|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 28, 2007 11:54
Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
expected:
We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And
we could not say that sight is seeing colours, or even that it is the
organ of sight.
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
|
| | 52 Comments |
|
|
Author: MillerMiller Date: Sep 28, 2007 14:50
> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
> through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
> certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
> a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
> expected:
>
> We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
> do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
> defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And
> we could not say that sight is seeing colours, or even that it is the
> organ of sight.
>
> In other words, I do not display my ideas through language, I simply
> display my ideas. I cannot say I display ideas through language
> because this would mean that language is an object I use to express
> myself. But language is not the means of making it, and neither is it
> the expression of any one idea or the accumulation of all
> 'expressable' ideas. Language is a FRAMEWORK, and not an object in a ...
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Sep 28, 2007 21:48
On Sep 28, 2:54 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
> through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
> certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
> a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
> expected:
>
> We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
> do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
> defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And
> we could not say that sight is seeing colours, or even that it is the
> organ of sight.
>
> In other words, I do not display my ideas through language, I simply
> display my ideas. I cannot say I display ideas through language
> because this would mean that language is an object I use to express
> myself. But language is not the means of making it, and neither is it
> the expression of any one idea or the accumulation of all
> 'expressable' ideas. Language is a FRAMEWORK, and not an object in a
> framework. A framework is not surveyable -- so I cannot say 'I express ...
|
| Show full article (2.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Sep 29, 2007 09:57
On Sep 28, 11:54 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
> through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
> certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
> a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
> expected:
>
> We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
> do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
> defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And
> we could not say that sight is seeing colours, or even that it is the
> organ of sight.
>
> In other words, I do not display my ideas through language, I simply
> display my ideas. I cannot say I display ideas through language
> because this would mean that language is an object I use to express
> myself. But language is not the means of making it, and neither is it
> the expression of any one idea or the accumulation of all
> 'expressable' ideas. Language is a FRAMEWORK, and not an object in a
> framework. A framework is not surveyable -- so I cannot say 'I express ...
|
| Show full article (8.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Sep 29, 2007 19:11
On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> On Sep 29, 5:48?am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Sep 28, 2:54 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>
>>> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
>>> through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
>>> certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
>>> a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
>>> expected:
>
>>> We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
>>> do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
>>> defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And
>>> we could not say that sight is seeing colours, or even that it is the
>>> organ of sight.
>
>>> In other words, I do not display my ideas through language, I simply ...
|
| Show full article (4.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John JonesJohn Jones Date: Sep 30, 2007 04:32
On Sep 30, 3:11?am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:> On Sep 29, 5:29 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Sep 29, 5:48?am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>> On Sep 28, 2:54 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:>
>>>> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
>>>> through or by language. My original post was exploratory, but
>>>> certainly not idly made. I will reply to other posts, but I have given
>>>> a new post because there seems a lot of replies that I had not
>>>> expected:
>
>>>> We do not express ideas through language...I will give an analogy: I
>>>> do not see colours through sight, I simply see colours, and sight is
>>>> defined through that. Yet we would not say that sight is colours. And ...
|
| Show full article (4.81Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 1, 2007 00:20
On Sep 29, 3:54 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Here is an explanation of why I think that ideas are not expressed
> through or by language.
Translated:
John has an idea (he's been thinking -- NOT) that he has no idea on
how to express his ideas through language because he reckons he
doesn't and cant do that, but notice how he keeps trying to express
some of his ideas (his thinking
-- NOT), through language.
As for the bizarre analogy re sight colors and seeing, what arbitrary
nonsensical piffle.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ErrolErrol Date: Oct 1, 2007 04:40
On Sep 30, 1:32 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> Yes, you can't see colour without sight. But then, and this is the
> point, 'sight' is defined by my seeing colour, so 'sight' is not an
> extra thing that helps me to see colour.
>
Since when is "sight" defined by seing colour? If you could only see
in black and white, would that mean you were blind?
I don't think so.
> The presentation of ideas is language. It follows that language cannot
> be the means by which I present my ideas.-
>
You are just playing with words here
You are also just plain wrong.
The means by which I present my ideas is language is more correct than
saying the presentation of ideas is language. The presentation of
ideas can be in an entirely non-linguistic format such as graphs,
mathematics, non-verbal music or art, so they are not equivalent.
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 1, 2007 05:03
On Oct 1, 8:40 pm, Errol gmail.com> wrote:>
> Since when is "sight" defined by seing colour? If you could only see
> in black and white, would that mean you were blind?
Black and white are colours Ewol, BTW, how are you getting on with
YOUR idea that you cant be certain as to whether or not you can or
cant be certain as to whether or not you are ar aren't?
MG
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael GordgeMichael Gordge Date: Oct 1, 2007 05:14
On Sep 30, 6:38 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:> On Sep 29, 5:57?pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If I look in a field and see flowers that is one thing but if someone
>> says flower bush I have to look again and add something to my
>> observation which is different than just "seeing that" it is what
>> epistemologists call "seeing as"
>
>> With language the distinction become "knowing that" vs "knowing as"
>> the later sometimes called knowing how.
>
> 'Knowing that', and 'knowing as' - in the former case we see what we
> see, in the latter case we name what we see. So the distinction is
> between no knowledge and knowledge, for what is named is knowledge in
> the public domain, and what is not named is not knowledge at all. In
> other words, there...
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
