Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Religion and Politics.
Is there anything more to philosophy than semantics?
- Thread starter littlebabyjesus
- Start date
Religion and Politics.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Indeed.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
But what cause does it advance, for later people to propose that medieval people believed that the earth was flat?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Let me put my point a different way:
Once philosophy has resolved its semantic problems, it is left with nothing to say (a Wittgensteinian silence). The problems that it was dealing with can then only be resolved further in other fields, for instance in physics.
As an example, the true nature of infinity is, once you have defined the term, a question for theoretical physics not philosophy. Discoveries in physics may then lead to a changed understanding of infinity that requires a new shared definition of the word, which could throw it back to philosophy, but it is important for philosophers to know their limits.
Put yet another way, the reason it is important to realise that philosophy is 'only' semantics is that it stops you from attempting to solve through philosophy questions which are not within philosophy's remit. It saves a lot of wasted effort.
Once philosophy has resolved its semantic problems, it is left with nothing to say (a Wittgensteinian silence). The problems that it was dealing with can then only be resolved further in other fields, for instance in physics.
As an example, the true nature of infinity is, once you have defined the term, a question for theoretical physics not philosophy. Discoveries in physics may then lead to a changed understanding of infinity that requires a new shared definition of the word, which could throw it back to philosophy, but it is important for philosophers to know their limits.
Put yet another way, the reason it is important to realise that philosophy is 'only' semantics is that it stops you from attempting to solve through philosophy questions which are not within philosophy's remit. It saves a lot of wasted effort.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
To make themselves feel better about knowing such stuff? To taint the memory of the medieval period as being one rung above the dark age?
Come on Canuck, history is written by those in power - the Victorians created the view and factual narrative of the history I grew up with, and it's only recently in more mainstream writing do you see people openly acknowledging that lots of it was bollocks made up to support the myth of development being a never ending upward curve, the Pharonic model of government being perfect. The biggest, most obvious example of this was the fixation on the classics the Victorians had - harking back to the great days of the civilising Roman Empire, taking light to the 'dark places'.
The whole notion of the 'dark ages' in Europe was an invention of the C19th, because ALL of the major powers had empires they compared with Rome.
If something attains the stature of myth it's because someone, somewhere, sometime, with power, will have gained something from it.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
but was it really? surely the black death and the rise of the marauding warrior socities has some veracity. Or have I been sold another bloody lie.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The victorians painted the whole period as one where everything went down the shitter, and...well, it didn't really.
The funny thing (from a Xtian moralising vicky's POV) is that this was the period that Xtianity established itself in Europe in a big way - this idea that Europe decended into an illiterate fug for 800 years without some toga wearing bullies to shine the light of oppression/civilisation on it is bollocks.
The funny thing (from a Xtian moralising vicky's POV) is that this was the period that Xtianity established itself in Europe in a big way - this idea that Europe decended into an illiterate fug for 800 years without some toga wearing bullies to shine the light of oppression/civilisation on it is bollocks.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Yes, I think so.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Much of the knowledge of the ancients was lost to Europe from the fall of Byzantium to the Renaissance, though, was it not? That at least is true, even if its importance can be questioned. It also fits with the fact that Arab ideas were so far in advance of Europe in this period.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yes it was, giving local European cultures the opportunity to develop on their own instead of having classical civilisation dumped on them by way of the Legions. If you choose to call this a 'dark age' then so be it, I think the term and concept is high minded, classical civilisation toadying bollocks quite honestly - it's also utterly vital to the rise of the justification for Imperialism in this country's history, so you shouldn't be too quick to support it either...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that is an interesting point. Having said that, it cannot be good to lose the insights of Greek mathematics, for instance. Arabs didn't, and so their ideas advanced. No point in reinventing the wheel.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
True enough - it wasn't a 'good' thing to happen, but this notion that there was no life, culture, through the period is a nonsense.
Taking the UKs experience - the Victorian view of history was this:
Pre-greek=nothing happening at all in Northern Europe, full of baby eating squatters eating tree bark and throwing faeces at each other. Then come THE ROMANS, with their togas, wine and straight roads. Now, the Romans were important because while they never really came up with anything themselves, they were the acceptable face of classical civilsation, without any need for questions over boy-loving. Plus of course, they were a strong, pharonic nation state that had huge industrial capacity (as opposed to the Greeks who lacked the infrastructure of the Romans) and was keen on the idea of bringing civilisation to the dark places...
Once the Roman's left, it all goes to shit for 800 years til the French come along and install William. Then it's an upward curve, with Britain's 'destiny' to become the next Rome - and why not? The Vatican was a permanent image of what spoils and glories one could achieve in the name of Empire...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that is a powerful way of looking at it. In many respects, we are still living in the rump-end of the Victorian era, I would think, both in terms of personal morality and the presumption that we should 'bring civilisation to the dark places'.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I agree with that.
