The Relationship between Language and Culture

The Relationship between Language and Culture
itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 28
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 8:33 PM:

Cyberflaneur,
are you even aware of how condescending you sound? Honestly – and I do mean this sincerely – you might want to take Ragus's post #28 to heart.
Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:19 PM:

itinerant wrote:
Cyberflaneur,
are you even aware of how condescending you sound? Honestly • and I do mean this sincerely • you might want to take Ragus's post #28 to heart.





And do you realize how irrelevent you are?

Seriously, it's called an education. It's called critical thinking. It's called self-respect. grin




Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:36 PM:

ragus wrote:
Thanks for the enquiry about my gettimg up to speed concerning empirical data. I have been trying.


I am glad to hear that you're "gettimg" [sic] up to speed on that! Continue your work. Just remember to capitalize next time!


Do you think these are examples of empirical data? I think they might be.

If they are, then I interpret this data as indicating that the writer (you, in this case) is very upset, probably angry


Nah, that was just from being a little tired, I am having great fun. grinI really do enjoy instilling a little humility in a bully. But from your following me to this sub-forum to carp some more after your thorough lesson in the philosophy of science, I can tell you are very upset by it all. Take a deep breadth. Inhale, pause, and then exhale!

BTW, how's my spelling? After you check that I want you to look up "ad hominem fallacy" in a critical thinking book. Then you may read the rest of that Russell passage and look up "modus ponens". After some more practice, you might be able to join the conversation with the big boys!



Cheerio!grin




Edited by Cyberflaneur on Jul 20, 2007 - 9:48 PM
Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 9:54 PM:

ying said: "Didn't I already tell you that I'm employing Brentano's definition? Check post #8 and #13"



And didn't you read post #10 (and post #26!)? disapproval
Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:43 PM:

ying wrote:


Naturally, you haven't noticed that we're talking about the relationship between physical phenomena and physical objects. Not quitte the philosophy of language, but hey, who am I to argue (Get it? Argue? grin)


But that diversion was your doing. The start of this thread was about the relation of language to the worlkd and that was what your and my first posts was about. You quickly found out you didn't know what you had gotten yourself into and introduced Brentano into this as a diversionary tactic (red herring fallacy, lookthat one up grin). Of course, your original and your subsequent arguments about both language and reference, and mental representation, and the common usage of the term physical phenomnon were thoroughly confuted.grin







Uhm, did I? I just pointed to the term 'physical phenomenon' and was using it in a phenomenological context...[as a diversionary tactic!]



... If you're really into secondary works, that is. I prefer reading primary texts.



You prefer the primary texts to prove yourself incorrect? Hey, thanks for doint that BTW.grin You saved my some time. cool


I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam.



Yes, you have repeated yourself ad nauseum. grin But you still missing the point.






Yeah, that's what I meant with that 'dog' analogy. How can I argue with that? I mean, you accuse me of everything you do. Good boy! Chase your own tail! Want a cookie?


You are really getting pissed aren't you?grin Take a deep breadth! Don't worry, those magical little fungus will make everything better!


Truth doesn't exist in my view. I'm a fullblown sceptic. That's a different discussion, though.



Who told you that? A ten-foot toad wearing a tophat? If you were ever accused of a crime you didn't commit I bet that the truth would then exist for you. grin BTW, learn the difference between a "sceptic" and someone who don't believe in truth.

Yeah, when I lit my cigarette. Smoking becomes dificult, otherwise.


Have another one. You seem very very tense now. sad




Awww, booboo. Can't handle different philosophical stances than your own? Philosophy isn't paradigmatic, as some of your claims seem to imply. Different schools=preparadigmatic. No paradigm? No collectively shared terminology. Check the main works, dude. Loads of philosophers provide their own, modified definitions. Nothing new there.




How philosophy works is that you provide reasoned arguments that you define your terms (when you are using esoteric terms). Yeah phil has many different usages many times for the same terms but doing philosophy is not the same as throwing around buzzwords hoping to impress others by this pedantic display and then ignoring the issue when someone asks to substantial that ostentation with content and evidence.

