The Self

[Decolonize The Left]

Let us discuss the self. What is it - if anything?

I have attached a poll to this thread with all the options I could conceive of, vote accordingly and discuss.

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You need another option: 'This question is nonsensical'.

[Decolonize The Left]

You need another option: 'This question is nonsensical'.

Aww booo... :crying:

And to think we might have had some fun with this. The question is nonsensical in one respect, but in a common-sense perspective it makes perfect sense - does it not?

- August

[Louise Michel]

Why is the question nonsensical? You are posting here. I am posting here. AugustWest is posting here. Three persons surely? Or not?

I haven't voted yet!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


The question is nonsensical in one respect, but in a common-sense perspective it makes perfect sense - does it not?

Well, I am not sure what you mean by 'common sense' perspective -- indeed, I deny there is such a thing.

In ordinary language, we speak about 'doing something yourself', by oneself, etc., but never of 'the self'.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, I am not sre what you mean bu 'common sense' persapective -- indeede, I deny there is such a thing.

I mean 'ordinary language.'


In ordinary language, we speak about 'doing something yourself', by oneself, etc., but never of 'the self'.

Correct. "The self" being a subject reduced from 'yourself,' 'oneself,' etc...

- August

[commyrebel]

He is talking not as a physical perspective but as a metaphysical perspective. he is trying to see what % of people believe that god is self and everything or that self is an energy ECT. I believe everything is made up of an energy if it physical mental or spiritual but every thing is made up of its own type of energy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Why is the question nonsensical? You are posting here. I am posting here. AugustWest is posting here. Three persons surely? Or not?

I am Ok with you referring to three posters/persons/people.

But, what has this got to do with 'The Self'?

This is a typically nonsensical philosophical question, the soluton to which is to be found, not by scientific research, but by juggling with a few misused words.

As I have indicated in other posts, the idea that there is a 'solution' to this sort of question is based on an ancient, ruling-class doctrine that certain fundamental truths about reality/ourselves can be ascertained by thought alone.

It is a nonsensical question because there is no way of making sense of it without using distorted language, and thus, there is no way of making sense of it.

As Marx noted:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

The fact that it is so easy to be seduced by this way of looking at the world underlines why Marx also said:


"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]

It is also why philosophy has managed to solve not one single 'problem' in over 2500 years, and not even close -- they are all nonsensical.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rosa,
That's why I added the final option in the poll - I believe this sums up what you just said? Or am I confused?

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


"The self" being a subject reduced from 'yourself,' 'oneself,' etc...

Then why not ask about 'The Se", which is 'reduced' even more?

The problem is, you have to distort ordinary language to get this 'wild goose chase' off the ground.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


That's why I added the final option in the poll - I believe this sums up what you just said? Or am I confused?

Well, a 'linguistic imposition' is where you impose a word on something, but here we are not even clear what it would be to suggest there is any sense to be made of the question whether there is a something here to have anything imposed upon it.

This is not a factual question in other words, but one of making sense.

Here's an analogy: the question "Is there a creature called 'Big Foot'?"

Someone could say, "Ah, but you have imposed a name on this creature. It might be called something different. Sasquatch, perhaps."

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=Sasquatch&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=duXbSZDuBeW6jAf9qvWcDg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

Here, there is a factual question that makes sense ("Does this creature exist?") and an additional question as to whether we have got its name right. You can't solve either by pure thought.

Neither option exists with your question.

This is a very complex topic (one that has sailed over the heads of the greatest minds in history, until Wittgenstein diagnosed this syndrome), which forms the core to my Essay Twelve Part One:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm

I have summarised the main ideas here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Twelve-Part-01.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Commyrebel:


He is talking not as a physical perspective but as a metaphysical perspective.

Thanks for that, but I was aware of this.

And that is the whole point: metaphysics is entirely nonsensical, and for the above reasons.

[Lynx]

Me, myself and I are comprised of... a body. So I select option #2

[Rebel_Serigan]

To throw in my own little tidbit I feel that the self is god (HEAR Me OUT). Personly I find the idea of an all powerful magic sky ghost as the most riddiculas idea on this planet. However, the fact that the self or concius resides in the brain and alters each and every one of our individual perceptions and corrispondingly our realities how can the self not be god? If a god is something that determines and creates your reality then you are a god. You see your past, your present, and you can percive the future, in fact you do all of that simotaniusly, you just focus on the present. We are all gods and thus our selves are gods. Shaboom.

[benhur]

Good question. But we can replace 'self' with 'I' because the latter is something we all experience. "I am typing," "I am angry" and so on. This cannot be denied. "I" is a reality that we experience all the time. In fact, it precedes every other experience, meaning whenever there's an experience-any experience-there's always an "I" that precedes it. Which is why we say, "I am angry" rather than merely "there is anger."

So the self is a given, it's a self-evident (ironic, isn't it?) reality. Even the assertion "There's no self" cannot be made without a self! Therefore, the real question is: what's the nature of this self. Unfortunately, the poll options don't contain a suitable answer.

I don't think the self is something that can be described, because it's NEVER an object of knowledge, it's always the knower. The knower cannot be known without another knower, which leads to infinite regress. Hence, it's reasonable to conclude that the self is similar to the eye, in that the eye can see everything except itself. Without the eye, we can see nothing, but the eye can never see itself (at best, it can see its reflection).

Likewise, without the self, we can know and experience nothing, but the self can never know or experience itself, because the very idea would imply another self, and this leads to infinite regress. So we're forced to conclude that the self is real (else, no knowledge and experience would be possible), but even though real, it cannot be described or experienced in positive terms for the aforementioned reasons.

[Hit The North]

AW:

In ordinary language, we speak about 'doing something yourself', by oneself, etc., but never of 'the self'.

If the term "self" is nonsensical, then who is the "my" of "myself", the "one" of "oneself" and the "you" of "yourself"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If the term "self" is nonsensical, then who is the "my" of "myself", the "one" of "oneself" and the "you" of "yourself"?

Where have I said that the term "self" is nonsensical?

Looks like your annual eye check-up is long overdue...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BenHur:


Good question. But we can replace 'self' with 'I' because the latter is something we all experience. "I am typing," "I am angry" and so on. This cannot be denied. "I" is a reality that we experience all the time. In fact, it precedes every other experience, meaning whenever there's an experience-any experience-there's always an "I" that precedes it. Which is why we say, "I am angry" rather than merely "there is anger."

So the self is a given, it's a self-evident (ironic, isn't it?) reality. Even the assertion "There's no self" cannot be made without a self! Therefore, the real question is: what's the nature of this self. Unfortunately, the poll options don't contain a suitable answer.

I don't think the self is something that can be described, because it's NEVER an object of knowledge, it's always the knower. The knower cannot be known without another knower, which leads to infinite regress. Hence, it's reasonable to conclude that the self is similar to the eye, in that the eye can see everything except itself. Without the eye, we can see nothing, but the eye can never see itself (at best, it can see its reflection).

Likewise, without the self, we can know and experience nothing, but the self can never know or experience itself, because the very idea would imply another self, and this leads to infinite regress. So we're forced to conclude that the self is real (else, no knowledge and experience would be possible), but even though real, it cannot be described or experienced in positive terms for the aforementioned reasons.

Thanks for this classic example of the sort of linguistic confusion/distortion I was referring to earlier.

[apathy maybe]

According to the standard interpretation of Hume on personal identity, he was a Bundle Theorist, who held that the self is nothing but a bundle of interconnected perceptions linked by relations of similarity and causality; or, more accurately, that our idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle. This view is forwarded by, for example, positivist interpreters, who saw Hume as suggesting that terms such as “self”, “person”, or "mind" referred to collections of “sense-contents”.[36] A modern-day version of the bundle theory of the mind has been advanced by Derek Parfit in his Reasons and Persons.

However, some philosophers have criticised the bundle-theory interpretation of Hume on personal identity. It is argued that distinct selves can have perceptions which stand in relations of similarity and causality with one another. Thus perceptions must already come parcelled into distinct "bundles" before they can be associated according to the relations of similarity and causality: in other words, the mind must already possess a unity that cannot be generated, or constituted, by these relations alone. Since the bundle-theory interpretation attributes Hume with answering an ontological or conceptual question, philosophers who see Hume as not very concerned with such questions have queried whether the view is really Hume's, or "only a decoy".[37] Instead, it is suggested, Hume might have been answering an epistemological question, about the causal origin of our concept of the self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#The_Self

Personally, I think that this question is a bit pointless (not as pointless as many other philosophical questions to be sure, after all, it might have some relevance if we ever get around to "uploading" our minds into computers).

But, to ignore that for the moment...

Consider that, over the course of your life, every single cell in your body will have been replaced many times over. Yet you are still considered the same person, why is that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Consider that, over the course of your life, every single cell in your body will have been replaced many times over. Yet you are still considered the same person, why is that?

The criteria for same/different cells is no less open to question, and so cannot be used to cast doubt on our ordinary criteria for personal identity.

[Louise Michel]

I don't see the difference between asking, "does the self exist" and "does individual consciousness exist."

I'm not sure you can empirically define consciousness other than via its manifestations in actions and ideas. Put another way, there's no object called consciousness that we can see or touch. So does this mean it doesn't exist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


I don't see the difference between asking, "does the self exist" and "does individual consciousness exist."

You are right, there is none -- both are nonsensical.


I'm not sure you can empirically define consciousness other than via its manifestations in actions and ideas. Put another way, there's no object called consciousness that we can see or touch. So does this mean it doesn't exist?

Check these out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousness-and-passage-t100438/index.html

[Louise Michel]

Hmmm tricky but ...

Is there such a thing (object) as a computer program? You can print a computer program, a computer can translate a program from a high level language into machine code but what actually is the program? The print out? The set of instructions loaded onto the processing chip? There is actually no such thing as a computer program in the sense that there is such a thing as a computer. So does that mean computer programs don't exist?

The same thing applies to a idea. An idea cannot be accessed with any of our mundane senses. However we can communicate an idea, we can be motivated by an idea, saddened by an idea. How can we be affected by something that doesn't exist? We are not affected by God but we are affected by the idea of God.

Everything that we are aware of surely, does have a physical form. An idea must have a physical form even if we cannot define it with any precision otherwise we as physical beings could not have ideas.

When we talk about a computer program we are conceptualizing something, mentally organizing a process into a fixed form that makes it appear to exist as an object. It's a bit like asking does a dance exist? Well, yes and no, sort of.

So isn't consciousness a linguistic description of a process that we treat as though it were an object? Much like "the self" maybe?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My criticism is based on our use of non-distorted ordinary language Louise, not on any analogies with computer programmes, and such like.

[The 'ontological status' of such things as money and computer programmes is well worked out in John Searle's The Construction Of Social Reality]

Recall, I am not questioning the existence of 'The self' (or of 'consciousness'), merely the sense of sentences containing these meaningless words (when used in this way).

So, just as it makes no sense to look for off-side in chess, it makes no sense to search for these obscure 'entities'.

[Louise Michel]

I am not questioning the existence of 'The self' (or of 'consciousness'), merely the sense of sentences containing these meaningless words (when used in this way).


Changed this post because I only saw half of Rosa's post at first - technical glitch!

But if the self exists or consciousness exists how are the words meaningless?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I said, the question whether 'consciousness' exists makes no more sense than the question whether there is off-side in chess.

[Louise Michel]

As I said, the question whether 'consciousness' exists makes no more sense than the question whether there is off-side in chess.

I agree that consciousness is not an 'entity' but when our perceptions are organized in such a way as to say "that wooden structure is a table" or that combination of metal and whatever is a car are we not doing the same thing as when we describe the product of our mental processes as an idea? The difference is that the table and the car are accessible our mundane senses whereas the physical form of the idea is more elusive.

[Lynx]

I don't agree that these words are meaningless, but when you have a series of words that don't provide any distinction beyond vague generalities no matter how you use them, then they are redundant. Car or automobile, what's the difference?

[apathy maybe]

LM, Rosa doesn't like analogies, I tried to draw an analogy between Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life) and determinism (and a modified version of the Game of Life, with a random aspect, and indeterminism), but she didn't buy it.

*Shrug* heh, ah well.

[Louise Michel]

LM, Rosa doesn't like analogies, I tried to draw an analogy between Conway's Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life) and determinism (and a modified version of the Game of Life, with a random aspect, and indeterminism), but she didn't buy it.

*Shrug* heh, ah well.

Okay, I'll take that under advizement (is that a real word or a Bushism?):lol:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

As I said, the question whether 'consciousness' exists makes no more sense than the question whether there is off-side in chess.

Consciousness is a definition corresponding to something. Off-side in chess doesn't correspond to anything. Consciousness does refer to something. We debate and change the definition of consciousness, which is like changes the rules of chess, but nobody said we can't change the rules.

Conciousness isn't some invisible world as some suggest. It's just a performed action that results from physical processes. Conciousness is something we experience.

I don't know what kind of linguistic "rules of the game" type criticism you are aiming at, but I am not sure we are on the same page with the relevance of language. Even delusions correspond to physicalities in the brain, but we categorize them as non-existent based on the "rules" we set up. Are you saying conciousness doesn't exist because it doesn't correspond with the rules we use? I'm not sure that is true.

Maybe conciousness needs a criteria to satisfy an empericist interpretation of existence. I was under the impression it already had such a criteria, but I admit I have no idea what that criteria is. So maybe it doesn't have one.

[Lynx]

I don't think the self is something that can be described, because it's NEVER an object of knowledge, it's always the knower. The knower cannot be known without another knower, which leads to infinite regress. Hence, it's reasonable to conclude that the self is similar to the eye, in that the eye can see everything except itself. Without the eye, we can see nothing, but the eye can never see itself (at best, it can see its reflection).
Why wouldn't a reflection be sufficient? The eye can see itself and there are medical books to describe the structure of the eye in more detail.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


I agree that consciousness is not an 'entity' but when our perceptions are organized in such a way as to say "that wooden structure is a table" or that combination of metal and whatever is a car are we not doing the same thing as when we describe the product of our mental processes as an idea? The difference is that the table and the car are accessible our mundane senses whereas the physical form of the idea is more elusive.

In fact, it is impossible to say what it is, not because we do not have the words for it, but because the word itself is a distortion of words we already have for our psychological make-up.

It is a pure creation of the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian paradigm, and is as deviod of content as the word 'god' is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Consciousness is a definition corresponding to something. Off-side in chess doesn't correspond to anything. Consciousness does refer to something. We debate and change the definition of consciousness, which is like changes the rules of chess, but nobody said we can't change the rules.

Conciousness isn't some invisible world as some suggest. It's just a performed action that results from physical processes. Conciousness is something we experience.

I don't know what kind of linguistic "rules of the game" type criticism you are aiming at, but I am not sure we are on the same page with the relevance of language. Even delusions correspond to physicalities in the brain, but we categorize them as non-existent based on the "rules" we set up. Are you saying conciousness doesn't exist because it doesn't correspond with the rules we use? I'm not sure that is true.

Maybe conciousness needs a criteria to satisfy an empericist interpretation of existence. I was under the impression it already had such a criteria, but I admit I have no idea what that criteria is. So maybe it doesn't have one.

You miss the point; the rules of chess exclude 'off-side'.

The way we use ordinary language rules out 'consciousness', except in the medical or forensic cases I alluded to in the threads linked to above.

I acknowledge that this is hard to take if you are used to thinking we can extract hidden truths by means of an odd use of language, as 2500 years of traditional ruling-class thought might have seduced you into believing.

But, the vast majority of you seem to be seduced in this way, as Marx indicated you would:


"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]

He would not have told us these ideas 'ruled' if most people (including comrades) did not go along with these myths.

He also revealed the source of these confusions:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

This is also why philosophy has managed to solve not one single 'problem' in over 2500 years -- not even close.

Still, if you want to waste time speculating about empty, theologically-driven notions, that's your affair.

I have tried to warn you...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


LM, Rosa doesn't like analogies, I tried to draw an analogy between Conway's Game of Life and determinism (and a modified version of the Game of Life, with a random aspect, and indeterminism), but she didn't buy it.

I do not mind analogies; heck I use them all the time.

But, this one of yours was terminally lame.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I don't agree that these words are meaningless, but when you have a series of words that don't provide any distinction beyond vague generalities no matter how you use them, then they are redundant. Car or automobile, what's the difference?

I have given my reasons in the threads I linked to above. You need to address them, not raise an irrelevant point about the use of different names.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As a general comment: this reveals the truly revolutionary nature of Wittgenstein's philosophy: it challenges ideas that even the best minds on the planet have taken for granted for 2500 years.

No wonder the majortiy of you take exception to my deflationary remarks

But, all you are missing the point, as my earlier threads (and this one) have pointed out.

All of you are trying to find 'philosphical truths' by the odd use of language; transforming the means by which we communicate with one another into a code that contains/reveals nature's secrets.

Just think about the implications of this for a minute: it suggests that reality is linguistically constituted (as it says in the Bible: 'God' spoke, and everything came into existence; in the beginning was the Word, etc.), and that the right verbal formula can uncover these secrets, by-passing genuine scientific research.

As if we could find truths from thought alone...!:lol:

But, this experiment has plainly failed: 2500 years of philosophy has produced not one solution.

[Hit The North]

It also exposes the severe limits of Wittengsteinian philosophy in that it is only good for demolishing philosophical explanations for problems which beset the human experience, without providing any indication how they can be solved outside of philosophy.

It's a critique of philosophy but fails to be a critique of the world, except in those situations in which the world is defined by philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


It also exposes the severe limits of Wittengsteinian philosophy in that it is only good for demolishing philosophical explanations for problems which beset the human experience, without providing any indication how they can be solved outside of philosophy.

But, as we now know, these were pseudo-problems anyway, fit only to grace the top of Hume's bonfire.

So, there is no 'solution' to be had of them anywhere, let alone 'outside philosophy'.


It's a critique of philosophy but fails to be a critique of the world, except in those situations in which the world is defined by philosophy.

This is mumbo-jumbo, even by your low standards.

WTF does it mean?

I suspect not even you can say.

Of course, as Marx argued:


The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

Notice: the point is not to provide yet another 'critique of the world', whatever that means, but to change it.

Hence, philosophy has no point.

You must have missed this in your haste to defend ruling-class forms of thought...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

We attempt to utilize language so it corresponds to facts about the world. Language contains truth when it is precise enough. Language contains truth if it corresponds to reality. I don't think you are saying otherwise, but maybe you are.

For supposedly disliking philosophy, Marx and Wittgenstein engaged in it to an incredible extent? Apparently just to show how terrible it is, you are saying?

Truths are determined by correspondence. When a philosopher argues something, we consider how it corresponds to reality. We then come up with objections. Sometimes the ruling class decides for us what constitutes a proposition. That a ball = a ball is determined by those who control definitions. That a ball, the physical object occupying that space, is itself is something altogether different.

People are aware of issues of language. They come up all the time. The idea is to deal with contradictions in language and attempt to resolve them. To evolve our ideas. Philosophical solutions exist everywhere. When someone intuitively reasons out, based on language that corresponds to reality, that something could be true, they begin to evaluate it using scientific means. The process that gets them their hypothesis is philosophy.

