Koroviev Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Another thing I was just thinking about was the difference between literal meaning and conversational implicature. Literal meaning being the conventional meaning assigned to those words. Conversational implicature being the information that is conveyed in a particular conversational context. Although the conversational implicature may change on a case by case basis the literal meaning stays constant aside from being added to or adjusted over time due to cultural influence and/or (over)use of slang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 Ok, great! I was hoping not and after your conversation with Stef I'd assumed not but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of how it was coming off from the other side of the interwebs. Is that argument fundamentally different from saying that the argument for UPB is weakened because people may interpret different words in different ways? In other words the meaning of words is neither abstract nor rational, consistent, etc. and can only be derived from the way they are used by other people. Are the notions distinct? Yes. Unrelated. No. The use theory of meaning places the source of words, including abstract ones, as being founded in a way of life. By that I mean it is not that our axioms are self-evident, but rather that they come from shared experiences, practices... ways of doing things that are themselves actions of certainty, not doubt or skepticism. This however prevents us from saying certain things about our axioms, like fore instance that our axioms are arrived at through logic, or that they are the product of valid reasoning. Notions of consistency, validity, and reason are themselves the starting points of our arguments, but they cannot look backwards to prove their own givens. BOTTOM LINE: useful non-consistent theories are meaningful for the very fact that they are useful. This may be threatening to UPB. I'll be honest, rereading the bubble "meaning of words are not abstract unless there is some version of "abstraction" that doesn't contradict "definite" "consistent" and "objective " Is almost perfectly backwards (the other huge chain though is great!). In saying that words, through use, have a range of meanings that is not necessarily definite, consistent, or objective, in every case. "pain" is in some sense subjective, yet it has meaning. "definite" is contradicted by Stefan's fuzzy edges metaphor. "Objective" is tricky. If by "objective" you mean something shared between people, then yes. If by "objective" you mean words are mere stand ins for things in themselves, I'd say no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Right but isn't that a self defeating argument because if the meanings of all words and concepts are based off of shared experiences and that which comes from a shared experience cannot "prove it's own given" then even that argument can have no meaning. Therefor, at least some words must have an objective and consistent meaning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 Right but isn't that a self defeating argument because if the meanings of all words and concepts are based off of shared experiences and that which comes from a shared experience cannot "prove it's own given" then even that argument can have no meaning. Therefor, at least some words must have an objective and consistent meaning It's actually an argument as to why we won't find further arguments. The mistake, in Wittgenstein's view, is to look for arguments where there are none to be found nor could there ever be. The fact that language reflects something shared, means that there are minds sharing things, thoughts, and ideas, and that those minds only do so because of the lives they are embedded into. The purpose is to put a halt into inquiry of the origin of the first principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 If every argument is based at some point on an axiom and an axiom cannot prove itself then there can be no arguments which is self defeating no matter what you're arguing about. By that theory then every argument breaks down at some point and there is no such thing as a valid argument. If I propose that E=mc2 but the meaning of E only exists because of our shared experience of it. Wouldn't you then have to propose that that theory is weakened as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 If every argument is based at some point on an axiom and an axiom cannot prove itself then there can be no arguments which is self defeating no matter what you're arguing about. By that theory then every argument breaks down at some point and there is no such thing as a valid argument. If I propose that E=mc2 but the meaning of E only exists because of our shared experience of it. Wouldn't you then have to propose that that theory is weakened as well? Hmm... I think the way I frame it, and feel free to call it non-sense, is that all arguments are inductive. How we rank the value of inductive arguments is two-fold, their initial falsafiabiliy, and how may times they have been tested since inception. That is, the strength of arguments comes from how precise and testable they are and how often they have survived these test that would disprove them. In short "Everything's inductive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hmm... I think the way I frame it, and feel free to call it non-sense, is that all arguments are inductive. How we rank the value of inductive arguments is two-fold, their initial falsafiabiliy, and how may times they have been tested since inception. That is, the strength of arguments comes from how precise and testable they are and how often they have survived these test that would disprove them. In short "Everything's inductive." Ah! Great! So if all arguments are inductive then you'd have to hold all arguments to that same standard not just new ones. Also, if everything is inductive then couldn't you say that which is supported by evidence for a really really really long time in every situation is consistent? And that which is consistent and influenced as little as possible by personal feelings and opinions objective? Then that which is deduced from that which is objective and consistent is logical. etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 Ah! Great! So if all arguments are inductive then you'd have to hold all arguments to that same standard not just new ones. Also, if everything is inductive then couldn't you say that which is supported by evidence for a really really really long time in every situation is consistent? And that which is consistent and influenced as little as possible by personal feelings and opinions objective? Then that which is deduced from that which is objective and consistent is logical. etc. etc. Yes, you could say these things. But these things are in the arena of empiricism. They are not true in some absolute sense. The difference is that the axioms themselves are no longer considered fundamental truths of the universe. This distinction is illustrated in an extremely explicit manner by labmath