[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 61 KB, 976x850, _91408619_55df76d5-2245-41c1-8031-07a4da3f313f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20520421 No.20520421 [Reply] [Original]

TIL people take words to be literal mirroring of physical reality and not just fun language games, why do they do that

>> No.20520425

something something Logos

>> No.20520446

>>20520421
When I say "horse" it reflects the physical reality of a horse. It is not the horse, but it is a reflection in your mind.
Don't get sucked into midwit theory of total abstraction.

>> No.20521271

There because they're normal and the words of the other have effect in them. You are cut off from the world

>> No.20521324

Words are literal abstractions of literal realities, even if those realities are made-up, like fiction.

>> No.20521381

>>20520421
I've never taken a word in my life. Test me; you wont find a single word.

>> No.20521383

Have you ever heard a parrot try and talk

>> No.20521391

>>20520421
Reality isn't real

>> No.20523066

>>20521381
Nice

>> No.20523096

>>20520421
You probably do to, for example, are you taking people's seeming treatment of words at face-value or are you missing the subtle abstractions that they are implicit in their treatment
>>20521391
neither are counterfeit 100 dollars bills, and yet it feels very real when I get wrestled to the floor in my own fucking basement when they find out I was the one spending those dodgy benjis

>> No.20523135

>>20520446
Not really. It's a reflection of your perception of the hypothetical reality of a horse. It's at least a second order abstraction.

>> No.20523643

>>20520421
>TIL people take words to be literal mirroring of physical reality and not just fun language games, why do they do that

does the statement "words do not mirror reality" mirror reality?

If not, then it does. Thus a contradiction, reductio ad absurdum...

linguistic anti-realism kills itself again

>> No.20523750

>>20523135
Doesn’t matter how he imagines it. The word horse is code for the complete reality of horse, imagined or not, including all details of the animal known and unknown, even those beyond human comprehension, it’s all implied in that one code word.

>> No.20524282

whenever the word "horse" is uttered, an invisible wave shakes the very essence of horse, and everything horse(-related) listens.

>> No.20524377

>>20520421
>why do they do that
They are severely retarded.

There's no "reflecting" happening either, you just associate a label with a thing so you can reference the thing with the label.

>> No.20524495

>>20520421
Stupid frogposter.

>> No.20524640

>>20524377
But you see, the word itself is immutable. It still represents the totality of properties of the thing it is a proxy for. You could call the number 9 "penis" and get everyone else to do so, but it wouldn't change anything about 9. Penis just represents 9 now, it is directly tied to this thing and the reality of it, and is immutable. Human knowledge or interpretation is irrelevant. All humans can do is assign a label to a thing, and that label becomes proxy for the thing, thus necessarily becoming an immutable representation of a real thing in reality - a word.

>> No.20524749

>>20524640
>word is immutable
>demonstrates how it's mutable
You're confusing the thing, idea, concept or "form" the word is referencing with the word itself.
The map is not the territory, words map ideas about a thing and our ideas about a thing attempt to map the thing itself as it really exists.
There are some examples where the difference between an idea and reality gets more vague but never the difference between a word and reality. You can say human math exists but it's also a map on top of more complex rules, it's a lower resolution version of a thing.

>> No.20524946

>>20524749
>>demonstrates how it's mutable
I've pointed out how the arrangements of letters in a word is irrelevant when describing a thing, and that the thing, once it has a word to describe it, no matter what that word is, is synonymous with that word.
>>20524749
>You're confusing the thing, idea, concept or "form" the word is referencing with the word itself.
No, I'm saying the word is intrinsically linked to the thing it references. The vagaries of language or nebulousness of human intellect changes nothing; once a thing is discovered, it is necessarily named, and the word, no matter its letter arrangement, or how many times those letters are subsequently rearranged, it has a word, and that word is tied to the reality of the thing, which is immutable. Thus the word, no matter its present form, no matter its arrangement of letters, is an immutable representation of the part of reality in question. Words are humanity's tie to the cataloguing of reality, like our eyes are our tie to the approximate appearance of reality, despite them filtering out most of it. What we see, we see, no matter if that seeing has gone through heavy filtering. Same with words.

>> No.20525052

>>20524946
>is intrinsically linked to the thing it references
Why? I described how it works, there's no "intrinsic" relationship between the map and the territory. You can have a completely wrong map or a flawed map.
>it has a word
No it doesn't. You assign it a label in your language, usually using some weird metaphor. There's no "intrinsic" relationship between the arbitrary noise you chose in your language to reference a thing and the thing itself. You have not begun to try to show any such "intrinsic" relationship.
>an immutable representation of the part of reality in question
Repeating your braindead subversive dogma over and over doesn't make it true.