Russell, I believe, said philosophy gets no credit because it is a pre-science. When philosophy succeeds, science develops and no one considers philosophy as having contributed anything.

I don't really think Marx of Wittgenstein literally despised philosophy in the way you interpret them. Wittgenstein, given the little I know, held a view similar to Russell. He only objected to philosophers claiming that philosophy alone solves problems. It only analyzes potential solutions, potential falsehoods, et cetera. If we could create teletransporters and do all kinds of brain transplants, we may solve the issues surrounding personal identity. The worries and ideas of philosophy will contribute to what tests science would undergo.

Science is preciseness and philosophy deals with how to utilize science when we don't have processes of utilization for every circumstance. When we have the means to solve a problem, we philosophize about methods of solving it. Perhaps we come up with a problem, test it, and find out it is true. Eventually, even the procedure of how to solve a problem can be scientific. You do this first then that then this, et cetera.

Proper philosophy rarely debates if gravity exists. It debates issues science can't address. If we can figure out a way to utilize science (first using philosophy) to eliminate the need of philosophy, great.

Philosophy deals with finding possible solutions and justifying, using what we know, why they are or are not feasible. It's very entangled with science.

I really don't understand where you are coming from on this. Perhaps I just disagree and, by default, I am delusional under your theory. Sometimes people work from such substantially different vantage points they have no commonality from which to debate. I don't really think that is the case (if it ever is) but perhaps I am mistaken.

Also, you are a leftist, obviously. If you oppose philosophy, do you really think communism is entirely justifiable using science? Are ethics a matter of science, too?

Even if philosophy is irrelevant, myself (and perhaps Marx and Wittgenstein) seem to engage in it. Maybe it's entertainment.

[Lynx]

All of you are trying to find 'philosphical truths' by the odd use of language; transforming the means by which we communcite into a code that contains/reveals nature's secrets.
Examining the possible meanings of words is not a search for 'truth', philosophical or otherwise. Use of variations of these words in everyday conversation is done without examination.

[black magick hustla]

It also exposes the severe limits of Wittengsteinian philosophy in that it is only good for demolishing philosophical explanations for problems which beset the human experience, without providing any indication how they can be solved outside of philosophy.

It's a critique of philosophy but fails to be a critique of the world, except in those situations in which the world is defined by philosophy.

the wittgensteinian assault is an assault to metaphysics. it does not "critique" the world because that was not the priority. Its priority is to demolish philosophy. There is no alternative to philosophy because the questions asked by philosophy are themselves muddled. Marx critiqued the "world", not wittgenstein.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I believe the self does not exists.We are all one universal force that created ourselves and we live through this universal force.But a rejection of this took place and refused to work for the common need.Those rebels [the first anti-communists] lived as lazy bums that refused to work and nearly died.On the brink of the extinction then philosophied about there idiocracy.They pondered ''Why did we do this'' and realised the answer ''Greed''.They thought that if they compelled to peoples greed [commercialism] they could get more supporters and it did.They then used these new brainwashed ''recruits'' as slave labour [thus forming the bourgeoise and beginning the system of exploitation of the proleteriat].They got so many supporters they completely split off and started another opposing society [the first capitalist society].Later on the the capitalist society would come back to the commune to steal all other border line workers [Open minded common-man] and commit genocide on the remaining commune living people [the last living communists] and dominated the world.The remainding survivours of the commune became people to found indigenous tribes that followed this order.Thousands of years later two men by the names of Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels stumbled upon this old school of thought and a new revolution to restore the world to its true greatness and re-unite the people for the common good and common need of the people.

This what I ''communology'' and I think it's an important thought for communists and all people who wish to improve society.

[benhur]

Why wouldn't a reflection be sufficient? The eye can see itself and there are medical books to describe the structure of the eye in more detail.

Sorry, but I am not sure what you're trying to say. The eye cannot see itself, it can see the reflection in the mirror. It can see other eyes, with which it obtains knowledge about the eyes. Strictly speaking, you can't look at your own eyes, at best you can look at an image in the mirror, but never the real thing.

But anyway, it's just an analogy, and my main point is: the self, being the knower, cannot be known because that would imply another knower, and this new knower would imply still another knower, and so forth.

This leads to infinite regress, and therefore it's more prudent to conclude that the self cannot be known or described in positive terms. It just is. Hence, even though the self is real, it cannot be described the way we describe other objects, which is why we mistake the self to be non-existent.

[Lynx]

Sorry, but I am not sure what you're trying to say. The eye cannot see itself, it can see the reflection in the mirror. It can see other eyes, with which it obtains knowledge about the eyes. Strictly speaking, you can't look at your own eyes, at best you can look at an image in the mirror, but never the real thing.
I was wondering why an indirect observation would not suffice in obtaining the desired knowledge...

But anyway, it's just an analogy, and my main point is: the self, being the knower, cannot be known because that would imply another knower, and this new knower would imply still another knower, and so forth.
It cannot be known at a level of perfect knowledge, or of identical knowledge, but it can be attributed (through observation / from introspection).

This leads to infinite regress, and therefore it's more prudent to conclude that the self cannot be known or described in positive terms. It just is. Hence, even though the self is real, it cannot be described the way we describe other objects, which is why we mistake the self to be non-existent.
I don't understand how one would conclude that something doesn't exist just because it cannot be described perfectly, or in positive terms. What do you mean by positive terms?


self (plural selves)
1. An individual person as the object of his own reflective consciousness.

consciousness (countable and uncountable; plural consciousnesses)
1. The state of being conscious or aware; awareness.

awareness (uncountable)
1. The state or level of consciousness where sense data can be confirmed by an observer.
e.g. I gradually passed from sleep to full awareness.
2. The state or quality of being aware of something.
e.g. The awareness of one type of idea naturally fosters an awareness of another idea

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


We attempt to utilize language so it corresponds to facts about the world. Language contains truth when it is precise enough. Language contains truth if it corresponds to reality. I don't think you are saying otherwise, but maybe you are.

In fact, as Marx and Engels noted, human beings invented language in order to communicate.

This however:


Language contains truth if it corresponds to reality. I don't think you are saying otherwise,

cannot be right:

1) Language is not a container.

2) It is impossible to give content to 'corresponds with reality' without entering into a circular explanation.


For supposedly disliking philosophy, Marx and Wittgenstein engaged in it to an incredible extent?

Well, Marx didn't do much philosophy after 1844, and Wittgenstein re-defined the term. The way he did philosophy was to show that all of traditional philosophy (that which was aimed at deriving truths about reality from words/thought alone) was just hot air.


Truths are determined by correspondence. When a philosopher argues something, we consider how it corresponds to reality. We then come up with objections. Sometimes the ruling class decides for us what constitutes a proposition. That a ball = a ball is determined by those who control definitions. That a ball, the physical object occupying that space, is itself is something altogether different.

Even if correspondence relations could be set up that were not circular, the 'truths' that philosophers concoct cannot 'correspond' with reality.

Here is why (this is in fact part of my Summary of Essay Twelve Part One):


Consider a typical philosophical/metaphysical thesis:

M1: To be is to be perceived.

Contrast this with a typical empirical proposition:

M2: Tony Blair owns a copy of Das Kapital

The seemingly profound nature of theses like M1 is linked to rather more mundane features of the language in which they are expressed: that is, to the fact that the main verb they use is almost invariably in the indicative mood.

[Sometimes, the latter is beefed-up with subjunctive and/or modal qualifying terms (such as 'must', 'necessary', etc.) -- which, incidentally, helps create even more of a false impression.]

Now, this apparently superficial grammatical facade hides a deeper logical form -- several in fact. This is something which only becomes plain when such sentences are examined more closely.

As noted above, expressions like these look as if they reveal deep truths about reality since they certainly resemble empirical propositions (i.e., propositions about matters of fact). In the event, they turn out to be nothing at all like them.

To see this, consider again an ordinary empirical proposition:

T1: Tony Blair owns a copy of Das Kapital.

Compare this with these similar-looking indicative (but nonetheless typical metaphysical) sentences:

T2: Time is a relation between events.

T3: Motion is inseparable from matter.

In order to understand T1, it is not necessary to know whether it is true or not.

However, the comprehension of T2 and T3 goes hand-in-hand with knowing either or both are true (or, conversely, knowing either or both are false). The truth of T2 and T3 thus follows from the meaning of certain words (or from certain definitions -- i.e., from yet more words).



This now intimately links the truth status of T2 and T3 with [I]meaning, but not with material confirmation/facts, and hence not with a confrontation with reality. Their truth-status is independent of and anterior to the evidence (even if there were any!).

In contrast, understanding T1 is independent its confirmation or refutation -- indeed, it would be impossible to do either if T1 had not already been understood. However, the truth/falsehood of T1-type propostions follows from the way the world is, not solely from meaning.

Empirical propositions are typically like this; they have to be understood first before they can be confronted with the evidence that would establish their truth-status. In contrast, metaphysical propositions carry their truth/falsehood on their faces, as it were.

So here, we have two sorts of indicative sentences, each with a radically different 'relation' to 'reality'.

Understanding the first sort (i.e., those like T1) is independent of their truth-status, whereas their actual truth or falsehood depends on the state of the world.

In the second (i.e., those like T2 or T3), their truth or falsehood is not dependent on the state of the world, but follows solely from the meaning of the words they contain (or on those in the argument from which they were 'derived'). To understand them is ipso facto to know they are true.

Indeed, metaphysical theses (like T2 and T3) are deliberately constructed to transcend the limitations of the material world, which tactic is excused on the grounds that it allows the aspiring metaphysician to uncover "underlying essences", revealing nature's "hidden secrets". Theses like these are "necessarily true" (or "necessarily false"), and are thus held to express genuine knowledge of fundamental aspects of reality, unlike contingent/empirical propositions whose actual truth-status can alter with the wind. Traditionally, this meant that empirical propositions like T1 were considered to be incapable of revealing authentic knowledge. Indeed, "philosophical knowledge" (underlying absolute certainty) has always been held to be of the sort delivered by T2 or T3-type sentences: necessary, a priori, non-contingent, and generated by thought alone.

Metaphysical propositions thus masquerade as especially profound super-empirical truths which cannot fail to be true (or cannot fail to be false, as the case may be). They do this by aping the indicative mood --, but they go way beyond this. Thus, what they say does not just happen to be this way or that, as with ordinary empirical truths -- these propositions cannot be otherwise. The world must conform to whatever they say. Indeed, this accounts for the use of modal terms (like "must", "necessary" and "inconceivable") if and when their status is questioned --, or, of course, whenever their content is being sold to us -- as in "I must exist if I can think", or "Existence can't be a predicate".

Conversely, if anyone were to question the truth of T1, the following response: "Tony Blair must own a copy of Das Kapital" would be highly inappropriate -- unless, perhaps, T1 itself were the conclusion of an inference, such as: "Tony Blair told me he owned a copy, so he must own one", or it was based on a direct observation statement. But even then, the truth or falsehood of T1 would depend on an interface with material reality at some point.

In the latter case, with empirical propositions, reality is dictating to us whether what we say is true or false. We would not be dictating to reality what it must contain, or what it must be like, as metaphysicial theses have always done.

Hence, with respect to T2 and T3, things are radically different; the second option above applies, for their truth-values (true or false) can be determined independently and in advance of the way the world happens to be. Here, the essential nature of reality can be ascertained from words/thought alone. Such Super-Truths (or Super-Falsehoods) can be derived solely from the alleged meaning of the words sentences like T2 and T3 contain (or from the 'concepts' they somehow express). In that case, once understood, metaphysical propositions like T2 and T3 guarantee their own truth or their own falsehood. They are thus true a priori.

So, to understand a metaphysical thesis is to know it is true or to know it is false. That is why, to their inventors, metaphysical propositions appear to be so certain and self-evident. Questioning them seems to run against the grain of our understanding, not of our experience. Indeed, they appear to be self-evident precisely because they need no evidence to confirm their truth-status; they provide their own evidence, and testify on their own behalf. Their veracity follows from the alleged meaning of the words they contain. They, not the world, guarantee their own truth (or falsehood).

Unfortunately, this divorces such theses from material reality, since they are true or false independently of any apparent state of the world.

In that case, any thesis that can be judged true or false on conceptual grounds alone cannot feature in a materialist account of reality, only an Idealist one.

This might seem to be a somewhat dogmatic statement to make, but as we shall see, the opposite view is the one that is dogmatic, since it is based on a ruling-class view of reality (and on one whose validity is not sensitive to empirical test), which collapses into incoherence when examined closely.

The paradoxical nature metaphysical theses illustrates the ineluctable slide into non-sense that all theories undergo whenever their proponents try to undermine either the vernacular or the logical and pragmatic principles on which it is based -- those which, for example, ordinary speakers regularly use to state contingent truths or falsehoods about the world without such a fuss.

Intractable logical problems soon begin to emerge (with regard to such putatively empirical, but nonetheless metaphysical, sentences) if an attempt is made to restrict or eliminate one or other of the paired semantic possibilities associated with ordinary empirical propositions: i.e., truth and falsehood.

This occurs, for example, when an apparently empirical proposition is declared to be only true or only false (or, more pointedly, 'necessarily' the one or the other) -- as a "law of cognition", perhaps -- or, more likely, when a 'necessary' truth or falsehood is mis-identified as a particularly profound sort of empirical thesis.

As we will soon see, this tactic results in the automatic loss of both semantic options, and with that goes any sense that the original proposition might have had, rendering it incomprehensible.

This is because empirical propositions leave it open as to whether they are true or false; that is why their truth-values cannot simply be read-off from their content, why evidence is required in order to determine their semantic status, and why it is possible to understand them before their truth or falsehood is known. If that were not so, it would be impossible to ascertain their truth-status; it is not possible to verify/falsify an alleged proposition if no one understands it.

When this is not the case -- i.e., when either option (truth or falsehood) is closed-off, or when propositions are said to be "necessarily true" or "necessarily false" -- evidence clearly becomes irrelevant. Thus, whereas the truth or falsehood of an empirical proposition cannot be ascertained on linguistic, conceptual or semantic grounds alone, if the truth or falsehood of a proposition is capable of being established solely on the basis of such linguistic/structural factors, that proposition cannot be empirical.

If, however, such propositions are still regarded by those who propose them as truths, or Super-truths, about the world, about its "essence", then they are plainly metaphysical.

Otherwise the truth or falsehood of such propositions would be world-sensitive, not solely meaning- or concept-dependent. And that explains why the comprehension of metaphysical propositions appears to go hand in hand with knowing their 'truth' (or their 'falsehood'): they are based on features of thought/language, not on the material world. This means that they can't be related to the material world or anything in it, and hence they can't be used to help change it.

Of course, it could always be claimed that such 'essentialist' thoughts 'reflect' the world.

But, if thought 'reflects' the world, it would be possible to understand a proposition that allegedly expressed such a reflected thesis in advance of knowing whether it was true or false, otherwise confirmation in practice, or by comparing it with the world, would become an empty gesture. But this is not so with such 'reflected' theses.

On the other hand, if their truth-status can be ascertained from such propositions/'thoughts' alone (i.e., if they are "self-evident"), then plainly the world drops out of the picture. Naturally, this just means that such 'thoughts'/propositions cannot be reflections of the world, whatever else they are.

Another odd feature of metaphysical theses is worth underlining: since the truth-values of defective sentences like these are plainly not determined by the world, they have to be given a truth-value by fiat. That is, they have to be declared "necessarily true" or "necessarily false", and this is plainly because their truth-status cannot be derived from the world, with which they cannot now be compared.

Or, more grandiloquently, their opposites have to be pronounced "unthinkable" by a sage-like figure -- a Philosopher of some sort.

Metaphysical decrees like this are as common as dirt in traditional thought.

Isolated theses like these have necessary truth or falsehood bestowed on them as a gift. Instead of being compared with material reality to ascertain their truth-status, they are derived solely from or compared only with other related theses (or to be more honest, they are merely compared with yet more obscure jargon) as part of a terminological gesture at 'verification'. Their bona fides are thus thoroughly Ideal and 100% bogus.

The normal cannons that determine when something is true or false (i.e., a comparison with reality) have to be set aside, and a spurious 'evidential' ceremony substituted for it -- or, if it is carried out in advance, it is performed in the head as a sort of 'thought experiment', or perhaps as part of a very hasty and superficial consideration of the 'concepts' involved.

As far as traditional Philosophy (Metaphysics) is concerned, we know this is precisely what happened as the subject developed; philosophers simply invented more and more jargonised words, juggled with such bogus terminology, and thereby derived countless 'truths' from thought/language alone.

But, none of these 'truths' can be given a sense, no matter what is done with them; in that case, they are all non-sensical.

These ideas are worked out in extensive detail, and defended in depth here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm

This, of course, illustrates why Marx said:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

Now, there is a reason why traditional theorists attempted to derive 'truths' from thought alone. I have already summarised this reason; here it is again:


This traditional way of seeing reality taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who have always viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for each ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

And this is why all of traditional philosophy is dogmatic, and thus non-sensical.

Now the reason why this traditional approach to 'philosophical truth' has dominated 'western' (and 'eastern') thought for 2500 years was outlined by Marx, too:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]

And we can see this form of thought still dominating the thinking of comrades here, all of whom think it perfectly ordinary/acceptable to try to derive profound theses about 'The self', or 'consciousness' from a few (jargonised/distorted) words, or from a few minutes thought.

There is in fact a sociological reason for this ubiquitous intellectual habit, and why it afflicts the vast majority of human beings -- and it is based on ideas Feuerbach rehearsed 160-odd years ago --, but I have said enough already.

-------------------------

Added on edit:

I have outlined these 'Feuerbachian reasons' in my next reply to Dooga.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Examining the possible meanings of words is not a search for 'truth', philosophical or otherwise. Use of variations of these words in everyday conversation is done without examination.

Alas, this is indeed so.

See my reply to Dooga.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What about the sentence, "There is a computer on my desk." Is it untrue, circular, et cetera? Also, given that all language is only expressive of reality and not correspondent to it, how do we find truth (or do we?) Even science utilizes language.

Let's bring in a physical account of language with mathematics. Let's assume we learned 1 + 1 = 2. I'd say we learned that through experience. A priori, we learned how to multiply larger numbers. As long as language has a causal chain connecting it to reality, it seems like a priori knowledge is feasible (though this is not what most mean by a priori). It's more like a posteriori at a distance.

Regardless, language that corresponds to reality should be our goal. If we know the properties of reality through testing or observation, we can make a priori claims about the future. Maybe the adding and multiplication of large numbers, if we tested it, is actually not the number we think it is? That seems to be the conclusion you reach with such skepticism of language. It also casts suspicion on the fact that hypothesis based on language (corresponding to fact) regularly is proven right upon testing. So clearly people can reach truths, unproven perhaps, by a priori.

The process by which we consider a test worth doing or a hypothesis legitimate is always a priori, in the sense of a posteriori at a distance, as I see it. The philosophical methodology we use is too useful. Ethics, politics, meaning, and other concepts all derive from such methodology (for some people).