in his thread....don't bother reading the side tangents, just read his or her posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 but isn't inductive reasoning empirical? Also, is anything pertaining to morality true in an absolute sense? Either way what does it matter if it is or is not. If the argument is sound and it is sufficient why does it need to be true in an absolute sense? I did read labmath's post and responded to it, quite well I thought, but my response seems to have been missed or ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 but isn't inductive reasoning empirical? Also, is anything pertaining to morality true in an absolute sense? Either way what does it matter if it is or is not. If the argument is sound and it is sufficient why does it need to be true in an absolute sense? I did read labmath's post and responded to it, quite well I thought, but my response seems to have been missed or ignored. I will take a look! As you said in another thread, property rights do a really good job in, for the sake of argument, 99% of cases. The 1% becomes less mysterious and grey when viewed from the perspective that there may be practical considerations that in rare circumstances supersede that particular framework of morality. I'm not trying to expand the 1%, merely make the case for its existence and that it is likely other solutions are abound. Strictly speaking, considerations of the innate value of subverting ones desires in a small set of circumstances are reasonable considerations. That being said, I think most Utilitarians vastly underestimate the power and efficiency of relative notions of value and the handling of those valuations in voluntary manners. In deed all sorts of problems arise when you try and broaden the scope of Utilitarian calculations. Still, a tool may be valuable even if it's use is quite niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sage of Main Street Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 This doesn't make sense, to me "mic drop" is when someone picks up a microphone. As Bizarre As Spelling Mike "Mich" Because It Is Derived From Michael Spelling mike "mic" doesn't make any sense and is so unphonetic that it is dysfunctional. The media thought this one up. Their reasoning was, "Let's make up something real stupid and see if the suckers still use us as language role models. If they do, that will prove how much power we have over them." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 I always have these kinds of trouble when debating with people. Far too late do I notice they use different meaning to words than me. I try to remedy this by using concise mathematical definitions, no abstractions, no new terms, etc. When people say I'm wrong (even though how can I be wrong when I'm defining how I think) I ask them to define themselves that which I'm wrong about so as to use their definition layer on. They inevitably go into some lengthy confusing definition which boils down to how they feel about things. For instance with morality. They defined it as that which is the basis of love. I asked them to define love and they said love is something you feel. Their syllogism of course implies that morality is subjective, which makes no sense and when called upon I got the usual moving the goalpost, false dichotomies, etc. This one time I got called upon for not knowing what I was talking about. I proved that I was by quoting the dictionary, after which I got promptly accused of having a very narrow point of view. "Not everything in life boils down to definitions!", they said. I conclude therefore that defining terms doesn't really matter, the nuances of language don't really matter either. What matters is whether or not the person you're talking to has some skin in the game, i.e. they have some ulterior motive they wanna prove you wrong. Quite recently I had a debate with someone in which I used the socratic method to find common ground. After I showed them we both agreed they quickly concluded I was wrong and ended the conversation. How do definitions not matter ? In law, definitions matter. In contracts, definitions matter. The same has to be applied to arguments. I used to be a neocon. I used to argue with non neocons about stuff. I guess I had "skin in the game" because I argued for neocon ideals ? But now that I am not a neocon, my "skin in the game" has changed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koroviev Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 As Bizarre As Spelling Mike "Mich" Because It Is Derived From Michael Spelling mike "mic" doesn't make any sense and is so unphonetic that it is dysfunctional. The media thought this one up. Their reasoning was, "Let's make up something real stupid and see if the suckers still use us as language role models. If they do, that will prove how much power we have over them." Lol I just saw this post....mic is short for microphone....not Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugzysegal Posted November 14, 2015 Author Share Posted November 14, 2015 Lol I just saw this post....mic is short for microphone....not Michael Jokes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armitage Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 This one time I got called upon for not knowing what I was talking about. I proved that I was by quoting the dictionary, after which I got promptly accused of having a very narrow point of view. "Not everything in life boils down to definitions!", they said. I conclude therefore that defining terms doesn't really matter, the nuances of language don't really matter either. What matters is whether or not the person you're talking to has some skin in the game, i.e. they have some ulterior motive they wanna prove you wrong. Quite recently I had a debate with someone in which I used the socratic method to find common ground. After I showed them we both agreed they quickly concluded I was wrong and ended the conversation. Very narrow view on life? Tell them that life is like a coloring book. It's supposed to be not black and white, but every coloring book needs the black lines, otherwise it's a mess. But you can make it easier on people, if you think they're worth it. The basic trick of evil people is to take an evil thing and give it a new name and say that it's good. So we absolutely, desperately need definitions, or evil people will sell us evil or worthless ideas. When I was very young, I was puzzled by definitions. Why define anything? Don't people just know what I mean, what things mean? The truth is, they don't. Most words have just two components, a word and a feeling, nice or not nice, put together. They have no shared idea behind them and no real thing out there to point to. These are the buzzwords. Most people live in a great delusion of buzzwords. Buzzwords aren't absolutely interchangeable, but they are very fluid and vague historically and politically. Bad definitions are the reason why we can't have nice things. Without definitions, there is no peace, no productivity and so on. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts