/lit/ - Literature

7. OP is a faggot

We can still discuss God, just have to be aware that any description of God is falsifiable. Theism often makes the same mistake as scientism. It doesn't mean there is no God or that gravity isn't a real force, just that any description or discussion is fundamentally flawed.

>>5064354
You have incorrectly described scientism.

>2. 'God' is a linguistic construct, not an empirical object.
Le begging das questiones.

Nice sophomoric and angst-ridden argument tho.

Ah, but pray tell, Opie Taylor, how does this inter-subjective semantic framework exist? If it is inter-subjective, it surely must be implanted into the essence of each person, for otherwise, we would each create our own linguistic constructs, and be unable to communicate. And but, if this inter-subjective semantic frameworks is implanted into our essences, how could it be so implanted but for a god, Opie Taylor?

>>5064368
>angst-ridden argument tho.
I fail to see the angst.

Are you saying the word "God" exists as some kind of platonic form that magically wormed it's way into our vernacular?

>>5064380
>Mentions a platonic form
>Hasn't read the metaphor of the Sun

sure is summertime

lol don't worry though, it's gonna be ok. Language is a tool to symbolize reality, thus making communication of ideas and stories possible to be seen without being seen. Exemption from experience means these mental movies are kind of stuck in a reality limbo where they kind of don't and do exist. Remember how you fuck up sometimes? Misinterpretation by a flaw in perception where your brains automatic judgement alters your perception will happen and cause you to fuck up sometimes. So, "I imagine it to be so" is a very silly thing to say.

This is an idea.

>>5064387
What do prepositions symbolize?

What you're talking about is Phenomenalism, e.g. that physical objects are logical concepts of sense data. There are a number of flaws to this.

1. The existence of an object does not imply the existence of sense data.
2. The existence of sense data does not imply existence (hallucinations, etc).

Thus, objects cannot simply be logical constructs of sense data.


Not to mention, according to the Phenomenalism thesis, to exist is to be observed. It follows that the observer in question will also need to be observed, and this observer will need to be observed, ad infinitum...

>>5064390
possibility within relative ranges

>>5064394
How is that a part of reality?

>>5064392
What is fundamentally going on right now if you stop and don't do anything that your body doesn't do automatically?

OP, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Have you read any new-atheism?

"While Aristotle wrote that a true definition gives the essence of the thing defined (in Greek to ti ên einai, literally "the what it was to be"), New-atheism denies the existence of such an 'essence'. In this, New-atheism purports to represent an evolution in human evaluative orientation. In New-atheism, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that--descriptions--which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. In New-atheism, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. The content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments)."

- Richard Clinton Dawkins

>>5064392
Judging by the OP pic, I think he's talking about General semantics.

>>5064397
grass grows, animals die, the sun is enormous. Natural phenomena provide boundaries.
To debate whether all this is real at all is like being afraid the sun won't come up in the morning. Night and day, existence and non-existence. One can't happen without the other.

>>5064415
I want you to identify the empirical referent of a "possibility within boundaries", Starbucks Philosopher.

>>5064403
Oooo, that's good, and I'm a buddhist, but that's that!

>>5064380
No, quite the opposite from your original negation. Namely, that the word 'God', you fucking dimwit, is referring to whatever being satisfies the attributes you attributed to it.

Your argument is also not truth-preserving. Premise 2 is false for yet another reason: linguistic constructs ARE empirical objects; you see them on paper or computer screen as strings of letters or hear them as phonological sound waves.

>>5064403
But but but... There's so much more than that, you'll never be satisfied anyway, will you? Dig more! Go as brave as you can into whatever hell you may find on your way! Bravo sincere adventurer!

>>5064422
So how does someone come upon understanding? What is understanding? What's it like when we attain one? How deep can an understanding go?

What are the game rules for this thread? I want to play too!

>>5064403
"The map is not the territory" ~KorGypSkee

But any adventurer worth his salt gets himself a nice old map first to begin on his journey.

>>5064422
>linguistic constructs ARE empirical objects; you see them on paper or computer screen as strings of letters or hear them as phonological sound waves.

Here you go: 'Pizza'. Feel free to consume that empirical object. Let me know how it tastes.

>>5064435
>empirical means the same thing as tangible
You did very poorly in science didn't you?

>>5064435
Some people eat the menu.
Personally I prefer the food.

>>5064429

>>5064438
>>5064403
>In New-atheism, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that--descriptions--which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe.

