Linguistics and semantics

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 12:37 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Now, iamnotaparakeet shows the failure AND represents it. To him, what you said brings up a different issue because it is pressing on his mind and relatively important to him. He does not see what you are talking about because other things are more relevant, and perhaps even because this kind of issue isn't as big in his philosophy on reality. iamnotaparakeet probably identifies most with a "modernist" analytic philosophy with enlightenment characteristics(such as about the universality of rationality and the ability of all minds to find truth, hopefully someone sees what bit of truth I get at with my expression). Getting skafather's point requires either an evolutionary or postmodern bent to get at it. (M_P referenced the postmodern author Vonnegut, and I started expressing both the hermeneutic circle and a vaguely Popperian idea of theorizing and checking).

I don't have much knowledge of postmodern philosophy except for some exposure to relativism (I don't know if that is classified as post-modern though, but it seems to be of the sort as to throw out the world so it probably is). I don't consider rationality to be universal though, as I have worked for Wal-Mart and I know the management there is incapable of thought.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 12:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

I'm not so sure I agree. I think he was approaching a separate issue and merely saw what he wanted to see and reacted how he was expecting to have to react to a topic made by me. It wasn't a case of him not understanding the words but more so just not seeing them. The same phenomena happens with the conspiracy theorists who hear exactly what they want to hear out of some quote rather than what is actually said, even with context provided. A prime example of that would be the "reporter catches bush off guard with a question on if 9/11 was an inside job" or whatever the title was. It has little to do with the language and more to do with a primed response regardless of the words.

Well, right, it is a primed response. The issue is that priming is central to misunderstanding of issues as well, in particular, the different primings people have for specific words. Now, iamnotaparakeet is an egregious example of this kind of thing, to the point where it is understandable that you would push for this to be a different phenomenon, but, I think the issue is really quite similar on some levels. It is still an issue of theorizing an approach, and then acting upon this theory, and this theory being very wrong; iamnotaparakeet's brain is just more broken than most.

Would you stop talking about me like this? No more. Please, if you must hear that word.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 12:51 pm

Sorry that I responded first when thinking about a reply Sand had made to me. Now,

skafather84 wrote:

What if the problem is understanding that even with sharing a language, it may not express the same ideas in the same ways to people?

What if the problem is that, even with a common language, the same ideas may not be expressed with the same words?

Is that a correct paraphrase?

If so, then the cause of that may be due to differing connotations associated with each expression based upon individual self education.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

22 Jun 2010, 1:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Quote:

What I'm more looking to explore is the concept that even with hearing the words and understanding it, the message and the ideas may very well still be lost as to their depth and meaning due to the lack of nuances in language and the general clumsy nature that we approach language.

I think I am approaching this issue to a good extent.

I agree with M_P's invocation of semantic holism. The issue is one of learning. I still think the issue is a limitation of our language based upon how context can replace the need for pre-existing universal patterns having to be uploaded into a mind.

So it may not be simply the language itself but the methodology of teaching people how to approach it. Maybe more focus on patience and context earlier on in schooling?

I'm all for patience and a slowing down of things of this sort. Society as a whole could do with a bit of slowing down.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Jun 2010, 1:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

"Relativism" is not the same as "postmodern philosophy". Now, it is true that postmodernists are often relativists, but often relativism is simplistic, while postmodernism is more of a philosophy of narratives and language.

As for "rationality being universal", I am more just talking about your reluctance in accepting epistemic elites, such as academic communities and other such things. So, basically, you are saying that "anybody can challenge the elite because the means to do so are universal", whereas other people are more willing to say "No, the degree of knowledge held by the elites is such that their general agreement leaves the rest of us without much more to say in most cases"

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Jun 2010, 1:34 pm

skafather84 wrote:

And perhaps fundamentalists should be taught more critical reading skills rather than just simply grammar, so they can pick up on the ideas of a post rather than the mechanical structure of it?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 1:45 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

How is postmodernism a philosophy of narratives and language?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

As for "rationality being universal", I am more just talking about your reluctance in accepting epistemic elites, such as academic communities and other such things. So, basically, you are saying that "anybody can challenge the elite because the means to do so are universal",...

My own view would not be that such rationality is universal, but rather that rationality is not the sole property of those who consider themselves "elite".

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

whereas other people are more willing to say "No, the degree of knowledge held by the elites is such that their general agreement leaves the rest of us without much more to say in most cases"

Knowledge is not the same as intelligence. Intelligence is the understand of the things you know and ability to understand what you do not yet know.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 1:47 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

And perhaps fundamentalists should be taught more critical reading skills rather than just simply grammar, so they can pick up on the ideas of a post rather than the mechanical structure of it?

I asked AG not to do that, and I'm asking you the same. Stop referring to me in this manner, now please.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

22 Jun 2010, 1:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I could reply more along with your post, but if I were to say the same things as you then I might as well copy and paste. Really though, not everyone shares the same thoughts and feelings. You can express yours all you like, but people have their own too.

It's very dangerous to underestimate that structural constraints language imposes.

Do you mean to say,

"It's very dangerous to underestimate the structural constraints language imposes."

or

"It's very dangerous to underestimate structural constraints imposed by language ."

or

"It's very dangerous to underestimate language structure constraints."

:?:

As for your post, the idea is that language is limited in what it can convey. Yes, this is true, however if you know the mechanics of it then you can convey more, especially if everyone else has the same general linguistic education. The more you know of the mechanical/grammatical working of a language, the deeper the thoughts you can convey with more accuracy.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Jun 2010, 4:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

How is postmodernism a philosophy of narratives and language?

Those are the subjects engaged. I mean, sure, postmodernism is also a philosophy of society, and of epistemology, but narratives and language is where a lot of postmodernists put most of their focus.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

22 Jun 2010, 5:31 pm

This whole debate is double plus ungood.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

22 Jun 2010, 6:14 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk[/youtube]

CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,554
Location: Stalag 13

27 Jun 2010, 8:07 am

I find that there are a lot of lazy listeners in the world, today.

_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?

Exclavius
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
Location: Ontario, Canada

28 Jun 2010, 11:27 am

Language is and always will be insufficient for expressing some concepts. English to english communication still has to undergo translation before speaking/writing then again after listening/reading. We may not all realize we are translaating but we are. The more homogeneous people are the less error because conventions and definitions are likely closer. it doesnt matter what the differences are between people, be it religion, philosophy, ethnicity, life experiences, intelligence levels, or worse yet neurological differences. hetrogeneous interpretations of an abstractly described concepts will always vary. language can become more complex by increasing vocabulary and tighter definitions of words, but the majority will never learn it sufficiently. some will try to use other cues like body language to refine meaning, but the subjectivity of such techniques is enough to make language less concise. Language will evolve to the right balance between its concision and its users willingness to learn it. Sadly i fear its currently backtracking as people seek more simplicity. and its overall trend to this is causing some (likke me and the op) to raally the cause to save what we see as a valuable asset, although others see it as a cumbersome downfall. Aspies, being without use of the other cues people use for communication are more likely to be those who rally the cause. ps sorry about lack of paragraphs im posting from my cellphone today and i cant enter a newline.

Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Jump to:

Linguistics and semantics Post Reply New Topic

Linguistics and semantics