[Lynx]

Alas, this is indeed so.
See my reply to Dooga.
Your reply is appropriate, and is intended for the audience you alluded to earlier.

[Lynx]

And we can see this form of thought still dominating the thinking of comrades here, all of whom think it perfectly ordinary/acceptable to try to derive profound theses about 'The self', or 'consciousness' from a few (jargonised/distorted) words, or from a few minutes thought.
What is the harm in giving in to this superficial habit?

There is in fact a sociological reason for this ubiquitous intellectual habit, and why it afflicts the vast majority of human beings -- and it is based on ideas Feuerbach rehearsed 160-odd years ago --, but I have said enough already.
:confused:

[Louise Michel]

Recall, I am not questioning the existence of 'The self' (or of 'consciousness'), merely the sense of sentences containing these meaningless words (when used in this way).



As I said, the question whether 'consciousness' exists makes no more sense than the question whether there is off-side in chess.


Rosa, please explain how these two ideas hang together. If consciousness exists why is the word meaningless any more than the word water? And what does "when used in this way" refer to? Used in what way?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


What about the sentence, "There is a computer on my desk." Is it untrue, circular, et cetera?

Whatever it is, its truth will be settled by the facts, not by conceptual analysis.

And, it can be comprehended in advance of knowing whether it is true.


Even science utilizes language.

Yes, so?


Let's bring in a physical account of language with mathematics. Let's assume we learned 1 + 1 = 2. I'd say we learned that through experience. A priori, we learned how to multiply larger numbers. As long as language has a causal chain connecting it to reality, it seems like a priori knowledge is feasible (though this is not what most mean by a priori). It's more like a posteriori at a distance.

Good points, covered in detail in the Essay I linked to above. Here is the skinny on this:

The difference between mathematical propositions and metaphysical ones lies in the fact that the former express rules we use to manipulate signs, or which we use to balance the books of nature.

Metaphysical propositions masquerade, on the other hand, as especially deep empirical truths, which they can't be, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Now, only a Platonist would regard mathematical propositions as if they depicted a world anterior to the senses (and thus expressed super-empirical truths), but in that case, they will have been turned into metaphysical, not mathematical propositions.

Furthermore, there can't be a 'causal link' connecting language to the world, as you suppose, for if there were there could be no false propositions. [Think about that for a minute -- if you need me to explain why, let me know.]

So, if there were no false propositions (which there wouldn't be if language was linked to the world causally), then all propositions would be true, and we could sack every scientist, since we'd know everything we said about the world was true just as soon as we said it.


Regardless, language that corresponds to reality should be our goal. If we know the properties of reality through testing or observation, we can make a priori claims about the future. Maybe the adding and multiplication of large numbers, if we tested it, is actually not the number we think it is? That seems to be the conclusion you reach with such skepticism of language. It also casts suspicion on the fact that hypothesis based on language (corresponding to fact) regularly is proven right upon testing. So clearly people can reach truths, unproven perhaps, by a priori.

This is an idealist answer; the reason for that is that it would mean there were no falsehoods, and what we said determined the nature of reality.

This is an ancient notion, connected as I indicated to age-old ruling class ideas about a hidden world underlying appearances, which is more real than the material world, accessible by thought alone, or by the analysis of concepts/jargonised language, to which all our words 'correspond' -- hence, on this view, there are no falsehoods, just less and less 'relative truths'.

I can sympathise with your attempt to defend this view of reality; we have all had it forced down our throats by our education (and in many cases, religious indoctrination -- the two are not unconnected), but you are going to have to wave goodbye to it if you want to reject fully the 'ruling ideas' to which Marx referred.

This view trades on the primitive idea that we humans lie at the meaning centre of the universe, and what we say must have deeper import than merely to serve as a means of communication. So, we assume there is a secret code in our words (the ancients thought 'God' had put it there), and hence, if we can find the right verbal formula, we can uncover those secrets by thought alone.

So, as Marx noted, we fetishise language; hence what had once been an expression of the relation between human beings becomes inverted, and transformed into the real relation between things, or even into those things themselves. The creations of our minds jump out of our heads (as Marx also said), and in a distorted form now come to stand for real objects and processes underlying appearances.

That is why comrades here think that jargonised expressions, like 'the self', or 'consciousness', or 'free will', or 'determined', can stand for something lying beyond appearances, allowing them easy access to deeper 'truths' by the mere operation of thought.

In our alienated state, to use an idea from Feuerbach, we misread the social means of communication as if it were a secret code, and we project onto reality social norms as if they represented deep truths about nature/ourselves.

A similar aetiology lies behind religious affectation -- they have the same cause: alienation, and our desire to think there is something more to reality than the material world around us, and that our words can somehow give meaning to everything, give life a purpose, uncover hidden secrets, when they can't.


The philosophical methodology we use is too useful.

And yet not one single philosophical 'problem' has been solved in 2500 years, and we are no closer now to finding a solution than Plato was.

And it is not hard to see why: the source of these 'problems' lies in the fetishisation/distortion of language I have outlined here.

In short, these 'problems' are no more real than this one is:

"In chess, who performed the marriage ceremony on the King and Queen?"

This has no 'solution' since it is based on a misunderstanding of the role of certain words in chess.

Same with metaphysics/traditional philosophy.

I do not expect to win this argument; if I did, then Marx would have been wrong about those 'ruling ideas'...

[The above summarises much of what will appear in Essay Twelve Parts One to Seven when it is finished in about ten years time.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Rosa, please explain how these two ideas hang together. If consciousness exists why is the word meaningless any more than the word water? And what does "when used in this way" refer to? Used in what way?

If you read my two replies to Dooga above, what I said might become a little clearer to you.

Recall, the phrase 'consciousness exists' makes no more sense than 'chessness exists', if someone thought that there was an essence to chess called 'chessness'.

'When used in this way' was an alluision to my earlier posts in those threads to which I linked earlier.

I admit only a medical and forensic use of the word 'consciousness', as when, for example, a doctor might say :"The patient has regained consciousness".

Any other use of this word, as I explained in the aforemetioned threads, is a throw-back to Platonic/Christian/Cartesian notions about the 'Mind/Soul'.

Does that help?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


What is the harm in giving in to this superficial habit?

You might as well say 'What is the harm in watching my toenails grow?'.

None at all, and if you want to waste your time on such empty pursuits, be my guest.

[Louise Michel]

If you read my two replies to Dooga above, what I said might become a little clearer to you.

Recall, the phrase 'consciousness exists' makes no more sense than 'chessness exists', if someone thought that there was an essence to chess called 'chessness'.

I have, and had read, your reply to Dooga.

However, you say:

I am not questioning the existence of 'The self' (or of 'consciousness')

How exactly is this different from saying "consciousness exists." Or indeed, "the self exists"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


How exactly is this different from saying "consciousness exists." Or indeed, "the self exists"?

I think you misunderstand me. When I say:


I am not questioning the existence of 'The self' (or of 'consciousness')

I am not saying I accept these phrases, only that I go much further and question whether they make sense.

So, if someone said 'Do you think that chessness exists?' I wouldn't respond with a 'Yes', or a 'No', but with a 'What the hell does 'chessness' mean?"

It is in that sense I am not questioning the existence of 'The Self', or 'consciousness'; such terms do not make it that far.

[Lynx]

You might as well say 'What is the harm in watching my toenails grow?'.

None at all, and if you want to waste your time on such empty pursuits, be my guest.
If I wanted to waste my time I would spend my life studying philosophy and every other futile endeavor. I haven't. Am I not representative of a majority of people in this regard?

If you're going to include the implications of subscribing to ruling class ideology, whether by design or inadvertently, you may as well expand upon it.

What are the implications, for society, if enough people spend enough time on this ubiquitous intellectual habit?
An explanation of the factors driving this 'need' might also be interesting.

[Lynx]

Perhaps there are languages without one or more of these concepts having made it into 'word form'.

[Dean]

I am Ok with you referring to three posters/persons/people.

But, what has this got to do with 'The Self'?

This is a typically nonsensical philosophical question, the soluton to which is to be found, not by scientific research, but by juggling with a few misused words.


It is also why philosophy has managed to solve not one single 'problem' in over 2500 years, and not even close -- they are all nonsensical.

Oh, get off your high horse Rosa. I'll concede that this discussion is needlessly vague and linguistics-bound. But it is totally ridiculous to
-denouce the totality of philosophical studies
-claim that all philosophy is "misused words"
based purely on that fact. You need to take a serious look at the criteria you use to judge the distintion between "nonsensical philosophy" and "materialist rationality" because I have a strong suspicion that your discrimination is based on nothing more than barbarous mysticism.


As I have indicated in other posts, the idea that there is a 'solution' to this sort of question is based on an ancient, ruling-class doctrine that certain fundamental truths about reality/ourselves can be ascertained by thought alone.

It is a nonsensical question because there is no way of making sense of it without using distorted language, and thus, there is no way of making sense of it.
Perhaps; I'm still confused as to what AugustWest is referring to. I thought it was the notion of 'self' as a reference point, but apparently not.

But I think it is totally unfair to call it a "ruling class" doctrine. I know you hate mysticism with a passion, but two things come to mind:

-just because you claim something is mystical doesn't make it so
-mysticism is in no way shape or form a fundamentally ruling-class doctrine. There is no reason why association with a greater truth should be considered "ruling class"; rather, I would say that the notion of the human being (rather than race, religion or tendency) as the focal point for your relation to the world is the most fundamental characteristic of communistic ideology. Certainly mystical, and certainly pro-working class.

I really don't have a problem with what you are basically saying here; what does offend me is the characterization of harmless, ineffectual (or if we are to believe you, nonsensical) ideas as "ruling class" and "purely linguistic." You must understood how condescending you sound.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


If I wanted to waste my time I would spend my life studying philosophy and every other futile endeavor. I haven't. Am I not representative of a majority of people in this regard?

Indeed, and that is why Marx said:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]

As I said, if you want to speculate around ruling-ideas, be my guest.

Who am I to try to separate you from this opiate?


If you're going to include the implications of subscribing to ruling class ideology, whether by design or inadvertently, you may as well expand upon it.

What are the implications, for society, if enough people spend enough time on this ubiquitous intellectual habit?
An explanation of the factors driving this 'need' might also be interesting.

Done so here (I have hogged this thread enough as it is):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Fourteen_Part_One.htm

Remember, the above are both summary Essays.


Perhaps there are languages without one or more of these concepts having made it into 'word form'.

I very much doubt it; but if you know of one, don't be shy...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Oh, get off your high horse Rosa. I'll concede that this discussion is needlessly vague and linguistics-bound. But it is totally ridiculous to
-denounce the totality of philosophical studies
-claim that all philosophy is "misused words"
based purely on that fact. You need to take a serious look at the criteria you use to judge the distinction between "nonsensical philosophy" and "materialist rationality" because I have a strong suspicion that your discrimination is based on nothing more than barbarous mysticism.

I will answer you in the spirit with which you responded to me: lack of respect.

1) Get off your 'low horse'.

2) You are going to need to do more than just abuse me or fulminate against my ideas; you need to address my arguments, not just reject the conclusions. However, I doubt you know enough philosophy of logic and/or language to do that...

3) Just spelling out the implications of Marx's words:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

4) I did say that I would not win this argument, since:


The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65.]

Looks like you are just another sad dupe.


Perhaps; I'm still confused as to what AugustWest is referring to. I thought it was the notion of 'self' as a reference point, but apparently not.

I rather think you are just confused in general.


But I think it is totally unfair to call it a "ruling class" doctrine. I know you hate mysticism with a passion, but two things come to mind:

I have given you my reasons, here and in the two threads I linked to earlier. Once more, you need to address those, not just reject the conclusions.


-just because you claim something is mystical doesn't make it so
-mysticism is in no way shape or form a fundamentally ruling-class doctrine. There is no reason why association with a greater truth should be considered "ruling class"; rather, I would say that the notion of the human being (rather than race, religion or tendency) as the focal point for your relation to the world is the most fundamental characteristic of communistic ideology. Certainly mystical, and certainly pro-working class.

I do not think I used the word 'mystical'.

You are now beginning to invent, just like the Dialectical Mystics.


I really don't have a problem with what you are basically saying here; what does offend me is the characterization of harmless, ineffectual (or if we are to believe you, nonsensical) ideas as "ruling class" and "purely linguistic." You must understood how condescending you sound.

Then address my arguments, and stop simply resorting to abuse -- and fibs.

[Louise Michel]

So, if someone said 'Do you think that chessness exists?' I wouldn't respond with a 'Yes', or a 'No', but with a 'What the hell does 'chessness' mean?"


This is hardly an analogy. Chess is a game like basketball. I have no idea what basketballness means either. You do however know what someone means when they talk about consciousness. You may not agree with them but you do know what they mean. This is a difference. We agree there is no entity called consciousness that you can put in a bag and carry around with you.

The same can be said of "capital" - capìtal does not equal money. It's a relationship, a social relation. We don't live in a world of objects or entitities only. A marriage is a relationship, not an object. It can't be seen or touched and yet it exists.

So how do you define what is real and what is not? How do you separate the metaphysical from the physical?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


This is hardly an analogy. Chess is a game like basketball. I have no idea what basketballness means either. You do however know what someone means when they talk about consciousness. You may not agree with them but you do know what they mean. This is a difference. We agree there is no entity called consciousness that you can put in a bag and carry around with you.

The point was, of course, that just because someone invents a word does not imply it means anything.

I actually used a better analogy in one of the threads I referred to earlier.

When, say, an athlete wins a race, naturally we say he/she is a winner. But, hours or days later we do not say that he/she is in a 'state of winning', even though the words 'state' and 'winning' are perfectly ordinary words.

I used this to illustrate my objection to there being a 'state of consciousness' -- and in this way: if someone wakes up from a coma, or after an operation, a nurse or doctor might rightly say "The patient has regained consciousness", but that no more implies that we are all in a 'state of consciousness' all our lives than it implies we are all in a 'state of winning' if we have ever won anything.

In ordinary discourse, using the word 'conscious' -- as in "Are you conscious?" -- , if used seriously, and not as a joke or a put-down, would carry with it the implication that the person in question had been knocked out, and had just woken up, etc.

Now, it is quite easy to show that the philosophical use of such words (i.e., 'consciousness', 'the mind', 'cognition'. 'the self') are all reliant on the Platonic/Christian/Cartesian paradigm -- hence my rejection of the philosophical use of such jargon.


"Western conceptions of mind began in religion before moving first to philosophy, and then to science. However, for two reasons psychologists have underestimated the influence of religious ideas of the soul -- the ψυχή (psychē -- soul, RL) of our science -- on conceptions of mind and self. First, psychology is an aggressively secular enterprise and psychologists like to think that they put religion behind them when they assume their role as scientists. A more subtle reason concerns the dominance of historical scholarship by Christian belief. When we as psychologists read about past thinkers such as Plato and Descartes, not only do we look at them as protopsychologists, we see them through the eyes of historians and classicists who until recently worked within a quietly but unequivocally held Christian framework. That framework rarely intrudes explicitly, but it filters out the rough splinters, odd conceptions, and obscure but vital disputes concerning mind and soul held from Greek times through to at least Descartes. Thus we psychologists inherit a conception of the mind subtly shaped by forces of which we know little, drain it of its specifically supernatural content (e.g., survival of bodily death), and fancy that what remains is somehow natural and therefore a proper object of science....

"Although there are differences in detail, religions around the world have a remarkably concordant picture of the mind, positing the existence of two immaterial souls for two distinct reasons.... The first, universal reason is to explain the difference between living and nonliving things. The second, less universal reason is to explain human personality....

"Greek religion and the concept of ψυχή underwent a profound change in the later fifth century BCE.... Traditional Greek religious thought had insisted on a great gulf between the human and divine worlds, downplaying the idea of personal immortality. However, in the wake of the Peloponnesian War, continuity between the human and divine worlds was the theme of various new cults, often imported from the non-Greek east. In their practices these new religions induced in worshippers ecstatic states through which they might for a time join the gods, perhaps even briefly becoming the god of their veneration. The ψυχή became a personal, immortal soul, taking after death its rightful place in the divine world of the gods. Plato was influenced by these new teachings, but steered them in a less ecstatic, more philosophical and cognitive direction.... For Plato, the proper object of the soul's attention was indeed something divine, but he taught that instead of seeking salvation through ecstatic communion with the gods, the soul should seek salvation through philosophical pursuit of eternal, transcendental Truth. In Plato's hands, the mind became identified with reason, the ability to formulate and know the universal Truths underwritten by the heavenly Forms." [Leahy (2005), pp.37-39.]

Leahy, T. (2005), 'Mind As A Scientific Object: A Historical-Philosophical Exploration', in Erneling and Johnson (2005), pp.35-78.

Erneling, C., and Johnson, D. (2005) (eds.), The Mind As A Scientific Object. Between Brain And Culture (Oxford University Press).

You can find more details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13_03.htm#Note-1

[You will need to copy and paste this link into your address bar, since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links.]


The same can be said of "capital" - capìtal does not equal money. It's a relationship, a social relation. We don't live in a world of objects or entitities only. A marriage is a relationship, not an object. It can't be seen or touched and yet it exists.

Well, I am not too sure about this either. The logic of relational expressions means that Capital can't be a relation. Capitalism itself may be founded upon all sorts of relations, but Capital itself can't be one of them.

But, it would be off-topic to go into that any more here.


So how do you define what is real and what is not?

Once again, it is more important to see how the word 'real' actually functions in everyday life. So, we use it to refer to 'real leather', or 'real money', or 'real friends' -- in other words, it is used to contrast the genuine article with counterfeit, pretend, artificial or imitation objects, people or materials.

The philosophical use of this word is quite meaningless.


How do you separate the metaphysical from the physical?

I outlined one criterion for distinguishing metaphysical pseudo-propositions from ordinary empirical ones in my replies to Dooga. You must have missed it.

Finally, I am not too concerend to distinguish the metaphysical from the physical. Anyone who couldn't do this would die pretty quickly.

[Lynx]

As I said, if you want to speculate around ruling-ideas, be my guest.
My initial speculation with regard to ruling-class ideas is that they are self-serving. I then found I had no choice but to summarily dismiss them.

Who am I to try to separate you from this opiate?
If I'm mistaken in assuming that these types of threads are nothing more than a bit of harmless fun, then I wish to be separated.

Done so here (I have hogged this thread enough as it is):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Fourteen_Part_One.htm

Remember, the above are both summary Essays.
Well, at least some of what you write addresses targets outside of DM and its effect on the communist movement.

I very much doubt it; but if you know of one, don't be shy...
Basically, a hunter-gatherer society, lacking in mythology. Or if they have mythology, it is unusual in some way. It may be too late :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Well, at least some of what you write addresses targets outside of DM and its effect on the communist movement.

When I first began detailed work on this in the summer of 1998, I quickly came to realise how DM was just another poor cousin of traditional philosophy/metaphysics. In which case, I needed to understand the class motivation for this pernicious thought-form -- and the rest is, as thay say, history.


