Azael
02-07-06, 08:11 PM
Hey, I just wrote this in the last 30 min as a summary of a few thoughts and I'm seeking advice as to which points I should develop further to help people understand/follow the logic contained herein. I must STRESS that reading/understanding this requires a mind able to think both logical and holistically. Thanks in advance :p
-------------------
I always hear groups of people take a particular stance on philosophy. Logic as I see it, is universal. The reason we disagree on things in pure philosophy is due a) faulty induction – disagreement on facts/axioms, and b) confusing our language with reality.
As is obvious, language is not a thing, it is a conceptual construct. At a more basic level it is a series of oscillations in space, which are interpreted as sound, the patterns of which are interpreted further as language. It should therefore also be obvious that language conveys no direct knowledge of anything, and is thereby implicit. This means that by mentioning the word “cow”, “day”, “tree” (etc) the construed meaning is dependent upon previous associations with the sounds of these words in the recipient.
This has some implications in terms of truth. An example of this, albeit extreme is the statement “Cows exist”. In analysing this sentence for logical validity, at a basic level we must understand that a cow is a perceptual phenomenon even from the absolutist point of view. Chemically, a cow is a flux of undifferentiated particles, a cause-and-effect chain so complex that we regard the components conceptually rather than as particles. This perceptual phenomenon is the reason we regard a cow to be a discrete thing, whereas science would tell us that (sub-atomically) there is no real division between any two things.
So if it is accepted that a cow as an individual thing is a perceptual construct, then it can be seen that the word cow is dependent upon this perceptual construct, as it relates to a cow as an individual thing rather than describing an actual flow of particles.
Objectivism/Relativism
This insight into language can eliminate many problems in logic, for example the objectivism/relativist debate. From an objectivist’s point of view, as humans we necessarily think in relative terms. For instance, when we conceive of black, we simultaneously conceive of white, as our perception is bound by this dualistic relativism in much the same way that one cannot perceive depth without two eyes – one serving as a point of reference for the other. To elucidate further, when we conceive of anything (thesis), we simultaneously conceive of it’s opposite (antithesis). If we were to conceive of a horse for instance, we necessarily must simultaneously recognise on some level what a horse is not, we would conceive a horse to be everything. While consciously (as per the self-referential mind) we are always bound by this dualistic relativism, the objectivist is really in the same position as the relativist, since being bound by relativism would make objective reality totally irrelevant.
The aforementioned issue with language either adds or detracts whatever truth there is from the objectivist/relativist debate since both philosophies are linguistic and conceptual, and consequently fundamentally divorced from objective reality, while the relativist is left question “There must be something objective which is causing this relativistic phenomenon”.
To get to the point, as humans our existence is both objective and relative, both or neither. To demonstrate the latter scenario, assume you are simply aware without thinking. To you, both objectivism and relativism would blur into one definition – everything would become unified and individuated inextricably. Everything would simply exist and cease to exist. Oddly enough, this direct experience of the world has been prevalent in many forms of mysticism and philosophy throughout the ages (such as the ideas of no-mindness).
-------------
-------------------
I always hear groups of people take a particular stance on philosophy. Logic as I see it, is universal. The reason we disagree on things in pure philosophy is due a) faulty induction – disagreement on facts/axioms, and b) confusing our language with reality.
As is obvious, language is not a thing, it is a conceptual construct. At a more basic level it is a series of oscillations in space, which are interpreted as sound, the patterns of which are interpreted further as language. It should therefore also be obvious that language conveys no direct knowledge of anything, and is thereby implicit. This means that by mentioning the word “cow”, “day”, “tree” (etc) the construed meaning is dependent upon previous associations with the sounds of these words in the recipient.
This has some implications in terms of truth. An example of this, albeit extreme is the statement “Cows exist”. In analysing this sentence for logical validity, at a basic level we must understand that a cow is a perceptual phenomenon even from the absolutist point of view. Chemically, a cow is a flux of undifferentiated particles, a cause-and-effect chain so complex that we regard the components conceptually rather than as particles. This perceptual phenomenon is the reason we regard a cow to be a discrete thing, whereas science would tell us that (sub-atomically) there is no real division between any two things.
So if it is accepted that a cow as an individual thing is a perceptual construct, then it can be seen that the word cow is dependent upon this perceptual construct, as it relates to a cow as an individual thing rather than describing an actual flow of particles.
Objectivism/Relativism
This insight into language can eliminate many problems in logic, for example the objectivism/relativist debate. From an objectivist’s point of view, as humans we necessarily think in relative terms. For instance, when we conceive of black, we simultaneously conceive of white, as our perception is bound by this dualistic relativism in much the same way that one cannot perceive depth without two eyes – one serving as a point of reference for the other. To elucidate further, when we conceive of anything (thesis), we simultaneously conceive of it’s opposite (antithesis). If we were to conceive of a horse for instance, we necessarily must simultaneously recognise on some level what a horse is not, we would conceive a horse to be everything. While consciously (as per the self-referential mind) we are always bound by this dualistic relativism, the objectivist is really in the same position as the relativist, since being bound by relativism would make objective reality totally irrelevant.
The aforementioned issue with language either adds or detracts whatever truth there is from the objectivist/relativist debate since both philosophies are linguistic and conceptual, and consequently fundamentally divorced from objective reality, while the relativist is left question “There must be something objective which is causing this relativistic phenomenon”.
To get to the point, as humans our existence is both objective and relative, both or neither. To demonstrate the latter scenario, assume you are simply aware without thinking. To you, both objectivism and relativism would blur into one definition – everything would become unified and individuated inextricably. Everything would simply exist and cease to exist. Oddly enough, this direct experience of the world has been prevalent in many forms of mysticism and philosophy throughout the ages (such as the ideas of no-mindness).
-------------