailed the problem. Comment, please.