Basically, a hunter-gatherer society, lacking in mythology. Or if they have mythology, it is unusual in some way. It may be too late

Sorry, I could not follow this.

[Lynx]

Sorry, I could not follow this.It may be too late to find someone who is free of certain philosophical concepts by grace of their language not having those words.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am out of energy at the moment, and I am about to eat. Been doing forum stuff, reading, and essays all day. Computer screen is probably making me go crazy. Hopefully I can respond again with something, but I am going to just have to read Wittgenstein fully to understand, I think, though I may end up disagreeing with him. No idea.

On another note, I am curious. Have you checked out this Rosa?
http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm

At first it was an appealing notion. Then all your criticisms I didn't understand wouldn't be my fault. Then I saw his rationale and resigned back into my hole of ignorance. Although since I don't really understand why I am wrong half the time, I am not really sure I am, either. If that makes any sense.

How come someone thinks you are AI? What do you think of that? Is it politically motivated? I wish I had someone accusing me of being AI. It would make me feel like an internet celebrity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On another note, I am curious. Have you checked out this Rosa?
http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm

Checking out his other pages, it seems he is a massive kook.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades who find my ideas on 'consciousness' hard to swallow might like to read this on-line Essay:

The ‘hard’ problem of consciousness is continually reproduced and made harder by all attempts to solve it (http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/consc-tcs.htm) by Rupert Read.

-----------------------

Dooga, yes I am aware of 'Socialist Steve' and his page on me, and Noxion is right, he is a bit loopy. You can see that from the way he interpreted my phrase 'alien class' to mean class of aliens/extra-terrestrials! I tried to point out to him that it was a widely used term to refer to the ruling-class, but that just made him think I was a follower of David Eicke and his 'shape-shifting' lizard theory!


Hopefully I can respond again with something, but I am going to just have to read Wittgenstein fully to understand.

Wittgenstein is deceptively easy to read, but not at all easy to understand.

This is because of his unique style of reasoning.

You are probably better off beginning with introductions.

The best introduction by far to the Tractatus is:

Roger White, (2006), Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Continuum).

I was very fortunate to have Roger as my PhD tutor (as well as Peter Geach, one of Wittgenstein's own pupils).

The best overall introduction is:

Anthony Kenny, (2006), Wittgenstein (Penguin Books, 2nd ed.).

There is also this on-line article by Rupert Read (once more):

Wittgenstein and Marx on 'Philosophical Language' (http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/read.html)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


It may be too late to find someone who is free of certain philosophical concepts by grace of their language not having those words.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Well, the problem is not language -- language is OK as it is. The problem is in the way we act 'like savages' (to paraphrase Wittgenstein) when we come to reflect about it, or about its supposed content.

Language is a means of communication; it is not at all suited to being a means of representation, and it is particularly ill-suited to being a means of self-representation (that is, it can be highly misleading when we use it to try to represent the way language itself works).

[Lynx]

Yes, I would agree, it's just that the lack of a word indicates there was no need for a particular conceptualization in the first place. As soon as that innocence is demolished by contact with outsiders, there's no going back.

[Lynx]

Consciousness as a contingent belief seems to be acceptable.
Consciousness as a philosophical truth is unacceptable.

[Lynx]

Test sentences:

He was conscious of the fact that a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve.
He was aware that a tarantula was inching itself up his sleeve.
He was mindful of the fact that a tarantula was...
He was oblivious to the fact that a tarantula was...

The analytical versions (consciousness, self-awareness, the self) are not as easy to incorporate.

The leadership paid little attention to worker consciousness until it was too late.
It's time to work on our self-awareness issues.
The body is inseparable from the self.

Examine these if you wish - in normal parlance, such uses are accepted at face value, with minimal reflection.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Consciousness as a contingent belief seems to be acceptable.

Well, this sentence contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), so it is devoid of sense.

You perhaps might want to rephrase it as: "Because of certain contingent beliefs about human beings, when medical personnel revive their patients, they tell us that the said individuals have 'regained consciousness'."

Hardly worth getting excited about, though, is it?


He was conscious of the fact that a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve.
He was aware that a tarantula was inching itself up his sleeve.
He was mindful of the fact that a tarantula was...
He was oblivious to the fact that a tarantula was...

Good examples, but the last three do not encourage the idea that there is a 'state of consciousness' that we all share (in our own way).


The leadership paid little attention to worker consciousness until it was too late.
It's time to work on our self-awareness issues.
The body is inseparable from the self.

I'm not sure the first or the last of these would occur in ordinary discourse (except that which had been influenced by some theory or other), and the second is rather stilted.

[Hit The North]

R:
Language is a means of communication; it is not at all suited to being a means of representation

This being the case, why is it important whether the notions of "self" or "consciousness" are philosophically flawed concepts? Isn't the important thing whether the meaning is shared by those who hold a conversation about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This being the case, why is it important whether the notions of "self" or "consciousness" are philosophically flawed concepts? Isn't the important thing whether the meaning is shared by those who hold a conversation about it?

Because in our ordinary discourse we do not use these terms, or not in the way they are used in philosophy or in certain scientific theories.

It is when we try to represent to ourselves these hidden truths that language begins to misfire, since it is not well suited to representation, and it is not at all suited to philosophical representation for the reasons I outlined above.

Recall, not all attempts at communication are 1) comprehensible, or 2) successful.

So, if I were to have a converstion with you about the planning permission you needed from the council in order to move your castle in a game of chess, we would be regarded as either mad or joking in some way.

But, that conversation would use perfectly ordinary words; it's the context that would make them incomprehensible (even though all of them are easy to understand on their own, in the right contexts).

So, there is more to communication than merely conversing, or just using langauge.

[Hit The North]

So, there is more to communication than merely conversing, or just using langauge.

Yes, I understand: there is context. But isn't context provided by those who engage in the conversation and who, if they share the same definitions of what they are talking about, or draw their language-use from a shared tradition, are able to share a meaningful conversation with each other?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


But isn't context provided by those who engage in the conversation and who, if they share the same definitions of what they are talking about, or draw their language-use from a shared tradition, are able to share a meaningful conversation with each other?

Well we have yet to see these 'definitions' (and it is worth recalling that no two philosophers agree on anything, let alone this), and even if these were forthcoming, they would not relate to the use of the word 'conscious' or terms like 'oneself', as they appear in ordinary discourse.

In that case, such 'conversations' would shed no light at all on the 'problem of consciousness' as it is supposed to relate to our ordinary experience of awareness (etc.), but would relate to a technical use of these terms, of dubious import and very narrow range of appeal (since no two thinkers would agree over the 'definition'!).

An analogy might help: if a supporter of capitalism were to re-define it as stable, fair and just, and several of them had 'conversations' about this understanding of 'capitalism' would we be inclined to say 'Ok, if you have re-defined it, that's fine; we'll abandon the fight for socialism...'.

I am sure we would respond in the way I have above: this re-definition has nothing to do with what the word 'capitalism' means, or the system under which we live.

In short, you are not going to solve philosophical problems by re-defining your terms; the original problem (if it is one, and I contend it isn't -- we all know how to use 'conscious' and 'herself', 'oneself', etc.) still remains unaddressed. All you will have achieved is the creation of a few technical terms/jargonised expressions unrelated to the original question.

And even then, my criticisms from earlier would still apply, for from these words, you will then have to try to extract truths about the world/ourselves, based on thought alone. You will just end up with another set of senseless metaphysical pseudo-propositions.

So, I'd give up if I were you. There is no way out of this hole, since, as Marx noted, it is the creation of traditional forms of thought, based on a distortion of ordinary language:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

Notice that:


neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own

which is what I have based my analysis on. Language and thought contain no buried truths -- whether we try to define them in there or we try to extract them in other ways.

Philosophy is thus a dead end. There is no hidden world of truth out there, ascertainable by simply juggling with a few words.

I recognize it is very hard for us to give up this idea, since, as I said before, 2500 years of 'western' (and 'eastern') culture is based upon it, and our socialisation is predicated upon it, too.

It taps into very deep seated, alienated drives we all have: the need to find something behind appearances that gives reality a deeper meaning. The same alienated drives also fuel religious affectation -- except philosophy is more general and abstract.

Now, I posted the following before in relation to dialectics, but it also applies to any philosophical system or theory:

Philosophy is the sigh of the alienated theorist, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the intellectual. The abolition of philosophy as the illusory happiness of the theorist is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about his/her condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Since only a social revolution will rid us of the social forms that force such illusions on us, I stand no chance convincing comrades in general that these traditional thought forms (in all their guises) must be cast aside.

[This is why I said Wittgenstein's ideas are revolutionary, since they undermine the source of these illusions, revealing them to be 'houses of cards' (to paraphrase him).]

Alas, however, comrades, whether they are hardened Bolsheviks or not, seem to need their illusions...

[Indeed, that is why so many of you are scandalised by these ideas.]

[Lynx]

Well, this sentence contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), so it is devoid of sense.

You perhaps might want to rephrase it as: "Because of certain contingent beliefs about human beings, when medical personnel revive their patients, they tell us that the said individuals have 'regained consciousness'."
I would rephrase it as: "Because of certain contingent beliefs, there is an ambiguous term known as 'consciousness', which philosophers and other observers have long speculated about. Rest assured, science is working on it."

Hardly worth getting excited about, though, is it?
If the scientific community were to do what Wittgenstein and any number of philosophers insist we should do, then I would be excited. I would also be excited if certain words fell into disuse thanks to a revolution in our social order. A change in mass perception is a momentous event!

Good examples, but the last three do not encourage the idea that there is a 'state of consciousness' that we all share (in our own way).
They don't encourage it as long as we don't delve into the meaning of those words. If we do, then mindful becomes mindfulness, oblivious becomes obliviousness, et voila.

I'm not sure the first or the last of these would occur in ordinary discourse (except that which had been influenced by some theory or other), and the second is rather stilted.
As I said, its not as easy to incorporate them. Do you have other objections to their usage as presented?

[Lynx]

Since only a social revolution will rid us of the social forms that force such illusions on us, I stand no chance convincing comrades in general that these traditional thought forms (in all their guises) must be cast aside.
There is no guarantee though, that a communist society would do away with all forms of mysticism. There will always be abstract tools worth keeping, or available to play with.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


I would rephrase it as: "Because of certain contingent beliefs, there is an ambiguous term known as 'consciousness', which philosophers and other observers have long speculated about. Rest assured, science is working on it."

Science is working on what? The term 'consciousness' is either an empty notion or it is a technical term unrelated to our every day use of 'conscious', and thus of no help.


Do you have other objections to their usage as presented?

That's like saying "Ok, so cyanide is poisonous. But do you have any other objections to using it?"


There is no guarantee though, that a communist society would do away with all forms of mysticism. There will always be abstract tools worth keeping, or available to play with.

Maybe not, but there is every reason to suppose it will.

[Lynx]

Science is working on what?
Science is working to resolve the mystery of consciousness.
"Rest assured, science is working to unravel this mystery."

That's like saying "Ok, so cyanide is poisonous. But do you have any other objections to using it?"
I'm asking you to consider their usage in that context, and the possible ramifications. (And not just with regard to the communist movement!) Is it harmless, like cyanide, or what?

Maybe not, but there is every reason to suppose it will.
Forgive me, have you spelled these reasons out?

e.g. 'human nature' would likely go the way of the dodo, 'consciousness' might not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Science is working to resolve the mystery of consciousness.

As I pointed out: there is no mystery here. We already know all there is to know about this topic, and that is shown by the unproblematic way we use this word in ordinary life to refer to people who come out of a coma, or who recover from blows to the head, or come round after an operation.

Unless, of course, you mean by 'consciousness' something technical. In which case, this 'mystery' would be artificial, and bear no relation to our ordinary use of 'conscious'.


I'm asking you to consider their usage in that context, and the possible ramifications. (And not just with regard to the communist movement!) Is it harmless, like cyanide, or what?

Cyanide is not harmless (whatever makes you think otherwise?); apart from that, I did not understand this comment of yours.



Forgive me, have you spelled these reasons out?

No -- but then, I can't do all your thinking for you.


e.g. 'human nature' would likely go the way of the dodo, 'consciousness' might not.

Of course, consciousness will not become extinct --, unless, that is: (1) human beings stop falling into comas, later waking up, (2) cease getting knocked out by blows to the head (etc.), and then recover, or (3) doctors stop giving anaesthetics to patients who subsequently come round.

[Psy]

Lynx:
As I pointed out: there is no mystery here. We already know all there is to know about this topic, and that is shown by the unproblematic way we use this word in ordinary life to refer to people who come out of a coma, or who recover from blows to the head, or come round after an operation.

Unless, of course, you mean by 'consciousness' something technical. In which case, this 'mystery' would be artificial, and bear no relation to our ordinary use of 'conscious'.


The term consciousness is used in science to used to describe ones cognitive process along with also meaning ones awareness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


The term consciousness is used in science to used to describe ones cognitive process along with also meaning ones awareness.

Thanks for that Psy, but I am aware of this (no pun intended).

The point is that this use of 'consciousness' bears no relation to our ordinary employment of typographically the same word, and hence can shed no light on the alleged 'mystery of consciousness'.

[Lynx]

As I pointed out: there is no mystery here. We already know all there is to know about this topic, and that is shown by the unproblematic way we use this word in ordinary life to refer to people who come out of a coma, or who recover from blows to the head, or come round after an operation.

Unless, of course, you mean by 'consciousness' something technical. In which case, this 'mystery' would be artificial, and bear no relation to our ordinary use of 'conscious'.
For some people, be they philosopher, scientist or amateur, 'consciousness' is a mystery, a problem. Hence the statement should be indicative of their concerns.

Cyanide is not harmless (whatever makes you think otherwise?); apart from that, I did not understand this comment of yours.
Sorry about that.
Are you equating the usage of "worker consciousness" with the consumption of cyanide? I happen to think discussions such as these are harmless. I may be wrong.

Of course, consciousness will not become extinct --, unless, that is: (1) human beings stop falling into comas, later waking up, (2) cease getting knocked out by blows to the head (etc.), and then recover, or (3) doctors stop giving anaesthetics to patients who subsequently come round.
I was referring to 'consciousness', the mystified version. If it doesn't challenge communist ideology politically, why would the mystified version die out?

[Lynx]

The term consciousness is used in science to used to describe ones cognitive process along with also meaning ones awareness.
And Rosa said in another thread that science refers to it as a phenomena.

[Psy]

Psy:



Thanks for that Psy, but I am aware of this (no pun intended).

The point is that this use of 'consciousness' bears no relation to our ordinary employment of typographically the same word, and hence can shed no light on the alleged 'mystery of consciousness'.


Actually it can if you view ones self as ones cognitive process or rather a result of ones cognitive process, meaning we are just the end result of electrons moving around in our brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


For some people, be they philosopher, scientist or amateur, 'consciousness' is a mystery, a problem. Hence the statement should be indicative of their concerns.

1) That's because they too have fallen under the spell of these 'ruling ideas'.

2) Others think 'god' is a mystery, but we take no heed of their confused thought, either.

3) Such individuals will readily understand a doctor who says a patient has 'regained consciousness', so even they do not find this word a mystery.

On the other hand, if they do find it a mystery, they will also fail to understand this doctor. But then, that will be a simple defect of their language (their idiolect), easily rectified.


Are you equating the usage of "worker consciousness" with the consumption of cyanide? I happen to think discussions such as these are harmless. I may be wrong.

No, I was merely responding to your 'what else is wrong with the use of this word?' from earlier.


I was referring to 'consciousness', the mystified version. If it doesn't challenge communist ideology politically, why would the mystified version die out?

Well, unfortunately, much of 'communist ideology' has beed corrupted by the importation of ruling-class ideas --, 'consciousness' being an excellent example of such (but there are many others: "determined", "freedom and necessity", "Capital is a relation", and so on...).

So, the struggle against the importation of alien-class jargon into communist thought is one with the struggle against the general dominance of 'ruling ideas'.

And, since they all have the same source (in alienated thought-forms, motivated by class division), the cure, as it were, comes from one source, too -- it only come about as a result of social change.

In a future classless society there will be no motivation for anyone to adopt such regressisve notions.

Moreover, if we believe that the ideas we can form are dependent on our social being, then when our social being has been transformed, our ideas will step into line, too.

But, as you say, there are no guarantees in history...

-------------------------

Lynx:


And Rosa said in another thread that science refers to it as a phenomena.

I don't think I did!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Actually it can if you view ones self as ones cognitive process or rather a result of ones cognitive process, meaning we are just the end result of electrons moving around in our brain.

This just confuses a proper part of our make-up (and, the way you put it, one I would reject anyway) with the whole of it.

What I mean is that it attributes to parts of our make-up what can only be attributed to us as whole human beings.

This is called the 'fallacy of division':

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/division/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

For example, anyone who argued this way:

"A cat can meow, therefore its tail can meow"

would be serioulsy mistaken.

But, even if you were right, my point still stands:


this use of 'consciousness' bears no relation to our ordinary employment of typographically the same word, and hence can shed no light on the alleged 'mystery of consciousness'.

Whether or not you are right about those electrons (but if that is all we are, can we even trust the conclusion that this is all we are??), this cannot affect our use of this word in medical and forensic circumstances.

[Psy]

Psy:



This just confuses a proper part of our make-up (and, the way you put it, one I would reject anyway) with the whole of it.

What I mean is that it attributes to parts of our make-up what can only be attributed to us as whole human beings.

This is called the 'fallacy of division':

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/division/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

For example, anyone who argued this way:

"A cat can meow, therefore its tail can meow"

would be serioulsy mistaken.

But, even if you were right, my point still stands:

But this has been proven, changing ones perceived reality occurs when one changes alters the physical brain, the problem is simply that science has yet to accurately map the brain yet it is pretty clear that cognitive thought is an output of the brain.

[DesertShark]

"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')

[MarxSchmarx]

OK let me bust out my Heideggerian interpretation of this.

See, the self is like the present. I mean, the immediacy of the present is undeniable, but at the same time the present is in many respects no different than the past or, really, from the future.

If this is bad poetry than so be it, after all the dasein can best be understood through the metaphor of time anyway when it comes to terms with its own ephemerality.

So, let me rephrase the question;

"What will be different or lost in the world if 'I` were to die or disappear today" and that subjective experiences will no longer be had?

I just can't see it as linguistic imposition. Language will continue after I die, but something will not. And that "something", well, there's no reason to believe its the soul or god or anything, but it is something that we haven't quite found the right words to put our fingers on yet. Even the ability to self-reference doesn't work.

For all his faults, Heidegger probably got the closest to articulating it. But as a Humean, let me put a plug for a reading of Hume. That perhaps when it comes to the self, we approach the very real limitation of our knowledge, the way we approach teh limitation of our knowledge when it comes to how Kant understood Hume's dang^an^sich or however it's spelled. Indeed, I think Hume felt he could make more of his "vivacity" than he did, but at the end of the day he realized he couldn't formulate a real understanding of "vivacity" so used it as a surrogate for problems he could tackle.