>>5064419
Ok ok, we can't know everything, so a proposition cannot know to include or remove any "unknown unknowns", that's silly, like down-right poppycock, but physicists have developed very sophisticated technologies up to this point based on a long and troublesome trial and error kind of experimentation with the physical Earth, right? Physics is a thing.

OP is ~300 years late.

>>5064429
>What are the game rules for this thread? I want to play too!

>>5064392
It's as clear as day that he's rambling on about social constructivism than something as sophisticated as phenomenalism.

>>5064445
physics is a thing, but induction is flawed. read some hume

>>5064440
"And then everything was ok"

>>5064306
Not all true knowledge is empirical.
"God" is a linguistic construct. God is not. Perhaps he is just a concept, but God is different than "God" just as "God" is different than "god" and "Allah" and "minnesota" and "Cicero" and "Tully."

Cicero and Tully are the same thing, but "Cicero" and "Tully" are not. You have somehow taken the referent of a word to be contingent on the word itself?

Maybe it will become clearer if I do this:

1. Any discussion of what we perceive to be reality is only a linguistic 'description', and takes place in inter-subjective semantic frameworks.
2. "Reality" is a linguistic construct, not an empirical object.
3. Any associated attributes tagged to "Reality" like being and time are also linguistic constructs
4. Any discussion of Reality is ultimately discussion of semantic constructs.
5. These constructs, and the framework, were created by man.
6. Reality and the associated attributes are concepts invented by man.

>>5064447
That reminds me of pulling my lawn mower cord once, then twice, and then I go mow my lawn as the blade goes round

>>5064443
"Pizza" is not the same as pizza. One refers to a word in English and one refers to a food item.

>>5064463
Your mother sure can't tell the difference between my dick and "my dick" though.

>>5064464
My mother is dead, just like your dick.

>>5064449
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply induction, I mean, physics is just another word and is only empirical in the same sense that theory can only get so close to the truth. Practice is tangible, representation isn't, but it can yield recurrence.

>>5064466
Words are fun sometimes.
When they're not fun they you can throw them away whenever you want and ride the butterfly.

>>5064473
>Communication is impossible without words
Wow, do we have another Derrida on our hands?

>>5064449
Ah. Disregard my last post >>5064467. To say one has an understanding or is aware of an understanding is not concurrently understanding anything at all. It would be better to ride a bike.

>>5064477
Hey man, don't greentext me. I've got kids to feed. Have some respect.

>>5064467
Not sure what you mean by "practice", but it seems that practice entails representation, which WOULD make it tangible. A la Hume, representations are vaguely retained by our minds and are privately accessible whenever you exercise your intention to get a grip of a given instance. What's intangible is the thing in itself and how it actually appears from a "God's eye view"; Hume touches upon the former; Kant on the latter.

>>5064354
>We can still discuss God, just have to be aware that any description of God is falsifiable
you literally have no idea what falsifiable means

>>5064515
Not that guy, but he is right. If I were to describe God as being moral, omnipotent, or tall, these linguistic tags are undermined by the very fact that they are linguistic tags that I am overlaying the abstraction with. It is linguistic paint that I am brushing over an abstraction and confusing it for reality. It is falsified by the understanding that these descriptions only make sense within a language system, and can never be external to it.

I can call a dog a dog, and I can call a dog blue. Some might argue that only blue is incorrect, but both dog and blue are equally false descriptions - however, blue contains no logical consistency within the particular descriptive framework I am using.

>>5064524
So it's incorrect to describe God as God therefore it's accurate to describe God in any way because God is not God and therefore not the abstraction you're talking about.

>>5064524
>moral, omnipotent, or tall, these linguistic tags

Not this shit again.

It's like you never learn.

>>5064463

Fellas, Fellas!
...
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
/thread

>>5064533
You have missed the point entirely. It doesn't matter if you attempt to separate Pizza into two groups. With one being a linguistic construct that refers to a 'food group' and one being an (objectively verifiable?) empirical object existing as CSS code in a laptop CPU that refers to a 'word in English'. We are talking about both your 'word in English' and your 'food group' as failing to be the pizza, and failing to capture it properly. I'll show you:

'Pizza' is a "semantic construct". We take this construct and tag the abstraction of the physical object with it. We have this circular shaped dough thing with cheese, tomatoes and other toppings, and call it a pizza.

Now, suppose I put a biscuit on it. Is it still a pizza? You might argue that it is a pizza WITH a biscuit on top, you might say that it is a biscuit pizza, or you may say something else.