Just as a small tangent, I live in a ex-mining town in the north west. When I walk down the terraced streets, I get this weird feeling, like we are all living in the ruins of a past age. Like people living in Egyptian ruins, or Aztec ruins, or something.
/tangent over.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What hacks me off the most about it is:
1. It's only recently that I've had a chance to read some real research history and archaeology about Britain and it's early cultures that isn't seen through the sneery 'Yes, but look what the Romans did for pots'...
2. This is the first history we're taught, and I suspect that like many things in childhood by the age of 8 it's created some hard to break modes of thinking about how the world should and shouldn't work - perhaps someone could come up with some way of deprogramming the romantic/Victorian version of history.
3. Even with the addition of White Mans Guilt to school history, it's still taught to reinforce the basic idea that the Romans in Britain were a good thing (except when they were beastly to Boudica), and that our own culture, the stuff we did ourselves, was worthless. Is it any wonder that we go on to be world renowned for ignoring other cultures? NB - this isn't only the case in the UK in Europe, and I doubt the basic view I'm thinking about - how great old empires were - is limited to Europeans either.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Philosophy addresses questions in a non-empirical way, certainly. But how does it address those questions. It first has to look at that very 'common ground' and establish exactly what it is. And it turns out in fact that this is all it does.
Philosophy clarifies questions by removing semantic dissonance. It does not answer questions. Ultimately, questions can only be answered empirically. I think that once you've precisely defined what a question is, this becomes clear - it is in fact a part of the definition of the concept. This may leave one with a 'question without answers' but philosophy has nothing to say about answers. It can only address the question.
You seemed to be suggesting something even deeper though, not that they were mistaken in their belief, but that they were mistaken in the reporting of their own thoughts.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, you're right, I was suggesting that. The only place I've ever debated with religious believers is on here. It is my (albeit limited) experience that they are indeed mistaken in the reporting on their own thoughts. Aldebaran will no doubt scoff if he reads this, but I would certainly say that he is mistaken in the reporting of his own thoughts in the discussions he's had with me. When he reaches the point where he would be forced to recognise that if he were to continue the discussion, this is precisely the moment he ends the discussion. I've seen this happen several times on here.
ETA: Thinking about it, this is not quite right. They are using a word without realising what the meaning of that word must be given the way they are using it.
How does that reflect the content of their thoughts? If you use a model of language that takes the language we use to represent thoughts that in fact occur in a deeper kind of 'mentalese', then this could simply be a question of a mismatch between the two. This mismatch could then lead to a confusion at the level of mentalese. I suspect that many mistaken ideas may be the result of such a process - that using imperfect language as a medium for our thoughts causes those thoughts to go wrong.
If this is true, then the importance of philosophy immediately becomes apparent. Sorting out semantic dissonance is central to clear thinking.
Spion
I hear ya
If you want to get genned up on the latest thinking about British prehistory and what the Romans (didn't) do for us check out the Britain BC and AD series, all on Google Video. They're superb
http://video.google.co.uk/videosear...=britain bc ad&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
You have slipped into a Cartesian model of the mind which is unsupported by scientific evidence and a lot of contemporary philosophy. The idea that there is a 'language of thought' is a highly dubious one, and one that does not really explain any phenomena.
I think that I agree, but that you are asking the wrong question. There is the question of what philosophy involves and there is the question of what philosophy is for. You've answered the first and I agree with you. But isn't the second question the more important question, and one that is much more complicated?
I think one thing philosophy can do is to sweep away intellectual cobwebs, and prepare for revolutionary new thought. It is as much about how to view things as it is about how things are.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
No I haven't. This mentalese is physically based. Nothing cartesian about it.
As for support for the idea of a brain process (as I say, absolutely not cartesian) that underlies language, it is one put forward by many linguists. Steven Pinker for one (although I disagree with him about other things). And it has a great explanatory value.
Cartesian, in this sense, doesn't have to be non-materialist. A conception of the mind as an independent subject with a mental language is a kind of materialist cartesianism.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes. I think my above post about how philosophy is central to clear thinking is kind of saying the same thing.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Before I go on, let me first see if we agree about a couple of things.
Do you agree that it is possible to conceptualise without language?
If so, do you further agree that sometimes you cannot find exactly the right word to represent what you are thinking?
We can understand and manipulate the world in many ways without needing conceptual frameworks.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Whether or not that is true (I would need to consider it), what is your answer to the above questions?
It is very important to realise that thought, and in particular, conceptualising, is not bounded by language.
Without language as a set of labels for concepts, it's hard to see how some concepts are individuated at all.
Similar threads
- Poll