On this one thing, I just might believe that science and deductive reasoning come to a wall. Thus, that might indicate it's not worth pursuing, but Hume's intuition I suspect was that there really are some areas beyond the ken of human expression. And this recognition of what can't, even in principle, be understood but nevertheless in some vague sense known is IMHO the most deferential reading of Hume's interpretation of the self.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


But this has been proven, changing ones perceived reality occurs when one changes alters the physical brain, the problem is simply that science has yet to accurately map the brain yet it is pretty clear that cognitive thought is an output of the brain.

Once more, this has no bearing on the successful use of the word 'consciousness' to describe patients who awake from a coma, etc.

In that case, there is no 'mystery of consciousness'.

The use of a technical term in science, such as 'consciousness', is a separate matter entirely.

And I disagree with this:


it is pretty clear that cognitive thought is an output of the brain.

Once more, this is just the Fallacy of Division, again.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')

1) This is a re-definition, and so can have no bearing on our ordinary use of words like 'herself', 'oneself', 'yourself'. In which case, it is philosophically uninteresting.

2) On the other hand, if it is not a re-definition, then your sentence lacks a sense since it contains an empty phrase, namley "The self".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


OK let me bust out my Heideggerian interpretation of this.

See, the self is like the present. I mean, the immediacy of the present is undeniable, but at the same time the present is in many respects no different than the past or, really, from the future.

If this is bad poetry than so be it, after all the dasein can best be understood through the metaphor of time anyway when it comes to terms with its own ephemerality.

So, let me rephrase the question;

"What will be different or lost in the world if 'I` were to die or disappear today" and that subjective experiences will no longer be had?

I just can't see it as linguistic imposition. Language will continue after I die, but something will not. And that "something", well, there's no reason to believe its the soul or god or anything, but it is something that we haven't quite found the right words to put our fingers on yet. Even the ability to self-reference doesn't work.

For all his faults, Heidegger probably got the closest to articulating it. But as a Humean, let me put a plug for a reading of Hume. That perhaps when it comes to the self, we approach the very real limitation of our knowledge, the way we approach teh limitation of our knowledge when it comes to how Kant understood Hume's dang^an^sich or however it's spelled. Indeed, I think Hume felt he could make more of his "vivacity" than he did, but at the end of the day he realized he couldn't formulate a real understanding of "vivacity" so used it as a surrogate for problems he could tackle.

But this is yet more a priori dogmatics, which I have exposed as empty wind-baggery in earlier posts in this thread.

[JimFar]

Comrades who find my ideas on 'consciousness' hard to swallow might like to read this on-line Essay:

The ‘hard’ problem of consciousness is continually reproduced and made harder by all attempts to solve it (http://www.uea.ac.uk/%7Ej339/consc-tcs.htm) by Steven Read.


.
.
.
.

There is also this on-line article by Steven Read (once more):

Wittgenstein and Marx on 'Philosophical Language' (http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Eessays/read.html)

I think the man's name is Rupert Read, see:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/phi/People/Academic/Rupert+Read

There is a Steve Read who writes on logic, but apparently not on Wittgenstein.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that correction Jim. Yes, of course it is: Steven Read is a logician, as you say.

Rupert Read is one of the leading 'New Wittgensteinians':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wittgenstein

I have gone back and corrected my misattribution!

[Lynx]

1) That's because they too have fallen under the spell of these 'ruling ideas'.

2) Others think 'god' is a mystery, but we take no heed of their confused thought, either.

3) Such individuals will readily understand a doctor who says a patient has 'regained consciousness', so even they do not find this word a mystery.
1) They might not phrase it in that way, but yes.
2) We acknowledge their views as they are, not as we believe them to be. Consider the OI'er who visits a forum with preconceived notions of communism and refuses to 'take heed'. Is this not a requirement for debate?
3) Not at first. To revisit an earlier example: He was conscious of the fact that a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve. When taken at face value, there is no mystery. But, just like Alice, some cannot resist the temptation to go down the rabbit hole...

Well, unfortunately, much of 'communist ideology' has beed corrupted by the importation of ruling-class ideas --, 'consciousness' being an excellent example of such (but there are many others: "determined", "freedom and necessity", "Capital is a relation", and so on...).

So, the struggle against the importation of alien-class jargon into communist thought is one with the struggle against the general dominance of 'ruling ideas'.

And, since they all have the same source (in alienated thought-forms, motivated by class division), the cure, as it were, comes from one source, too -- it only come about as a result of social change.

In a future classless society there will be no motivation for anyone to adopt such regressisve notions.

Moreover, if we believe that the ideas we can form are dependent on our social being, then when our social being has been transformed, our ideas will step into line, too.

But, as you say, there are no guarantees in history...
This is reassuring nevertheless. Thanks.

I don't think I did!
I'm pretty sure you did! I was dismayed because I believed that was a 'step up' from referring to it as a concept.

[Psy]

Psy:



Once more, this has no bearing on the successful use of the word 'consciousness' to describe patients who awake from a coma, etc.

In that case, there is no 'mystery of consciousness'.

The use of a technical term in science, such as 'consciousness', is a separate matter entirely.

And I disagree with this:



Once more, this is just the Fallacy of Division, again.
No since the logic behind this reasoning is this, when one alters the brain (scientists have done this) one alters the reality of that person (this is how electroshock and lobotomies came to be), yet reality doesn't change for other alterations to other body parts. This reduces the self to having to be a function of the brain as no other rational possibility remains. The only mystery is how the brain makes the self due to scientists having yet to accurately map the brain but scientists are working on it.

[Lynx]

"What will be different or lost in the world if 'I` were to die or disappear today" and that subjective experiences will no longer be had?
My experience of the world will be lost. My perspective will be lost. My body will decay and eventually be lost.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


3) Not at first. To revisit an earlier example: He was conscious of the fact that a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve. When taken at face value, there is no mystery. But, just like Alice, some cannot resist the temptation to go down the rabbit hole...

As I inducated, if this is a mystery to such a person, that would be a linguistic failing easily rectifiable, and in the end, no more mysterious than being addressed in a foreign language one does not yet understand.

Even so, this would still not affect the central point, which is that the word 'consciousness', as it used in ordinary life, is not the least bit mysterious.


I'm pretty sure you did!

It's not the kind of thing I would say, so you are going to have to produce the link.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


No since the logic behind this reasoning is this, when one alters the brain (scientists have done this) one alters the reality of that person (this is how electroshock and lobotomies came to be), yet reality doesn't change for other alterations to other body parts. This reduces the self to having to be a function of the brain as no other rational possibility remains. The only mystery is how the brain makes the self due to scientists having yet to accurately map the brain but scientists are working on it.

Yes, I am familiar with the physiology, thanks.

But, since scientists use the ordinary word 'conscious' to identify the alleged correlates you mention, they too have to understand the ordinary words we use to allude to our own psychology.

If they did not, they'd only succeed in mis-identifying the allegedly correct correlations you speak of. In that case, even if you were right (and I deny you are, but we can leave that another thread), the ordinary meaning of the vocabulary we use in relation to our psychological make-up must take precedence, otherwise neurologists and brain scientists would not know where to start.

And if that is so, and scientists already understand words like 'consciousness' and 'herself', 'oneself', as they are ordinarily used, then there can be no mystery here. If there were a mystery about these terms, then these scientists would not know what they were supposed to be investigating.

Now, the brain cannot be the source of our cognitive capacities, as we are ordinarily aware of them. This is because, the criteria we use to decide which words are appropriate to employ when speaking about, or exprerssing, our psychological states, are socially-motivated, not biolgically caused.

I dealt with this topic earlier; here it is again: there can be no causal law determining language (as there are such laws that supposedly determine how the brain works), since if there were, there would be no such thing as falsehood. As soon as we said something, because it had been 'determined' for us by some law or other, it would be true -- and if that were so, we could sack every scientist, since there would be no point employing them to tell us things we could determine for ourselves, or rather, which were 'determined' for us by such laws, simply by saying things, which would automatically be true, and which we would know were true even before the evidence had been collected!

Concerning the fallacy of division: it still applies here.

Consider an analogy. Remove the wheels from a car, and it will not be able to move (that is, if there is nothing else there to push or pull it along).

Now, I do not know if anyone has done the experiment, but I suspect that if they did, there'd be an extremely high correlation between a car's inability to move and the removal of its wheels.

In that case, only an idiot would claim that the essence of a car is its wheels, that the real nature of cars lies in their wheels.

Hence, this inference would be an example of the fallacy of division:

1. A Formula One car (such as the Toyota TF108) can win the Monaco Grand Prix.

2. The Toyota TF108 has four wheels.

3. Therefore, the wheels of a Toyota TF108 can win the Monaco Grand Prix.

And so would your inference, too

The point is that, although the brain may be necessary for human beings to be able to function, it is not sufficient. De-copule it from the rest of the human being in which it is situated, and it would be useless, just like a detached wheel of a Toyota FT108.

[Psy]

Psy:



Yes, I am familiar with the physiology, thanks.

But, since scientists use the ordinary word 'conscious' to identify the alleged correlates you mention, they too have to understand the ordinary words we use to allude to our own psychology.

If they did not, they'd only succeed in mis-identifying the allegedly correct correlations you speak of. In that case, even if you were right (and I deny you are, but we can leave that another thread), the ordinary meaning of the vocabulary we use in relation to our psychological make-up must take precedence, otherwise neurologists and brain scientists would not know where to start.

And if that is so, and scientists already understand words like 'consciousness' and 'herself', 'oneself', as they are ordinarily used, then there can be no mystery here. If there were a mystery about these terms, then these scientists would not know what they were supposed to be investigating.

Now, the brain cannot be the source of our cognitive capacities, as we are ordinarily aware of them. This is because, the criteria we use to decide which words are appropriate to employ when speaking about, or exprerssing, our psychological states, are socially-motivated, not biolgically caused.

I dealt with this topic earlier; here it is again: there can be no causal law determining language (as there are such laws that supposedly determine how the brain works), since if there were, there would be no such thing as falsehood. As soon as we said something, because it had been 'determined' for us by some law or other, it would be true -- and if that were so, we could sack every scientist, since there would be no point employing them to tell us things we could determine for ourselves, or rather, which were 'determined' for us by such laws, simply by saying things, which would automatically be true, and which we would know were true even before the evidence had been collected!

Concerning the fallacy of division: it still applies here.

Consider an anlogy. Remove the wheels from a car, and it will not be able to move (that is, if there is nothing else there to push or pull it along).

Now, I do not know if anyone has done the experiment, but I suspect that if they did, there'd be an extremely high correlation between a car's inability to move and the removal of its wheels.

In that case, only an idiot would claim that the essensce of a car is its wheels, that the real nature of cars lies in their wheels.

Hence, this inference would be an example of the fallacy of division:

1. A Formula One car (such as the Toyota TF108) can win the Monaco Grand Prix.

2. The Toyota TF108 has four wheels.

3. Therefore, the wheels of a Toyota TF108 can win the Monaco Grand Prix.

And so would your inference, too

The point is that, although the brain may be necessary for human beings to be able to function, it is not sufficient. De-copule it from the rest of the human being in which it is situated, and it would be useless, just like a detached wheel of a Toyota FT108.

Science knows that the self is a function of the brain not because altering the brains kills the self but altering the brain alters the self. You say that the self is a function of the outside world but scientists have already proved that the personality of a person can be radically altered by altering the brain. Hell the self doesn't even have direct contact to the outside world as it just a function of the brain that has sensors to the outside world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Science knows that the self is a function of the brain not because altering the brains kills the self but altering the brain alters the self. You say that the self is a function of the outside world but scientists have already proved that the personality of a person can be radically altered by altering the brain. Hell the self doesn't even have direct contact to the outside world as it just a function of the brain that has sensors to the outside world.

Well, you must be using the phrase 'the self' in a new and as yet undefined sense. If so, it can have no bearing on the use of words such as 'yourself', 'myself', herself', etc.

In which case, this is either a spurious piece of scientific knowledge (on a par with trying to discover which dentist Big Foot uses), or it isn't knowledge at all (since there is no such thing as 'the self').


You say that the self is a function of the outside world

I said no such thing, since I do not recognise the legitimacy of the phrase 'the self'. You have clearly not read all my posts in this thread, or have not done so with due care.


the personality of a person can be radically altered by altering the brain.

But, that is just part of the claim I made that the brain is merely a necessary part of our physical nature. It is certainly not a suficient cause of our personalities.


Hell the self doesn't even have direct contact to the outside world as it just a function of the brain that has sensors to the outside world

But, if there is no such thing as 'the self', these claims of yours are devoid of sense.

Alas, you appear to be trapped in a Cartesian world of some sort (a left over from Platonic/Christian myths about the soul controlling the body).

For example, how do you know there is an 'outside' world if all you have to go on are what your senses allegedly tell you?

For all you know, there might not be a world 'out there', and your brain/senses might be deceiving you.

And, if we only know we have brains because of our knowledge of anatomy (which branch of science is part of our study of the 'outside world'), how do you even know you have a brain?

[Psy]

Psy:



Well, you must be using the phrase 'the self' in a new and as yet undefined sense. If so, it can have no bearing on the use of words such as 'yourself', 'myself', herself', etc.

In which case, this is either a spurious piece of scientific knowledge (on a par with trying to discover which dentist Big Foot uses), or it isn't knowledge at all (since there is no such thing as 'the self').



I said no such thing, since I do not recognise the legitimacy of the phrase 'the self'. You have clearly not read all my posts in this thread, or have not done so with due care.



But, that is just part of the claim I made that the brain is merely a necessary part of our physical nature. It is certainly not a suficient cause of our personalities.



But, if there is no such thing as 'the self', these claims of yours are devoid of sense.

Alas, you appear to be trapped in a Cartesian world of some sort (a left over from Platonic/Christian myths about the soul controlling the body).

For example, how do you know there is an 'outside' world if all you have to go on are what your senses allegedly tell you?

For all you know, there might not be a world 'out there', and your brain/senses might be deceiving you.

And, if we only know we have brains because of our knowledge of anatomy (which branch of science is part of our study of the 'outside world), how do you even know you have a brain?

I'm looking at it from engineering standpoint. By "the self" I mean the function that provides humans with self-awareness. This function is run on the brain thus ones brain hosts ones self just a computer hosts a computer program.

Yes we rely on our senses to view the outside world yet we have to assume our senses are correct as it is our contact with the outside world.

[MarxSchmarx]

I hasten to add that Heidegger rightfully anticipated many of the debates in this thread when he pointed out the dangers of confusing ontology with epistemology.

Too strong an emphasis on "confusions engendered by language" and you make ontology impossible. But making ontology impossible is a contradiction, because the revered language and the rules of grammar must be accorded its ontological status.


MarxSchmarx:



But this is yet more a priori dogmatics, which I have exposed as empty wind-baggery in earlier posts in this thread.

Well skimming through the early threads, the best I could gauge was that tired old analytic criticisms were being recycled, but I won't go into what you did or didn't say. It may very well fall under some critique of "a priori dogmatics", but in my view that's just another way of saying "compelling immediacy/vivacity " that is a part of the human experience. As such philosophers can't opt to ignore the problem for long. Psychologists, anthropologists and linguists know this, why sould philosophers be any different?

Indeed, suffice it to say that attempts to equate the problem of the self as an essentially linguistic problem are unsatisfying. I therefore don't think this question will disappear from the corpus of philosophical research questions any time soon.

And frankly the staying power of "a priori dogmatics", after a century of assault by people espousing the view that it is "wind-baggery" and a confusion of language leaves one wondering as to the efficacy of the view that it is is merely a linguistic dilemma.

[Lynx]

As I inducated, if this is a mystery to such a person, that would be a linguistic failing easily rectifiable, and in the end, no more mysterious than being addressed in a foreign language one does not yet understand.
Easily rectifiable? After having written essays and numerous posts on the topic? If you say so...

What happens (linguistic failing) can be surreal:
He was conscious of the fact a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve.

Alice: What does 'conscious' mean?
Cheshire Lynx: It means he was aware there was a tarantula.
Alice: How was he able to be aware?
Cheshire Lynx: By noticing things. By seeing there was a tarantula, by feeling it as it crawled, or by hearing it as it moved its bristly legs.
Alice: I see. And if he hadn't noticed? Would we say he was 'unconscious'?
CL: Well we could say "He was unconscious of the fact a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve", but some people might find that strange. Unconscious means you are asleep, or in a coma, or even dead!
Alice: Oops, I rather imagine he is awake, since he did notice it.
CL: Indeed. If he were asleep, he might not have noticed, unless it were an unusually large and bristly tarantula. And if he'd been in a coma, or deceased, even the largest, bristliest, hissing tarantula would've failed to attract his attention. *grin*
Alice: So if he were awake and did not notice the tarantula could we say he was 'not conscious'?
CL: Yes, although that might also sound a little strange. There are some people who will read that and still believe he was asleep. For them, 'conscious' means someone is awake, and has no other meaning.
Alice: How odd! Do these people use another word when they want to say someone is noticing something?
CL: Yes, they have several words, like 'aware' or 'mindful'. They don't like to use the word 'conscious' in the way we're using it.
Alice: Why?
CL: Because they believe it may lead to confusion. It may lead us to other words, like 'consciousness'.
Alice: Does it lead to confusion? What's consciousness?
CL: Do you feel confused?
Alice: No.
CL: Okay then, consciousness is 'the state of being conscious'.
Alice: Is that like 'being awake', or like 'being aware'?
CL: It's the 'state of being awake', or 'the state of being aware'. Also known as wakefulness and awareness.
Alice: Now I'm confused!
CL: Well, there's a nice lady who can help you. She will help you read some essays... *grin*
Alice: Oh no! What if I don't want to read essays?
CL: Well, you can try to avoid learning the meaning of words that end in 'ness' or 'ic' or 'ism', but not all words that end with those letters are potentially confusing. Panic, for example.
Alice: Are there other things I can do?
CL: You can wait for science to figure out the details, then read the 'dumbed down' version, also known as the popular science version.
Alice: And if I don't wish to wait?
CL: You can just 'wing it', or 'grin and bear it', like me :D
Alice: :D

Even so, this would still not affect the central point, which is that the word 'consciousness', as it used in ordinary life, is not the least bit mysterious.
And so, My Dear Watson, we wait for worker consciousness with bated breath. Cheers!

Edit:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index3.html

I think you will find it hard to convince scientists that they are studying a concept, and not a phenomenon of nature.

[Hoxhaist]

the Self is a physical and psychological entity

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoxhaist:


the Self is a physical and psychological entity

And on which stone tablets, delivered from which mountain top, did you find this a priori dogma?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


Easily rectifiable? After having written essays and numerous posts on the topic? If you say so...

Now, don't get smart with me, sonny. You raised a specific question about a failure to understand the use of a specific word. That is quite easy to rectify. Indeed, countless thousands of foreign language students are put right on this every year.