Well, I for one like them. And how can a term be outdated? Don't philosophers borrow terms and definitions from eachother, all the time?


Sure, but they make sure they understand those terms first and make explicit which meaning they are using. See the difference? grin

And on a final note, you've made a lot of counterclaims, no real arguments


A "counter claim" is a "real argument". Making counter claims is actually what a philosopher (or at least a good one) does most of the time. And you call yourself a "skeptic" [sic]! grin



ying
Daoist sceptic

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 785
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 20, 2007 - 10:58 PM:

Cyberflaneur wrote:


Wrong again! Now you committed a false analogy fallacy. Look that one up in your link. Read your own quoted source. If I wish to consult a physics claim, I might (or maybe not) give Hawking as a source. I certainly won't be siting Gallileo or Keppler or Newton on Quantum mechanics. When you make a phil of language or a metaphysical claim, don't use Kant or Schopenhauer (even though they weren't as naive as you make them out to be).

What part of the claim that sensory objects (Sensory object=physical phenomenon) are contents of the mind don't you get? I've been saying this all along, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I mean 'physical object or event' with that term, even though I've been pretty clear 'bout that. And it's a question belonging to the philosophy of mind and phenomenology. Philosophy of language and metaphysics don't have anything to do with that.

Let me remind you of your post #4:

Words can represent real phenomenon, not just mental ones. WHen I say that there is a chair in my room, I don't mean that there a phenomenon of "chair in my room" in my mind. I mean that there is a chair in my room.

Using the term 'phenomenon' to signify a physical object or event is a contradictio in terminis, since 'phenomenon' specifically refers to "that which appears or is seen". But you seem to hang on to your plebian definition of it, thus constantly strawmanning my position.

And you started this off-topic discussion on the relationship between phenomena and noumena, right there. I'm merely expounding my position.

Now, it may be that Kant and Schopenhauer is relevant source IF we are arguing over what he said, for example, OR we are discussing some other issue.

No reply, really. Just loved the way you put it. grin

That's good.

No, you made a factual claim claiming that your fatuous and ignorant use of the term "physical phenomenon" is common practice in phil.

No I didn't. I already said in post #8 that I was employing a specialist terminology... Are you strawmanning again? I guess you are.

Edited by ying on Jul 20, 2007 - 11:26 PM
ragus
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2513
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 21, 2007 - 2:17 AM:

Cyberflaneur wrote
I am having great fun. I really do enjoy instilling a little humility in a bully.

Is that your main reason for using this forum? Do you feel you have a . . . mission? Are you aiming to make others
humble in your presence? Do you enjoy trying to humiliate others.

But from your following me to this sub-forum to carp some more after your thorough lesson in the philosophy of science,

Firstly, try reading this quote as if it hadn't been written by yourself.


Ask yourself if the writer has other evidence that I have been following them. Would you agree that the writer is reaching a conclusion from a data set of one?

Ask yourself if the writer appears arrogant, self-involved and personally abusive.

What conclusions do you draw?
Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 21, 2007 - 9:32 PM:

ying wrote:

What part of the claim that sensory objects (Sensory object=physical phenomenon) are contents of the mind don't you get? I've been saying this all along, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I mean 'physical object or event' with that term, even though I've been pretty clear 'bout that. And it's a question belonging to the philosophy of mind and phenomenology. Philosophy of language and metaphysics don't have anything to do with that.



Sigh. disapproval I showed you what that term meant both in philosophy and in common usage. If someone is going to be using a term in an extremely esoteric way and a way that is more than 100 years out of date, then it is that person's responsibility to define his usage. I told you that that was the most reasonable and the respectful thing to do so as to avoid confusion. You responded to that considerate suggestion with a haughty, arrogant and completely rude [paraphrasing] "I don't care, I above everyone else in my knowledge of phil, all you have is just textbook knowledge" gasconade. That was just condescending, childish and extremely ignorant.

