Linguistics and semantics
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Sorry that I responded first when thinking about a reply Sand had made to me. Now,
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.
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.
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
"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"
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.
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
"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"
How is postmodernism a philosophy of narratives and language?
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".
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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.
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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.
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.
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.