Alice: What does 'conscious' mean?
Cheshire Lynx: It means he was aware there was a tarantula.
Alice: How was he able to be aware?
Cheshire Lynx: By noticing things. By seeing there was a tarantula, by feeling it as it crawled, or by hearing it as it moved its bristly legs.
Alice: I see. And if he hadn't noticed? Would we say he was 'unconscious'?
CL: Well we could say "He was unconscious of the fact a tarantula was crawling up his sleeve", but some people might find that strange. Unconscious means you are asleep, or in a coma, or even dead!
Alice: Oops, I rather imagine he is awake, since he did notice it.
CL: Indeed. If he were asleep, he might not have noticed, unless it were an unusually large and bristly tarantula. And if he'd been in a coma, or deceased, even the largest, bristliest, hissing tarantula would've failed to attract his attention. *grin*
Alice: What if he were awake and did not notice the tarantula. Could we say he was 'not conscious'?
CL: Yes, although that might also sound a little strange. There are some people who might read that and believe he was asleep. For them, 'conscious' means someone is awake, and has no other meaning.
Alice: How odd! Do these people use another word when they want to say someone is noticing something?
CL: Yes, they have several words, like 'aware' or 'mindful'. They don't like to use the word 'conscious' in the way we're using it.
Alice: Why?
CL: Because they believe it may lead to confusion. It may lead us to other words, like 'consciousness'.
Alice: Does it lead to confusion? What's consciousness?
CL: Do you feel confused?
Alice: No.
CL: Okay then, consciousness is 'the state of being conscious'.
Alice: Is that like 'being awake', or like 'being aware'?
CL: It's the 'state of being awake', or 'the state of being aware'. Also known as wakefulness and awareness.
Alice: Now I'm confused!
CL: Well, there's a nice lady who can help you. She will help you read some essays... *grin*
Alice: Oh no! What if I don't want to read essays?
CL: Well, you can try to avoid learning the meaning of words that end in 'ness' or 'ic' or 'ism', but not all words that end with those letters are potentially confusing. Panic, for example.
Alice: Are there other things I can do?
CL: You can wait for science to figure out the details, then read the 'dumbed down' version, also known as the popular science version.
Alice: And if I don't wish to wait?
CL: You can just 'wing it', or 'grin and bear it', like me
Alice:

Nice dialogue, which unfortunately has little to do with my point.


And so, My Dear Watson, we wait for worker consciousness with bated breath. Cheers!

Here we have yet another sentence which contains an empty phrase ('worker consciousness') -- or it is being used in a special, and as yet indeterminate sense --, which is thus, either way, senseless.

You might as well have written:


And so, My Dear Watson, we wait for worker schmonciousness with bated breath. Cheers!

for all the sense it makes.

And thank you for finding this:


I think you will find it hard to convince scientists that they are studying a concept, and not a phenomenon of nature.

But, you will note, I am passing an opinion about what scientists might think, not reporting my own beliefs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


I'm looking at it from engineering standpoint. By "the self" I mean the function that provides humans with self-awareness. This function is run on the brain thus ones brain hosts ones self just a computer hosts a computer program.

If there is indeed such a function (and I doubt it), then it is not providing us very good service, since we had to wait for you to tell us the good news.

But then again, even if you are right, this technical 'self' has no bearing on what we mean by words such as 'yourself', 'herself' or 'itself', and so can shed no light on the alleged problem of 'consciousness'.


Yes we rely on our senses to view the outside world yet we have to assume our senses are correct as it is our contact with the outside world.

But, on what basis can you make this assumption? Once more, if you are right, it is your brain, not you, that is doing this. But, your brain might not exist -- a serious doubt I raised in my last post, which doubt arises from this view of yours.

And how do you even know there are such things as 'senses'. Your alleged brain might be mistaken/confused/wrong/deceiving you.

For all you know, you are a disembodied spirit with a rather lively imagination.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


I hasten to add that Heidegger rightfully anticipated many of the debates in this thread when he pointed out the dangers of confusing ontology with epistemology.

Well, to be frank: Heidegger confused his aimless ramblings with connected thought, so he had no room to talk.


Too strong an emphasis on "confusions engendered by language" and you make ontology impossible. But making ontology impossible is a contradiction, because the revered language and the rules of grammar must be accorded its ontological status.

I dealt with this earlier; the bogus discipline of 'ontology' attempts to deliver deep truths about the word based on language alone. As such, all it delivers are non-sensical pseudo-propositions.


Well skimming through the early threads, the best I could gauge was that tired old analytic criticisms were being recycled, but I won't go into what you did or didn't say. It may very well fall under some critique of "a priori dogmatics", but in my view that's just another way of saying "compelling immediacy/vivacity " that is a part of the human experience. As such philosophers can't opt to ignore the problem for long. Psychologists, anthropologists and linguists know this, why sould philosophers be any different?

Indeed, suffice it to say that attempts to equate the problem of the self as an essentially linguistic problem are unsatisfying. I therefore don't think this question will disappear from the corpus of philosophical research questions any time soon.

And frankly the staying power of "a priori dogmatics", after a century of assault by people espousing the view that it is "wind-baggery" and a confusion of language leaves one wondering as to the efficacy of the view that it is is merely a linguistic dilemma.

Well, to return the compliment: having read through this, all I see are the very tired, and even older ideas of traditional philosophy: the desire to go behind the material world, and access a hidden world of 'essences' by the mere operation of thought.

Now, you are tempted to accuse me of 'a priori' dogmatics. Either substantiate this, or withdraw it please.

[Psy]

Psy:



If there is indeed such a function (and I doubt it), then it is not providing us very good service, since we had to wait for you to tell us the good news.

You are confusing awareness that one is aware with awareness of how one is aware.



But then again, even if you are right, this technical 'self' has no bearing on what we mean by words such as 'yourself', 'herself' or 'itself', and so can shed no light on the alleged problem of 'consciousness'.

Yes it does, it means you are a function of your brain, your brain is how you are aware.



But, on what basis can you make this assumption? Once more, if you are right, it is your brain, not you, that is doing this. But, your brain might not exist -- a serious doubt I raised in my last post, which doubt arises from this view of yours.

Something hosts our awareness based on current scientific evidence that is our brain.



And how do you even know there are such things as 'senses'. Your alleged brain might be mistaken/confused/wrong/deceiving you.

For all you know, you are a disembodied spirit with a rather lively imagination.
That is a pointless question as if it were true then nothing in our reality exists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


You are confusing awareness that one is aware with awareness of how one is aware.

But, even those scientists who supposedly tell us 'how we are aware' have to use this alleged function you mention. And to do that, all they have to go on are what their senses are telling them.

And, to push this further, all you have to go on concerning what they tell you about this alleged function are what your senses tell you. So, the two senses of 'aware' you are using become fused into one in this solipsistic world you seem to inhabit.

Now, I can draw the distinction you mention, but, given your views, I don't think you can.


Yes it does, it means you are a function of your brain, your brain is how you are aware.

Well, we have yet to establish, given your views, that we even have brains.


Something hosts our awareness based on current scientific evidence that is our brain.

This is as yet a baseless assumption on your part -- again, given your views.


That is a pointless question as if it were true then nothing in our reality exists.

Alas, it seems to be the logical result of your expressed opinions.

[Psy]

Look it is like this, based on the science on the collective reality we humans seem to share our awareness is a function of our brain. Questioning if this reality is real is a huge trap as you are then abandoning materialism and on a course away toward theology were one debates how many angles can dance on a pin. You need some starting point and the best place to start is that the existence of humans is not in question and we don't need to ponder if humans really exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Look it is like this, based on the science on the collective reality we humans seem to share our awareness is a function of our brain. Questioning if this reality is real is a huge trap as you are then abandoning materialism and on a course away toward theology were one debates how many angles can dance on a pin. You need some starting point and the best place to start is that the existence of humans is not in question and we don't need to ponder if humans really exist.

But, you have no way of knowing this based on your idea that our alleged brains do all our thinking for us, and all that our alleged brains have to go on is the alleged 'data' that our alleged senses send its way, concerning the alleged 'outside world'.

Your theory in fact undermines science, not the opposite.

So, it's not a question of 'starting somewhere', but why on earth start where you start?

[Psy]

Psy:



But, you have no way of knowing this based on your idea that our alleged brains do all our thinking for us, and all that our alleged brains have to go on is the alleged 'data' that our alleged senses send its way, concerning the alleged 'outside world'.

Your theory in fact undermines science, not the opposite.

So, it's not a question of 'starting somewhere', but why on earth start where you start?
We do know because altering the brain alters how one thinks. As for questioning our senses again that is anti-materialists thus a anti-Marxist way of viewing the world.

[Louise Michel]

T1: Tony Blair owns a copy of Das Kapital.

Compare this with these similar-looking indicative sentences:

T2: Time is a relation between events.

T3: Motion is inseparable from matter.

In order to understand T1, it is not necessary to know whether it is true or not.

However, the comprehension of T2 and T3 goes hand-in-hand with knowing either or both are true (or, conversely, knowing either or both are false). The truth of T2 and T3 thus follows from the meaning of certain words (or from certain definitions -- i.e., from yet more words).



I agree with this. But why is it permissable to talk of "ideas" but not of "consciousness" because consciousness is nothing more than a collection of ideas.

In a way this goes back to the first discussion/argument I had here about the difference between the subjective and the objective. Leaving aside that difference, and I know everbody's going to start shouting "dualism", but what the hell, live dangerously.

If we were to disappear from the planet, the planet and all its physical laws would continue regardless. However, we with our brains and our hands produce certain "things" like language and mathematics. Neither of these two "things" are objects or entities like the Andes mountain range that exist with or without us. They exist as part of our thoughts, ideas, our "consciousness" only.

Whether or not Tony Blair "owns" a copy of Das Kapitel or not is entirely dependent upon our perception, our beliefs, our consciousness. Without human society there is no ownership. If Tony Blair were the only human being alive and Das Kapitel were the only book in existence and the book and Tony were to be found in the same cave, could he reasonably be said to "own" it?

If ownership can be empirically deduced or understood how can that be separated from the beliefs that say, "yes he bought the book, therefore it is his" ie how can his "ownership," a human concept and clearly nothing more, be separated from human thought?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


We do know because altering the brain alters how one thinks. As for questioning our senses again that is anti-materialists thus a anti-Marxist way of viewing the world.

Given your theory, however, we do not even know if we have a brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


But why is it permissable to talk of "ideas" but not of "consciousness" because consciousness is nothing more than a collection of ideas.

But, it is quite alright to talk about 'consciousness', so long as we confine ourselves to the way we use this word in ordinary life -- that is, to refer to an individual who has just come out of a coma, recovered from a blow to the head, or woken up after an operation, etc. [This is what Wittgenstein meant by bringing words down to earth, recalling their everyday use, not their metaphysical misuse.]


In a way this goes back to the first discussion/argument I had here about the difference between the subjective and the objective. Leaving aside that difference, and I know everbody's going to start shouting "dualism", but what the hell, live dangerously.

Well, these two words 'subjective' and 'objective', if used philosophically, are no less devoid of meaning than is 'the self'.

I won't go into this here, but if you want to know my reasons for saying that, you can find them here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm#Objectivity

[Remember to use 'copy shortcut' and paste it into your address bar, since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links.]


However, we with our brains and our hands produce certain "things" like language and mathematics. Neither of these two "things" are objects or entities like the Andes mountain range that exist with or without us. They exist as part of our thoughts, ideas, our "consciousness" only.

Unfortunately, your last sentence here is devoid of sense since it contains an empty term, namely 'consciousness'.


Whether or not Tony Blair "owns" a copy of Das Kapitel or not is entirely dependent upon our perception, our beliefs, our consciousness. Without human society there is no ownership. If Tony Blair were the only human being alive and Das Kapitel were the only book in existence and the book and Tony were to be found in the same cave, could he reasonably be said to "own" it?

The point is that, wherever we derived this sentence from (i.e., T1), and howsoever we did this, we are capable of understanding it independently of knowing whether or not it is true. Moreover, its truth or falsehood cannot be ascertained by thought alone -- unlike traditional philosophical theses, the 'understanding' of which automatically guarantees their truth (or falsehood, depending on circumstances).

This is a non-negotible, logical feature of language.


If ownership can be empirically deduced or understood how can that be separated from the beliefs that say, "yes he bought the book, therefore it is his" ie how can his "ownership," a human concept and clearly nothing more, be separated from human thought?

Sure, concepts of ownership can muddy the waters here somewhat. But this is easy to circumvent once the criteria for ownership have been settled (even if these are later changed).

If this were not possible, then the concept of ownership would become useless, and my exemplary sentence would now lack a sense, since it would contain a word of indeterminate meaning, namely 'ownership'.

But the point still stands, and can be made less 'muddy' if we replace my earlier sentence with this one:

T4: Tony Blair is less than six feet tall.

This, too, can be understood before its truth/falsehood is known, and its truth-status cannot be ascertained by thought alone.

[Hoxhaist]

I have a body that is mine but it changes over time but something else stays the same, my mind

[Psy]

Psy:



Given your theory, however, we do not even know if we have a brain.
True but we assume the material world exist else you have idealism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoxhaist:


I have a body that is mine but it changes over time but something else stays the same, my mind

And how do you know that latter half of this gnomic saying is indeed true?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


True but we assume the material world exist else you have idealism.

But, on what basis can you assume this? Your theory implies that these things are just figments of your brain.

[Hoxhaist]

my mind is where my actions come from before they exist physically so there is a difference

[Psy]

Psy:



But, on what basis can you assume this? Your theory implies that these things are just figments of your brain.

No if we assume the material world exists then we are a function of our brain that experiences the material world through the senses of the body.

[JFMLenin]

This is, to a degree, an unanswerable question. I voted, however, for option three. If I could, though, I would choose 1 & 3.


Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There The Angel Of The Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was onfire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight - why the bush does not burn up."

When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"

And Moses said, "Here I am."

"Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Then he said, "I am the God of your father, The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

The Lord said, "I have indeed seen the misery of My people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of the land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey - the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. And now the cry of the Israelites has reached Me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring My people the Israelites out of Egypt."

But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to the Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?"

And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I Who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is His Name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you."

Exodus 3:1-20Who God is is an unanswerable question, for He is everything, as is demonstrated by this story (which happens to be my favorite of all Biblical stories). God is a part of everything, and everything is a part of God, including us. We are an extension of God, for He made us in His image. We are also infinitely lower than God, but that is a, for lack of a better phrase, a "divine mystery". Hence my wanting to answer as both 1 & 3. The Self is both a metaphysical manifestation, much like the "soul", and The One, God, Everything. However, ultimately, I think #3 is closer, so I went with that one.

[Lynx]

Now, don't get smart with me, sonny. You raised a specific question about a failure to understand the use of a specific word. That is quite easy to rectify. Indeed, countless thousands of foreign language students are put right on this every year.
The question I raised was about the use of an English word, by English speakers. Rectifying (or de-mystifying) its meaning is a bit more challenging than overcoming foreign language barriers. At least, that's what I'm inclined to believe, given your 10,000+ posts, some of them scandalous.

Nice dialogue, which unfortunately has little to do with my point.
Alice: So he was conscious of the tarantula, as in being aware of the tarantula, but not conscious, as in being awake.
Cheshire Lynx: Precisely!

Here we have yet another sentence which contains an empty phrase ('worker consciousness') -- or it is being used in a special, and as yet indeterminate sense --, which is thus, either way, senseless.
It is neither senseless nor mysterious - worker consciousness is a common term, especially round these parts.

You might as well have written: worker schmonciousness for all the sense it makes.
Perhaps this is a word we are unfamiliar with. Perhaps it is a mnemonic. If there is no such term, then the word would be senseless, not the sentence. Humans are capable of making sense of nonsense. We're heuristic creatures.
Btw, "Zkdw'v yt, ith?" might be senseless, gibberish or an encrypted message.

And thank you for finding this:

But, you will note, I am passing an opinion about what scientists might think, not reporting my own beliefs.
I did not mean to imply they were your views.

[DesertShark]

DS:


"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')

1) This is a re-definition, and so can have no bearing on our ordinary use of words like 'herself', 'oneself', 'yourself'. In which case, it is philosophically uninteresting.

2) On the other hand, if it is not a re-definition, then your sentence lacks a sense since it contains an empty phrase, namley "The self".

By "redefinition" do you mean?

the act of giving a new definition (dictionary.com)

to your 1): What I said is true and applicable to the ordinary use of the words you brought up ('herself', 'oneself', 'yourself') because people use those words to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words. So how does that "have no bearing" and thus become "philosophically uninteresting?"
I think it is philosophically interesting that on the whole language users believe in "I/the self" and that it exists (in addition, "others/you/they"). I mean, granted to the individual there is pretty good evidence that they are separate from the things around them, but there's no proof (by proof I mean "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" dictionary.com). It's a valid justified belief, but it might not be true and its hard to prove either way.

to your 2): I'm not sure if what I said is actually a sentence, which is why I did not end it with any sort of punctuation. If it "lacks sense" because of the "empty phrase, "The self"," does that mean that every sentence used in this thread containing that phrase also "lacks sense?"
I know you brought it up right away with the creator when the thread started (and a few others following), but it seems odd to bring it up again if the issue was already addressed and discussed; and if it wasn't addressed then perhaps that discussion should have continued. If you feel you have already sufficiently addressed this issue then, in my opinion, the issue has been addressed and we can move on from it to other things.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoxhaist:


my mind is where my actions come from before they exist physically so there is a difference

You sound like a dualist, not a materialist!

But, anyway, how does this show that


but something else stays the same, my mind

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


No if we assume the material world exists then we are a function of our brain that experiences the material world through the senses of the body.

But, your (or your assumed 'brain's') theory has yet to show we have a brain. So, 'something' (which you or your assumed 'brain' assumes is your brain) somewhere (and we do not know where this is yet, we assume it is in the material world, which we assume exists) assumes it has a 'brain' (which might not be a brain -- even if we knew what one of these was, which on your (assumed 'brain's') theory we can't yet know), and assumes it has 'senses' (which might not be senses, either, given your (asummed 'brain's') theory -- even if we knew what senses were, which on your (assumed 'brain's') theory we can't yet know), which assumes it puts your assumed brain in touch with this assumed world.

That's an awful lot of assuming on which to base a challenge to ordinary language (where there is no assuming at all), or on which to base a secure science of the assumed 'mind'.

And, just how is your (sorry, your assumed 'brain's) tower of assumptions in any way superior to the other piled up assumptions that the confused among us also acknowledge, such as belief in Big Foot, alien abduction and worst of all 'god'?

All you -- sorry your assumed 'brain' has to offer in competition to these other bogus sets of assumptions are your own (sorry, your assumed 'brain's') assumptions.

As I said, your (assumed 'brain's') theory totally undermines science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JFMLeninist:


Who God is is an unanswerable question, for He is everything, as is demonstrated by this story (which happens to be my favorite of all Biblical stories). God is a part of everything, and everything is a part of God, including us. We are an extension of God, for He made us in His image. We are also infinitely lower than God, but that is a, for lack of a better phrase, a "divine mystery". Hence my wanting to answer as both 1 & 3. The Self is both a metaphysical manifestation, much like the "soul", and The One, God, Everything. However, ultimately, I think #3 is closer, so I went with that one.

We really do not need this ruling-class rubbish dumping here. The rules of the forum ban preaching, so please desist. If you want to spout more of this mytsical crap, naff off to OI, and waste some space there.