The pizza is made up of many sub-constructs. We have the construct 'cheese', we have 'dough', etc.. But because it is still a semantic construct, it is only a DESCRIPTION of a set of abstractions. it is not, and can never be, THE abstraction.

So now what happens when I add salt into the dough mixture? You might say it's not a pizza, you might still think it is. I could put one molecule of salt into the pizza and you would never know it is there, or I could add a metric ton of salt so I have a mound of salt with mozzarella on top.

We have one continuous spectrum from an object that is not-pizza, right through to an object that is pizza, and back out the other side again with not-pizza (It may help you to mentally visualise this as a disk, with 'pizza' in the middle, and 'not-pizza' at the edges of the disc), but the outskirts of the construct obviously progress to absurdity.

Because semantic concepts are Descriptions, the verges of the concept will always break down when tested. There will always be a form, acquired through a linear series of sequential changes, that hovers at the outskirts of the definition; a point where you will say "I'm not sure if this is still a pizza."

The is no one true form for pizza: two pizzas with varying ratios of tomatoes to cheese will both be valid pizzas.

>>5064553
>added a picture of a pizza to illustrate his point
I'm fuckin dying over here.
And now I also crave me some pizza.
That settles it. Today I shall have pizza.

>>5064553
Not this shitty, sophomoric copy-pasta again. It has no bearing whatsoever to what I said.

You're still confusing metalanguage with object language.

>>5064553
Names are not descriptions.

Consider this:
It's possible that the current U.S. President might not have been the current U.S. President.

This makes sense to say. "The current U.S. President" is a description.

However, consider this case:
It's possible that Barack Obama might not have been Barack Obama.

This doesn't make sense. Names are rigid designators.

>>5064564
Re-evaluate your case. Is every single man who is and has ever been named Barack Obama, the current president of the united states?

>>5064562
Your still making the mistake of thinking language is anything other than a description.

>>5064564
replace the picture of the world with a picture of Obama and the word 'world' with 'president'

You guys do realize that words are like tubes. Third eye tunnels, you see. Seriously, look at this word: Pepsi ...It is creating a tunnel in your mind that stretches from the shape perceived by your eye into the back of your head and all your other senses are filtered through this tunnel.

>>5064574
That's exactly the point, actually. Why don't you read it again and think about it some more?

>>5064575
The man named "Barack Obama" and the person who is the "current U.S. President" are not the same in every possible world.

However, the man named "Barack Obama" is the man named "Barack Obama" necessarily in every possible world. It's possible that he doesn't exist in some world, but it is impossible that "Barack Obama" designates something else. It isn't a description, it's a rigid designator.

The referent of "the current U.S. president" changes even within a single possible world, much less others.

"People don't just eat food, but also words, and the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter"

-James Franco

>>5064590
Go paint a spliff, Franco.

>>5064575
>Your still making the mistake of thinking language is anything other than a description.
You're begging the question. No one ever claimed this. Time and again, you fail to realize the distinction and lump the two together.

In any case, feel free to continue your Korzybski quackery; it's an amusing read.

>>5064580
>The man named "Barack Obama" is the man named "Barack Obama" necessarily in every possible world.

Are you talking about "Barack Obama" form Kyrgyzstan, or "Barack Hussein Obama" from Hawaii?

1. Any discussion of what we perceive to be reality is only a linguistic 'description', and takes place in inter-subjective semantic frameworks.
Word salad mostly; instead of " inter-subjective semantic frameworks" you could just have said cultures.
2. 'God' is a linguistic construct, not an empirical object.
Assuming 1 is true, the use of the word God is a linguistic construct, that refers to an element in the cultural world-life of a group of human beings. Empirical in the sense I use it means "related to concrete experience", a lot of people have concrete experience of that which is named God, I myself have experienced it, so your point is invalid
3. Any associated attributes tagged to God like omnipotence and omnipresence are also linguistic constructs
"associated attributes" is trivial, "association" is implicit in "attribute"
also, by the dogma of divine simplicity, god is not composed of parts, "attributes" are emanations from the nature of God and they can be experienced in the experience of God.
4. Any discussion of God is ultimately discussion of semantic constructs.
correct assuming 1 is true
5. These constructs, and the framework, were created by man.
Unproved, the tree has as much responsability in the construction of the concept tree as the human that creates the concept; humans depend on the world-life to have a language, humans DEPEND on language to create, creation is a GIFT by language to man, man INHABITS his language, language is not some trivial tool we have absolute control over.
6. God and the associated attributes are concepts invented by man.
I guess that you can reach whatever conclusion you want if you dont think logically

So does anyone in this thread winning the argument have any bearing on the fact that I'm really craving pizza for breakfast?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_30rP1yPIlY

>>5064595
>Word salad mostly; instead of " inter-subjective semantic frameworks" you could just have said cultures.
All cultures use semantic frameworks. I could say Dog in the contemporary anglosphere, Ch'kai in the ancient Khmer empire, or 0100100100101 in binary. Different culture variation has no bearing on language being a framework to describe reality.