And besides, you're still wrong in your claims even if you had been using it in that way. If I had given you a very very charitable interpretation you'd be making a trivial truth. Of course words can represent both mental and physical objects. I can talk both about mental contents (mine or other people's) opr about non mental things like chairs, etc. That says nothing philosophically. That's common sense. Now, if you said that words only refer to mental objects (which you did say!), then that is just wrong, plan and simple, as I 've proved. So, if you had been strictly using Brentano's term , you'd be guilty of both being off topic and making a trivial truth. (The original poster did not ask about Brentano's phenomenology nor was a rejoinder about his phenomenology relevent to a topic about how language relates to meaning and the efficacy of translation. You know, philosophy of language stuff. Stuff that's suppossed to be posted on the philosophy of language subforum. rolling eyes If you had made the claim that words only represent mental things (which is the literal interpretation of what you said without the charitable interpretation) then you'd be wrong.



Let me remind you of your post #4:

Words can represent real phenomenon, not just mental ones. WHen I say that there is a chair in my room, I don't mean that there a phenomenon of "chair in my room" in my mind. I mean that there is a chair in my room.

Using the term 'phenomenon' to signify a physical object or event is a contradictio in terminis, since 'phenomenon' specifically refers to "that which appears or is seen". But you seem to hang on to your plebian definition of it, thus constantly strawmanning my position.




You are being very dense. I showed you both how it is used commonly in philosphy and the common way from webster's. This is pathetic.

And you started this off-topic discussion on the relationship between phenomena and noumena, right there. I'm merely expounding my position.




Wrong. You started talking (ignorantly) about Kant. Not me. Take some responsibility.



I really hope this is a lesson to you. Next time you go around trying to impress others with your knowledge of Brentano, I suggest you actually read some phil (in the continental and the analytic tradition or whatever tradition actually pertinent to the actual discussion) and what the original poster had actually said. Next time you get the urge to "light up a cig" and wax poetic about your experiences with magical fungi and your brand of "philosophy", I suggest you be careful not to ignite all that ersatz PoMo flatus you managed to expell.


Cyberflaneur
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Feb 05, 2005

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 6
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 21, 2007 - 10:01 PM:

ragus wrote:
Cyberflaneur wrote

Is that your main reason for using this forum? Do you feel you have a . . . mission?


Yes, that is my mission. It's my moral obligation.grin My main reason to go on this forum is to learn, not to "win arguments" like some people. Now, If I do see someone acting disonorably, arrogantly, and without proper respect for other people's views, it is my moral obligation to rebuke their behavior.



Are you aiming to make others humble in your presence? Do you enjoy trying to humiliate others.




You should ask yourself that question. With your carping over spelling, and other trivial things irrelevent to the issues. Do you feel good that you spoted a trivial spelling "error" on an infomal discussion board? Do you want a cookie? Do you feel better smarter now? Did your ego grow?


Firstly, try reading this quote as if it hadn't been written by yourself.

Ask yourself if the writer has other evidence that I have been following them. Would you agree that the writer is reaching a conclusion from a data set of one?

Ask yourself if the writer appears arrogant, self-involved and personally abusive.

What conclusions do you draw?



You should ask yourself what the actions of someone who would follow another forumite around just to point spelling "errors" in their posts mean.
ragus
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 2513
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 22, 2007 - 9:36 AM:

Cyberflaneur wrote
With your carping over spelling, and other trivial things irrelevent to the issues.

Look at post #111 in the thread "Why there must have been a beginning to time" where you point out with a bracketed sic an error in my spelling. You'll notice (if you bother to check)
that in post #112 I draw your attention to this game you initiated. These are empirical facts - the interpretation is very clear - bite the bullet. cool

PS. If you can't (or won't) bite the bullet have you thought of growing a mullet (assuming you haven't already done so)?

Edited by ragus on Jul 22, 2007 - 10:04 AM
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.