[Psy]

Psy:



But, your (or your assumed 'brain's') theory has yet to show we have a brain. So, 'something' (which you or your assumed 'brain' assumes is your brain) somewhere (and we do not know where this is yet, we assume it is in the material world, which we assume exists) assumes it has a 'brain' (which might not be a brain -- even if we knew what one of these was, which on your (assumed 'brain's') theory we can't yet know), and assumes it has 'senses' (which might not be senses, either, given your (asummed 'brain's') theory -- even if we knew what senses were, which on your (assumed 'brain's') theory we can't yet know), which assumes it puts your assumed brain in touch with this assumed world.

That's an awful lot of assuming on which to base a challenge to ordinary language (where there is no assuming at all), or on which to base a secure science of the assumed 'mind'.

And, just how is your (sorry, your assumed 'brain's) tower of assumptions in any way superior to the other piled up assumptions that the confused among us also acknowledge, such as belief in Big Foot, alien abduction and worst of all 'god'?

All you -- sorry your assumed 'brain' has to offer in competition to these other bogus sets of assumptions are your own (sorry, your assumed 'brain's') assumptions.

As I said, your (assumed 'brain's') theory totally undermines science.
There is actually only one assumption, that the material world exists (this is the basses of materialism as opposed to idealism) from this assumption we get the self being a function of the brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


The question I raised was about the use of an English word, by English speakers. Rectifying (or de-mystifying) its meaning is a bit more challenging than overcoming foreign language barriers. At least, that's what I'm inclined to believe, given your 10,000+ posts, some of them scandalous.

The vast majority of my posts are directed against the dialectical mystics here, and have little or nothing to do with rectifying the use of English words.

But, even if they were, there is a world of difference between rectifying philosophical error (which has deep roots in social alienation, and so needs therapy, as Wittgenstein noted, not correction) and advising someone (or being advised) of the use of an English word. The fact that millions of ordinary human beings manage both of the latter every day of the week shows this to be the case.


Alice: So he was conscious of the tarantula, as in being aware of the tarantula, but not conscious, as in being awake.
Cheshire Lynx: Precisely!

Well, you can continue to amuse yourself with your short play, but, as I noted, it has little to do with the points I wish to make.


It is neither senseless nor mysterious - worker consciousness is a common term, especially round these parts.

Well then, it is a technical term (which has yet to be explained), and as such bears no relation to the ordinary use of 'consciousness'.


If there is no such term, then the word would be senseless, not the sentence.

No, words are either meaningful or meaningless; indicative sentences have a sense or they are senseless.


Btw, "Zkdw'v yt, ith?" might be senseless, gibberish or an encrypted message.

Well, it's not a sentence, so it can neither have a sense nor be senseless.

If it has been encrypted, then the original sentence it came from would either have a sense or not, depending on whether its words had a meaning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


There is actually only one assumption, that the material world exists (this is the basses of materialism as opposed to idealism) from this assumption we get the self being a function of the brain.

Well, once more, you, or your assumed 'brain' assumes you, or your assumed 'brain', has a 'brain'.

And, as I noted, you, or your assumed 'brain' also has to assume several other things. You, or your assumed 'brain' certainly cannot prove these 'things' exist.

In which case, you and your assumed 'brain' are worse off than the fools who believe in alien abduction, Big Foot and 'god'.

[Psy]

Psy:



Well, once more, you, or your assumed 'brain' assumes you, or your assumed 'brain', has a 'brain'.

And, as I noted, you, or your assumed 'brain' also has to assume several other things. You, or your assumed 'brain' certainly cannot prove these 'things' exist.

In which case, you and your assumed 'brain' are worse off than the fools who believe in alien abduction, Big Foot and 'god'.

Brain has a brain? No the brain is not the self-conscious part it is the mechanical part that hosts the self-conscious part. Anyway are you actually challenging materialism with the logic of idealism? Are you actually questioning that the existence of the material world?

Since if the material world exists then the brain exists and our self-consciousness is a function of that brain, if the material world doesn't exist we fall back into idealism where only ideas exist and nothing is falsifiable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


to your 1): What I said is true and applicable to the ordinary use of the words you brought up ('herself', 'oneself', 'yourself') because people use those words to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words. So how does that "have no bearing" and thus become "philosophically uninteresting?"

But how this relates to this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self' is still far from clear.


I think it is philosophically interesting that on the whole language users believe in "I/the self" and that it exists (in addition, "others/you/they").

Now, this is a scientific claim about what all of us allegedly believe, in relation to which we will need to see the data.


I mean, granted to the individual there is pretty good evidence that they are separate from the things around them, but there's no proof (by proof I mean "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" dictionary.com). It's a valid justified belief, but it might not be true and its hard to prove either way

I am at a loss as to how this is related to anything I said.


I'm not sure if what I said is actually a sentence, which is why I did not end it with any sort of punctuation. If it "lacks sense" because of the "empty phrase, "The self"," does that mean that every sentence used in this thread containing that phrase also "lacks sense?"

Well, this looks like a sentence:


"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')

And its main verb is in the indicative mood. In that case, it is capable of being either true or false. But, it can't be either, since it contains an empty phrase, namely 'the self'.

And yes, every sentence using the term (not merely mentioning it) lacks a sense.


I know you brought it up right away with the creator when the thread started (and a few others following), but it seems odd to bring it up again if the issue was already addressed and discussed; and if it wasn't addressed then perhaps that discussion should have continued. If you feel you have already sufficiently addressed this issue then, in my opinion, the issue has been addressed and we can move on from it to other things.

I agree, but try telling that to the others here --, and yourself, for that matter!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


Brain has a brain? No the brain is not the self-conscious part it is the mechanical part that hosts the self-conscious part. Anyway are you actually challenging materialism with the logic of idealism? Are you actually questioning that the existence of the material world?

Well, your, or your brain's theory is that you are really your brain. So, I have merely applied that idea consistently to nearly every use of the word 'your' in relation to you (or your brain).

So, instead of saying 'Your brain', I am forced to say: 'Your brain's brain'.

In fact, if I were 100% consistent, I would now have to replace that with 'Your brain's brain's brain', and then 'Your brian's brain's brain's brain' and so on.

Now, even you can see that you are not your brain, or if you were, you'd never be able to tell us, since your sentences would be endless.


Anyway are you actually challenging materialism with the logic of idealism?

No, I am in fact challenging your scientism.


Since if the material world exists then the brain exists and our self-consciousness is a function of that brain, if the material world doesn't exist we fall back into idealism where only ideas exist and nothing is falsifiable.

But, you do not know any of this, since you are trapped by your theory in a solipsistic world, and one where you can only assume you have a 'brain', the nature of which you do not know, but can only assume. In which case, if we do have brains, then they might be totally different from the one you assume we have.

Once more, your scientism undermines genuine science.

[Psy]

Psy:



Well, your, or your brain's theory is that you are really your brain. So, I have merely applied that idea consistently to nearly every use of the word 'your' in relation to you (or your brain).

So, instead of saying 'Your brain', I am forced to say: 'Your brain's brain'.

In fact, if I were 100% consistent, I would now have to replace that with 'Your brain's brain's brain', and then 'Your brian's brain's brain's brain' and so on.

That is like saying your blood pressure is your heart and saying your heart's heart when you mean your blood pressure. Just like how blood pressure is a function of the heart, self consciousness is a function of ones brain and not the brain itself.





But, you do not know any of this, since you are trapped by your theory in a solipsistic world, and one where you can only assume you have a 'brain', the nature of which you do not know, but can only assume. In which case, if we do have brains, then they might be totally different from the one you assume we have.

Once more, your scientism undermines genuine science.
I'm not trapped since I assume the material world exist, thus I use the discoveries of the material world to prove my self-consciousness is a function of my brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


That is like saying your blood pressure is your heart and saying your heart's heart when you mean your blood pressure. Just like how blood pressure is a function of the heart, self consciousness is a function of ones brain and not the brain itself.

Fair enough, but we have yet to see the proof that you have a brain.


I'm not trapped since I assume the material world exist, thus I use the discoveries of the material world to prove my self-consciousness is a function of my brain.

Ah, but you are, since you do not yet know you have a brain, or senses, so for all you know, your assumptions could be 100% wrong.

[Psy]

Psy:

Ah, but you are, since you do not yet know you have a brain, or senses, so for all you know, your assumptions could be 100% wrong.


I do if I assume the material world exists (the bases of materialism). Thus why I asked if you were challenging materialism with the logic of idealism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


I do if I assume the material world exists (the bases of materialism). Thus why I asked if you were challenging materialism with the logic of idealism.

But that is of no help to you; theists and idealists (even Hegel) admit this much.

Assuming the material world exists in no way shows you have a brain, nor that you have senses, nor that they convey accurate inforation to the yet to proven you have one, brain.

Once more, what I am doing is challenging your scientism.

[Psy]

Psy:



But that is of no help to you; theists and idealists (even Hegel) admit this much.

Assuming the material world exists in no way shows you have a brain, nor that you have senses, nor that they convey accurate inforation to the yet to proven you have one, brain.

Once more, what I am doing is challenging your scientism.

But there are trains of thought, materialism (focusing on the material world) and idealism (focusing on ideas). Materialism can't prove the material world exists but simply assumes the material world exists and go on from there, idealism questions the existence of the material and assumes ideas exists and go on from there.

The idealists when viewing the self would justify the self by stating the self thinks and that is proof that the self exists. The materialists when viewing the self looks at how the self exist in the material world and uses the existence of whatever material mechanism that hosts the self as proof that ones exists. Marxists tend to fall in the latter category looking at the world as a material world.

[Louise Michel]

Rosa, are you saying:

There is a cold-hard reality that exists regardless of our conceptions, ideas etc. This applies to the physical/natural world in the same way as it applies to human society and social relations. Normal language reflects this reality as does philosophical language though philosophical language tries to raise itself above reality and as a consequence obscures the real nature of things.

So, conciousness either exists in one form or another or not at all. Changing the definition of the word cannot alter this. It's there or not in the same way as Tony Blair is there or not.

---------------------------------------------------------

Obviously that's incomplete but it's the part that's grabbing my attention now.

I see the difference between the statements:

T1: Tony Blair is wearing green trousers

and ...

T2: Being determines consciousness

But don't we get caught in the perception trap? Tony Blair or even "a man" corresponds to an idea. Green is a human perception as is the notion that he is "wearing" trousers. Being of course is an abstract concept but although Tony Blair has a physical form naming that form Tony Blair is a purely human activity/perception.

In other words, how do we separate reality, thought and perception? I don't see that it's possible. It's true that we can more readily understand T1 than T2 and that T1 is grounded in something we can see but the interpretation of what we see is done via thoughts. Isn't T1 easier to understand simply because of the way we are made? What reason do we have to believe T1 is true and T2 is philosphical mumbo jumbo (even if we can see Tony and his green trousers??!!)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


There is a cold-hard reality that exists regardless of our conceptions, ideas etc.

No, because that would be a philosophical thesis.


Normal language reflects this reality as does philosophical language though philosophical language tries to raise itself above reality and as a consequence obscures the real nature of things.

I do not think ordinary language reflects anything. It can be used to represent the world, but it is not well-suited to this task. [It comes into its own in communication -- as communists we should be the first to recognise this.]

It is when we try to represent the world that we are forced to use figurative language, which some then mis-interpret literally, and out of this, a tangled nest of philosophical theses springs.


So, conciousness either exists in one form or another or not at all.

I am not sure you are following me. The above sentence is devoid of sense since it contains a meaningless word: 'consciousness'.

The only legitimate use of this word (unless we are intent on re-defining it, or using it in a technical sense) is in medical and forensic surroundings, of the sort I have outlined.


But don't we get caught in the perception trap? Tony Blair or even "a man" corresponds to an idea. Green is a human perception as is the notion that he is "wearing" trousers. Being of course is an abstract concept but although Tony Blair has a physical form naming that form Tony Blair is a purely human activity/perception.

Well, "Tony Blair" does not correspond with anything; it is the name of a certain individual, and we use this symbol to say things about him.

He is not a perception, unless you are confusing the word 'perception' with 'person' -- and neither is his name.

And he is certainly not an idea; it is hard to see how an idea can order UK forces to invade Iraq.


In other words, how do we separate reality, thought and perception? I don't see that it's possible. It's true that we can more readily understand T1 than T2 and that T1 is grounded in something we can see but the interpretation of what we see is done via thoughts. Isn't T1 easier to understand simply because of the way we are made? What reason do we have to believe T1 is true and T2 is philosphical mumbo jumbo (even if we can see Tony and his green trousers??!!)

Well I am not trying to separate 'reality, thought and perception' since used in this way these are philosophical notions, devoid of meaning.

What you need to concentrate on is how we ordinarily use words (in the sort of way that gets you through the day, every day). That is our/your best clue as to what words mean.

Not that you need a clue; since you already know how to use oridnary language, you already understand most words. It is only when we try to do philosophy that we go astray.

As Wittgenstein noted:


When we do philosophy we are like savages, primitive people, who hear the expressions of civilized people, put a false interpretation on them, and then draw the queerest conclusions from it.

This essay is worth reading on this:

http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/philos/documents/Goldfarb/GoldfarbLect2.pdf

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Psy:


But there are trains of thought, materialism (focusing on the material world) and idealism (focusing on ideas). Materialism can't prove the material world exists but simply assumes the material world exists and go on from there, idealism questions the existence of the material and assumes ideas exists and go on from there.

I am sorry to have to tell you, but there are all sorts of idealists out there (Hegel being just one of them) who not only assume, like you, that the material world exists, but they think they can prove it.


The idealists when viewing the self would justify the self by stating the self thinks and that is proof that the self exists. The materialists when viewing the self looks at how the self exist in the material world and uses the existence of whatever material mechanism that hosts the self as proof that ones exists. Marxists tend to fall in the latter category looking at the world as a material world.

But, all you have to rely on when confronting the idealist is your rather pathetic 'assumption'.

Do you think a single idealist is going to be impressed with that?

[Louise Michel]

Well, "Tony Blair" does not correspond with anything; it is the name of a certain individual, and we use this symbol to say things about him.

He is not a perception, unless you are confusing the word 'perception' with 'person' -- and neither is his name.

And he is certainly not an idea; it is hard to see how an idea can order UK forces to invade Iraq.


Okay, back to basics.

Tony Blair exists.

How do you, Rosa, know Tony Blair exists?

[Dean]

Dean:



I will answer you in the spirit with which you responded to me: lack of respect.

1) Get off your 'low horse'.

2) You are going to need to do more than just abuse me or fulminate against my ideas; you need to address my arguments, not just reject the conclusions. However, I doubt you know enough philosophy of logic and/or language to do that...

Thanks, rosa. I'd like to point out that I did not - anywhere - use abusive language against you. You, however, have done so to me. this double-standard is typical of you, and it makes your posts very hard to respond to.


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels, (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]
Right, I don't disagree with the material notions in this passage. I do disagree that you can offer a blanket assertion on "philosophers" and "philosophy," as Marx seeminglly does here - though I don't know if he intends to. I think we can both see how meaningless it is to argue against abstractions like "philosophy" however.




4) I did say that I would not win this argument, since:

Looks like you are just another sad dupe.
Thanks again for that completely unrelated snippet! Interestingly, there is a crazy, prevalent idea at the moment that the world is round. Is that also a "ruling class idea" which must be rejected?




I rather think you are just confused in general.

I have given you my reasons, here and in the two threads I linked to earlier. Once more, you need to address those, not just reject the conclusions.

I do not think I used the word 'mystical'.

You are now beginning to invent, just like the Dialectical Mystics.

Then address my arguments, and stop simply resorting to abuse -- and fibs.
Of course you didn't use the term. However, you use language explicitly attacking what are mystical ideas. Unfortunately, your responses are definitively mystical and abstract.

Lets argue the fundamentals, OK?

Your assertion: Philosophy is "misused words."
Google definitions of philosophy: (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=v6D&defl=en&q=define:philosophy&ei=1vXjSaDCK8zemQet5OyADA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)
doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"

So, are all of those definitions fundamentally congruent with "misusing words"? That inconsistency was, after all one of my main critiques.

Your assertion: A popular idea is by definition a ruling class idea. Adherants are therefore "dupes"
So, are all ideas held commonly today "wrong" since the ruling class holds them, too? Seems awfully dialectic, and not in any good way. Popularity - or lack thereof - are not qualifications for the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of ideas.

[DesertShark]

DS:

to your 1): What I said is true and applicable to the ordinary use of the words you brought up ('herself', 'oneself', 'yourself') because people use those words to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words. So how does that "have no bearing" and thus become "philosophically uninteresting?"
But how this relates to this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self' is still far from clear.
What's not clear? People use "this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self'" "to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words." The relationship is the use of a word ("self") to talk about something (a 'thing' people believe is real and/or separate from everything else); people do it all the time, not just with that word, but with other words like 'freedom' or 'society.' [Now I'm not bringing those words up to begin a long drawn out discussion about them, I was just using them as an example.]



I think it is philosophically interesting that on the whole language users believe in "I/the self" and that it exists (in addition, "others/you/they").
Now, this is a scientific claim about what all of us allegedly believe, in relation to which we will need to see the data.
That's not a scientific claim, it was a thought I had from observations of people communicating. I was trying to draw out a discussion on this phenomenon. Hence why I said the following:


I mean, granted to the individual there is pretty good evidence that they are separate from the things around them, but there's no proof (by proof I mean "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true" dictionary.com). It's a valid justified belief, but it might not be true and its hard to prove either way
I am at a loss as to how this is related to anything I said.
It actually didn't relate to anything you said. I said it to promote discussion on a different aspect of this idea.



I'm not sure if what I said is actually a sentence, which is why I did not end it with any sort of punctuation. If it "lacks sense" because of the "empty phrase, "The self"," does that mean that every sentence used in this thread containing that phrase also "lacks sense?"
Well, this looks like a sentence:

"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')

And its main verb is in the indicative mood. In that case, it is capable of being either true or false. But, it can't be either, since it contains an empty phrase, namely 'the self'.

And yes, every sentence using the term (not merely mentioning it) lacks a sense.
If it looks like a sheep, does it mean its a sheep? Not always. It could be a person wearing a sheep costume. Just because something appears to be one thing, it doesn't mean that it is. What I said was meant to promote discussion on the idea, not the linguistics/semantics/syntax/language use/etc. I saw that you had already addressed that issue, so I was attempting to promote discussion beyond it. I don't actually care about the linguistic side of all of this, I'm interested in how the belief that one is separate from everything shapes that individual's perception of the world and influences their actions -so not philosophy of language, but metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics.