>I myself have experienced it[God], so your point is invalid
lol

>>5064595
>people have concrete experience of that which is named God, I myself have experienced it, so your point is invalid

My uncle Freddy was a Dragon tamer so dragons exist.

>>5064602
Klaxxon Wizards were the Rolling Stones of the 1400s, and yet nobody knows I am their sole progeny.

>>5064600
>Eating flat circular pizzas when you could be eating pizza cones.

>>5064608
Jesus, that's un-appetizing. Pizza tastes good because of the balance of bread/cheese/sauce. Just eating a giant chunk of cheeze in the middle would be hard to swallow.

>>5064609
>because of the balance of bread/cheese/sauce
Do you eat thin Italian pizzas, or chunky american ones?

>>5064594
Different names are different rigid designators.
Even if a name is the same, it isn't a description of the person.

There are some interesting implications to what you are saying.

Keep in mind that you are adding "from so-and-so location" to the end of each of these names. This is making a name into a description.

Saying it's possible "water from Egypt" might not have been "water from Egypt" is not the same as saying it's possible "water" might not have been "water."

Although it's amusing you've found that the same name has been employed to rigidly designate different things, it seems you misapprehend my entire meaning.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the same name to refer to something else, I'm saying it's impossible for the referent of the name to not be referred by the name.

It's clearer when I explain the confusion between the name "Barack Obama" and the person Barack Obama.

It's possible that Barack Obama might not have been "Barack Obama."

It's not possible that Barack Obama might not have been Barack Obama.

The reference for the quoted text is the word in the English language, while the reference for the unquoted text is the person.

Essentially I'm saying it's not possible for x not to have been x.

Names do the same sort of work as numbers. They aren't descriptions, they are rigid designators.

You wouldn't say that it's possible for 2 =/= 2.

But you would say it's possible that my neighbor's cat might not have been my neighbor's cat.

ITT: the concept of Buddhist non-self rehashed via general semantics to encompass the modern judo-christian Deity... And pizzas.

>>5064580
I wasn't sure what you meant by "rigid designator" in your earlier post.

We don't really disagree on anything, except for maybe the definition of the word rigid.

>>5064613
I prefer the thinner ones. Not too thin and flaky but neither that grease-soaked stuff that doesn't stay flat when you hold it by its outer crust.

>>5064617
I want to take you to Six Flags and discuss these things while going down the waterslides with you. All matter of fact-ly. That would be fun.

>>5064626
I'm using it in the technical sense that Kripke and co. use it in.

>>5064617
>You wouldn't say that it's possible for 2 =/= 2.
Of course I would. 2 = 2 is not objectively verifiable.

"Welcome to 'reality', mortal. Unfortunately, despite it looking three dimensional to you, we are in a non-euclidean five dimensional reality that looks like pic related. We tried your 2 =2 as an axiom, but every attempt at empirical observation meant that items we were using for reference, like 2 cats = 2 cats, turned out to be completely false as there are a variable amount of what you could only understand as a form of "sub-atomic particle" spanning along additional dimensions that you, with your tiny human mind, can't observe. Here in reality 2 is never 2.

You can't remember it, but the language you're using is entirely your creation, and these bizarre semantic symbols that you call numbers are only truly comprehensible to you. We have had our best researchers trying to understand your perceived interpretation of reality though."

>>5064617
>Saying it's possible "water from Egypt" might not have been "water from Egypt" is not the same as saying it's possible "water" might not have been "water."

If I buy a bottle of water, from Egypt or not, take it to a laboratory, and find that two of the hydrogen atoms are no longer bound to an oxygen one yet are still in the bottle, does that mean it's no longer a bottle of water?

>>5064634
I guess I should go to Six Flags this summer. I usually just go on bike tours. I can't say that I've done any of this type of discussion outside of uni, coffee shops, living rooms, and road trips with friends, but that sounds kind of like a surreal examined life vibe.

>>5064643
Wow, so someone has ventured to violate the law of identity, eh? Do you know what you're doing?

>>5064648
Yes. But keep in mind "a bottle of water" is a description. "Water" is not. "H20" is not.

>2. 'God' is a linguistic construct, not an empirical object.

Well you could just say that about any other thing then. "Hurr 'atoms' are linguistic constructs, not empirical objects". "Durr 'empirical objects' are linguistic constructs, not empirical objects".

Do you see how retarded you are?

Go through - cross out god - don't panic.
WTF U SEYT?

>>5064657
>>5064657
>Yes. But keep in mind "a bottle of water" is a description. "Water" is not. "H20" is not.

Ahh, okay. Is this just in English, or are Eau (French), Wasser(German), Acqua (italian) also forms that reside outside of linguistics?

wow someone read witty, frege and russell hats off to you shamploon

>>5064661
>Well you could just say that about any other thing then.
Yes, you can.
>The word 'atoms' is a linguistic construct.
Correct.
>The concept of 'empirical objects' is an amalgamation of linguistic constructs
Also correct.

>>5064672
No, names are names. They don't reside outside of linguistics, and I don't see where you came up with that. Names are totally arbitrary linguistic constructs that refer to states of affairs in the real world. Description are also totally arbitrary linguistic constructs that refer to states of affairs in the real world. However, one is a rigid designator and one is not. A description's referent can change or a description can even have no referent.

Consider this description:
The present king of France.

Now find a name which refers to this.

Claiming that names are simply descriptions has been done, but it runs into a lot of problems.

>>5064643
>2 = 2 is not objectively verifiable.

>>5064693
It is not.

>>5064681
linguistic idealism

>>5064700
I've yet to see a proof of that.

>>5064693
2 doesn't equal 2. The first and second are different, otherwise they'd just be 2 and not shown twice.

>>5064703
Have you read Wittgenstein

>>5064700
What if I told you that if we assumed that
2 =/= 2
we could prove that
2 = 2
is both objectively verifiable and not objectively verifiable?

>>5064706
>is both objectively verifiable and not objectively verifiable?

I guess I'd agree then. Sounds reasonable.

>>5064691
What use does tagging the linguistic construct "water" with the construct "rigid or flaccid designator" do in this particular discussion? There is no actual water in this thread, just the word. Your gripe seems to be with the word 'description'. If I use the word water I am not using actual water, correct? I am using the word to 'refer to' water. The point is that all language is descriptive and not really that which it describes.

>>5064705
Is there any explanation for your confusing a logical proof with your recommending me a read?

>>5064704
>The first and second are different
Thanks for the laugh.

>>5064711
>implying this thread does not flow like the water and thus compare to water itself.

>A Korzybski thread on /lit/
>mfw

>>5064711
Because it doesn't describe. It refers. Those are different things. We can use reference to describe things, or we can also refer to things without describing them.

The main importance is that not all language is used to discuss empirical data. The pertinence to
>>5064553
is that we use language to talk about things which are not language. A qualm with syntax is not one with semantics. The existence or non-existence of a referent has nothing to do with whether or how the language accommodates it unless the referent itself is part of the language. We don't describe things into existence or non-existence.

>>5064721
Ah, okay. You're right. Your gripe is with the use of the word description, and not that 'God' is a linguistic construct.

>>5064733
Well yes, primarily the problem is with claiming that language only describes.

However, I would agree that the word "God" is a linguistic construct, but the concept God is not. Perhaps it is a sociocultural one, and it may refer to something which only exists as this concept, but I wouldn't reduce its ontological status to only a linguistic construct.

I could imagine a scenario in which theism precedes language in early hominids.

>>5064602
If you actually experience dragons, who am I to say that dragons arent real for you?

>>5064744
>I could imagine a scenario in which theism precedes language in early hominids
you use the plural ' hominids', so I'm guessing you think they must have communicated their God concept in some way?

But what could the concept be without the linguistic construct? I'm not sure it's feasible. You would need to rip out virtually everything associated with theology including the important 'creator', 'prime-mover', all moral absolutes, omnipotence and other tags. All that would remain is your idea that the first early hominid came up with prior to communication, and even that could have been erected on a primitive guttural grunt based language.

1. Any discussion of what we perceive to be reality is only a linguistic 'description', and takes place in inter-subjective semantic frameworks.
2. 'Pizza' is a linguistic construct, not an empirical object.
3. Any associated attributes tagged to pizza like crustiness and cheesiness are also linguistic constructs
4. Any discussion of pizza is ultimately discussion of semantic constructs.
5. These constructs, and the framework, were created by man.
6. Pizza and the associated attributes are concepts invented by man.