I know you brought it up right away with the creator when the thread started (and a few others following), but it seems odd to bring it up again if the issue was already addressed and discussed; and if it wasn't addressed then perhaps that discussion should have continued. If you feel you have already sufficiently addressed this issue then, in my opinion, the issue has been addressed and we can move on from it to other things.
I agree, but try telling that to the others here --, and yourself, for that matter!
Tell myself what? That I think you have thoroughly addressed the point? I do think that you have, which is why I'd like to discuss things beyond it. I agree that the idea of the self is nonsense, and I'd like to discuss the implications that has and the effects it has on those who don't. Why beat a dead horse when there are other horses to beat (so to speak)? I don't need to tell others or convince them of anything, there's no need - language isn't my cup of tea, for those that it is they can deal with it.
Eventually, people will figure it out or they won't, but they can only get there on their own, not through anyone else. By that I mean: the understanding has to be within them; you can influence them and share what you know, and not much beyond that unless you intend to use force, which in that case they won't actually know it. In the end it will only be a change in understanding on their part that brings them around.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


Tony Blair exists.

How do you, Rosa, know Tony Blair exists?

It does not matter how I know this, empirical sentences about him have a different logic to metaphysical pseudo-propositions, and that is the point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


I'd like to point out that I did not - anywhere - use abusive language against you. You, however, have done so to me. this double-standard is typical of you, and it makes your posts very hard to respond to.

And I did not allege that you did; I merely alluded to your personal attack on me, and that I would respond in kind.

And I don't care if what I say makes it difficult to respond; that is your problem for personalising this.


Of course you didn't use the term. However, you use language explicitly attacking what are mystical ideas. Unfortunately, your responses are definitively mystical and abstract.

You are good at making accusations; not too good when it comes to substantiating them.


Lets argue the fundamentals, OK?

Your assertion: Philosophy is "misused words."

Where do I say that?


Google definitions of philosophy:
doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics
any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"

What has this got to do with anything I said?

[And only an idiot will try to define philosophy in this way; and only a bigger fool would believe it.]


So, are all of those definitions fundamentally congruent with "misusing words"? That inconsistency was, after all one of my main critiques.

Once more, you need to address what I actually said, not what seems to be bumping around in that fevered brain of yours.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


What's not clear? People use "this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self'" "to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words." The relationship is the use of a word ("self") to talk about something (a 'thing' people believe is real and/or separate from everything else); people do it all the time, not just with that word, but with other words like 'freedom' or 'society.' [Now I'm not bringing those words up to begin a long drawn out discussion about them, I was just using them as an example.]

You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.


That's not a scientific claim, it was a thought I had from observations of people communicating. I was trying to draw out a discussion on this phenomenon. Hence why I said the following:

Indeed not; I was being ironic. If it had have been, you'd have the evidence -- which you don't.


If it looks like a sheep, does it mean its a sheep? Not always. It could be a person wearing a sheep costume. Just because something appears to be one thing, it doesn't mean that it is. What I said was meant to promote discussion on the idea, not the linguistics/semantics/syntax/language use/etc. I saw that you had already addressed that issue, so I was attempting to promote discussion beyond it. I don't actually care about the linguistic side of all of this, I'm interested in how the belief that one is separate from everything shapes that individual's perception of the world and influences their actions -so not philosophy of language, but metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics.

These side issues seem to interest you. Naturally, you are welcome to pursue them (in the science section). But they boor me rigid since they are not philosophical questions, but rather trite psychological puzzles.


Tell myself what? That I think you have thoroughly addressed the point? I do think that you have, which is why I'd like to discuss things beyond it. I agree that the idea of the self is nonsense, and I'd like to discuss the implications that has and the effects it has on those who don't. Why beat a dead horse when there are other horses to beat (so to speak)? I don't need to tell others or convince them of anything, there's no need - language isn't my cup of tea, for those that it is they can deal with it.
Eventually, people will figure it out or they won't, but they can only get there on their own, not through anyone else. By that I mean: the understanding has to be within them; you can influence them and share what you know, and not much beyond that unless you intend to use force, which in that case they won't actually know it. In the end it will only be a change in understanding on their part that brings them around.

Fine, then we agree.

[JFMLenin]

JFMLeninist:



We really do not need this ruling-class rubbish dumping here. The rules of the forum ban preaching, so please desist. If you want to spout more of this mytsical crap, naff off to OI, and waste some space there.
It is not ruling-class rubbish, preaching, or mystical crap. I'm answering the question. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anybody or attempting to influence anybody's thought, I am giving you my reasoning for why I answered #3, that's all. There is no reason why belief and leftism cannot exist together, organized dogmatic fascism and leftism cannot, but that is not what I follow. I just think it's a cool story, don't listen to it if you don't want to, but I'm just giving you my reasoning. Tis the nature of the question to answer so, potentially. Belief is not only for the ruling-class, it is for all who accept it, but that's all it is, is belief, not dogma or organized religion. I'm not preaching anything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JFMLenin; if you persist you might find yourself restricted to the OI section whether you like it or not.

Here are the relevant rules:


I heard you have rules against preaching, is this true?

Yes.

1) Justifying religious hierarchy, Preaching to or converting other members is not tolerated and religious ideas belong in religious discussions.

2) If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” sub forum in OI.

3) Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individuals overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum. Though this is not to say people won't be held accountable for otherwise unacceptable behaviour.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq_whatisrestrict

[JFMLenin]

JFMLenin; if you persist you might find yourself restricted to the OI section whether you like it or not.

Here are the relevant rules:




Fine, but perhaps such a question should go in the OI forum in the future then, because the available answers open it up for such responses.

[MarxSchmarx]

Rosa:

Seeing as how the discussion has moved on, I'll have to postpone the bulk of it for another day. However it would be rude to let 2 things you said stand without directly responding to them, so here goes.

Briefly on your points:


Well, to return the compliment: having read through this, all I see are the very tired, and even older ideas of traditional philosophy: the desire to go behind the material world, and access a hidden world of 'essences' by the mere operation of thought.
This is actually a good way of putting it: "the mere operation of thought." Well it's as poetic as the rest of the "traditionalists", it may very well be a problem beyond the ken of philosophy, and difficult to communicate.

Maybe I'm missing the broader point, but...

Difficult, but I'm not entirely sure it is impossible. I am not a linguist, but it is hard for me to picture than any linguistic description of the world can ever be complete.

Actually I'm tempted to invoke a something "Goedelian" about language, and especially how it deals with the self, but as I'm neither a professional philosopher nor a linguist I can only conjecture.

Be that as it may, it may as yet happen that somebody expresses these experiences that are so hard to pin down in words but still strike me as very real. It hasn't happened yet, but, then again, it took longer than it really should have for other essentially conceptual breakthroughs like differential calculus, the class struggle or natural selection to make their way into our language.



Now, you are tempted to accuse me of 'a priori' dogmatics. Either substantiate this, or withdraw it please.

Tempted , again , madam, but I won't go so far as to do it. Because I can't be bothered to substantiate or pressured to withdraw. So I will comment on the temptation, going no further.:D

[Louise Michel]

So you don't have to scroll back I asked this question: (couldn't get the quote within a quote to work!)



Tony Blair exists.
How do you, Rosa, know Tony Blair exists?


Rosa replied:



Louise:
It does not matter how I know this, empirical sentences about him have a different logic to metaphysical pseudo-propositions, and that is the point.

But, if there is no way to demonstrate an empirical fact or proposition then:

T1: Tony Blair exists
T2: Consciousness exists

both have exactly the same logic.

If it really doesn't matter how you know the empirical world exists the idea of a statement based on the empirical world becomes nonsense.

How do you demonstrate that:

The moon is made of green cheese

is false?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JFMLenin:


Fine, but perhaps such a question should go in the OI forum in the future then, because the available answers open it up for such responses.

No chance; this is a revolutionary left board, and we will discuss whatever we like in this section that we think relates to philosophy.

You can, perhaps, air your views in more receptive surroundings in the 'Christian Radicals' group:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=101

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


But, if there is no way to demonstrate an empirical fact or proposition then:

T1: Tony Blair exists

T2: Consciousness exists

both have exactly the same logic.

Not so; 'consciousness' has a legitimate use in ordinary life in the way I mentioned, and so does 'Tony Blair'. However, if you started using 'Tony Blair' as say, a verb, or as an abstract noun as part of a philosophical theory, or in some other odd way, then these two sentences would indeed be logically closer.

The problem with:

T1: Tony Blair exists

is that it is either necessarily true or it is senseless.

It is necessarily true if there is an individual called Tony Blair, since in that case, it follows from the fact that there is such an individual that he exists. And if that is so, then its contradictory:

T3: Tony Blair does not exist

is senseless. This is because, if there is no one who answers to the name 'Tony Blair', then the T3 is not in fact about Tony Blair, since there is no such person, and so there is nothing for the predicate '...does not exist' to be false of.

On the other hand, if there is no one who answers to the name 'Blair', then T1 is senseless anyway, since, once more, there is nothing for the predicate '...exists' to be true of.

This has prompted many analytic philosophers to argue, alongside Kant, that '...exists' is not a predicate (or rather, it's not a first level predicate, but a second order predicate):

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:RDKVR-O-DYIJ:people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/caplan16/existence.pdf+Negative+existentials&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Unfortunately, you will need to know a little modern logic to understand all of the above article, but most of it is reasonably clear.

This is slightly easier, but less focused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting

This is more thorough, but less easy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

On predicates and quantifiers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_predicate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_predicate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification

Now, this might be to go too far (a regrettable failing all to commonly found among logicians). But, the point is that if there is a use for this name in the language community, then sentences like T1 are pleonastic at best, grammatical at worst.

This is why I said that I do not need to verify the existence of Blair; all I need rely on is the common use of his name to name the recently retired Prime Minister of the UK.

To return to my earlier example:

T4: Tony Blair is less that 6ft tall.

Now, all of us are in the same boat here; so the logic of T4 is that we all understand this sentence before we know it is true.

This is not the case with your T1 and T2.

For example, to understand your T1 is to know it is necessarily true.

If on the other hand, you did not know who Tony Blair was, then you would not be able to understand your T1.

But, once you have been enlightened, you'd then know your T1 was necessarily true.

Of course, if Blair were to die, then your T1 would take on a different logic, which we can perhaps discuss in another thread.

None of these considerations apply to your T2, which contains a mis-used word, namely 'consciousness'.


If it really doesn't matter how you know the empirical world exists the idea of a statement based on the empirical world becomes nonsense.

How do you demonstrate that:

The moon is made of green cheese

is false?

Given what we know about the Moon, then this example of yours cannot be about the Moon that we know; so it is a senseless sentence until the correct moon is identified, so that we can determine its truth-value.

If, on the other hand, it turns out to be about our Moon, then we will have to revise our concept of this planet, [I]and our concept of cheese (in that it cannot have come from a cow or a goat).

You need to begin with much more mundane sentences, however, not esoteric ones like this. If we cannot understand the logic of the former, we stand no chance with that of the latter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marxschmarx:


This is actually a good way of putting it: "the mere operation of thought." Well it's as poetic as the rest of the "traditionalists", it may very well be a problem beyond the ken of philosophy, and difficult to communicate.

Maybe I'm missing the broader point, but...

Difficult, but I'm not entirely sure it is impossible. I am not a linguist, but it is hard for me to picture than any linguistic description of the world can ever be complete.

Actually I'm tempted to invoke a something "Goedelian" about language, and especially how it deals with the self, but as I'm neither a professional philosopher nor a linguist I can only conjecture.

Be that as it may, it may as yet happen that somebody expresses these experiences that are so hard to pin down in words but still strike me as very real. It hasn't happened yet, but, then again, it took longer than it really should have for other essentially conceptual breakthroughs like differential calculus, the class struggle or natural selection to make their way into our language.

I have to say, I could not for the life of me figure out what you were trying to say, nor yet how it was in any way relevant to what I had earlier posted.


Tempted , again , madam, but I won't go so far as to do it. Because I can't be bothered to substantiate or pressured to withdraw. So I will comment on the temptation, going no further.

Then you, sir, are less honourable than I had imagined.

[Lynx]

The vast majority of my posts are directed against the dialectical mystics here, and have little or nothing to do with rectifying the use of English words.
How many posts would you say you have made to the latter?

But, even if they were, there is a world of difference between rectifying philosophical error (which has deep roots in social alientation, and so needs therapy, as Wittgenstein noted, not correction) and advising someone (or being advised) of the use of an English word. The fact that millions of ordinary human beings manage both of the latter every week shows this to be the case.
This would suggest your non-DM posts are about rectifying philosophical error rather than the use of words like 'conscious' or 'consciousness'.

Well, you can continue to amuse yourself with your short play, but, as I noted, it has little to do with the points I wish to make.
Alice: If we are in agreement that the word 'conscious' can refer to 'being awake' or to 'being aware', then this play can end.
Cheshire Lynx: If we are in agreement that consciousness can refer to wakefulness or awareness, then this play can end.
Alice: Didn't I just say that ?!

Well then, it is a technical term (which has yet to be explained), and as such bears no relation to the ordinary use of 'consciousness'.
If it is yet to be explained, how can we know what category it falls under? It could be a technical term, or a euphemism.

No, words are either meaningful or meaningless; indicative sentences have a sense or they are senseless.
Are you speaking technically or figuratively?
I thought I thought a thought. Now I'm not.
Philosophers have too much time on their hands, so they spend most of it washing it off.

Alice: Some people say that taking LSD heightens consciousness. What do you think?
CL: I think your sentence makes sense and the words are meaningful.

[Louise Michel]

My question:


If it really doesn't matter how you know the empirical world exists the idea of a statement based on the empirical world becomes nonsense.

How do you demonstrate that:

The moon is made of green cheese

is false?

Rosa's response:


Given what we know about the Moon, then this example of yours cannot be about the Moon that we know; so it is a senseless sentence until the correct moon is identified, so that we can determine its truth-value.


But this is my point: "the moon we know."

The moon we "know" now is the same moon that was worshipped a couple of thousand years ago but then the perception of the moon was quite different. Nowadays we have a view based on scientific evidence rather than superstition. So it's not at all immaterial how we "know" things.

"The earth rests on the back of a giant turtle."

Since we have satelites and telescopes and spacecraft that orbit the earth and no giant turtle has been seen we can assume this statement is false. But in earlier human societies this sentence, based on ordinary language, would have made perfect sense and would not have been at all esoteric. Again, how we know things is very important.

So are you not taking the current level of human knowledge as your starting point for what is a reasonable empirical proposition or meaningful sentence?

"Tony Blair" is less than 6 feet tall"

Yes we can all understand this. But, in order to understand it we have to know that "Tony Blair" is a person and not, for example, the title of a novel. It makes no sense to say, "Wuthering Heights is less than 6 feet tall." We have to know about "tallness" and about a system of measurement in feet and inches.

I think there is an underlying a-priori assumption in your argument that perception = reality. Otherwise how do your (and Marx's) appeals to ordinary language make sense? I'm not saying this is wrong but if this is the case, how and what we perceive is hardly unimportant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:


How many posts would you say you have made to the latter?

No idea.


If it is yet to be explained, how can we know what category it falls under? It could be a technical term, or a euphemism.

I am not sure what you mean by 'category'.


Are you speaking technically or figuratively?

These are called 'grammatical remarks'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Louise:


The moon we "know" now is the same moon that was worshipped a couple of thousand years ago but then the perception of the moon was quite different. Nowadays we have a view based on scientific evidence rather than superstition. So it's not at all immaterial how we "know" things.

Depends on your criterion of identity for religious and/or planetary objects.


Since we have satelites and telescopes and spacecraft that orbit the earth and no giant turtle has been seen we can assume this statement is false. But in earlier human societies this sentence, based on ordinary language, would have made perfect sense and would not have been at all esoteric. Again, how we know things is very important.

It is not so much how we know things, but what criteria of application is being used.


So are you not taking the current level of human knowledge as your starting point for what is a reasonable empirical proposition or meaningful sentence?

I do not think I mentioned knowledge.


But, in order to understand it we have to know that "Tony Blair" is a person and not, for example, the title of a novel. It makes no sense to say, "Wuthering Heights is less than 6 feet tall." We have to know about "tallness" and about a system of measurement in feet and inches.

I agree, but is there a deep mystery here?


I think there is an underlying a-priori assumption in your argument that perception = reality.

There are no 'underlying' assumptions in what I say, other than that ordinary language is alright as it is (but see below).

And there are certainly none relating to perception. I can't think what made you suppose there were.

Moreover, I have already indicated that 'reality' (used philosophically) is an empty term; so I certainly would not use it (except to show that this was the case).


Otherwise how do your (and Marx's) appeals to ordinary language make sense? I'm not saying this is wrong but if this is the case, how and what we perceive is hardly unimportant.

I 'know' no such thing; any attempt to undermine ordinary language self-destructs.

In addition, any attempt to make sense depends on ordinary language; and this can be asserted with some confidence, since it is in ordinary language itself.

Now, we are moving far from the topic of this thread, so may I suggest that if you want to discuss this further/pick my brains, you begin another thread?

[Louise Michel]

Now, we are moving far from the topic of this thread, so may I suggest that if you want to discuss this further/pick my brains, you begin another thread?


I think I'll leave it at that but thanks for the suggestion.

[DesertShark]

DS:

What's not clear? People use "this mysterious entity (if is in an 'entity') called 'the self'" "to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words." The relationship is the use of a word ("self") to talk about something (a 'thing' people believe is real and/or separate from everything else); people do it all the time, not just with that word, but with other words like 'freedom' or 'society.' [Now I'm not bringing those words up to begin a long drawn out discussion about them, I was just using them as an example.]
You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
Before you are inclined to believe me that individual people believe they are separate from everything? Or before you are inclined to believe me that individuals use "self" in their speech? In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation.
From dictionary.com:

Note: self is used in the formation of innumerable compounds, usually of obvious signification, in most of which it denotes either the agent or the object of the action expressed by the word with which it is joined, or the person in behalf of whom it is performed, or the person or thing to, for, or towards whom or which a quality, attribute, or feeling expressed by the following word belongs, is directed, or is exerted, or from which it proceeds; or it denotes the subject of, or object affected by, such action, quality, attribute, feeling, or the like; as, self-abandoning, self-abnegation, self-abhorring, self-absorbed, self-accusing, self-adjusting, self-balanced, self-boasting, self-canceled, self-combating, self-commendation, self-condemned, self-conflict, self-conquest, self-constituted, self-consumed, self-contempt, self-controlled, self-deceiving, self-denying, self-destroyed, self-disclosure, self-display, self-dominion, self-doomed, self-elected, self-evolved, self-exalting, self-excusing, self-exile, self-fed, self-fulfillment, self-governed, self-harming, self-helpless, self-humiliation, self-idolized, self-inflicted, self-improvement, self-instruction, self-invited, self-judging, self-justification, self-loathing, self-loving, self-maintenance, self-mastered, self-nourishment, self-perfect, self-perpetuation, self-pleasing, self-praising, self-preserving, self-questioned, self-relying, self-restraining, self-revelation, self-ruined, self-satisfaction, self-support, self-sustained, self-sustaining, self-tormenting, self-troubling, self-trust, self-tuition, self-upbraiding, self-valuing, self-worshiping, and many others.
The following are sentences found on dictionary.com:

For "self":
"An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck)
"He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan)
"For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates)
a living wage for self and family
"Those who liked their real selves." --Addison
A man's self may be the worst fellow to converse with in the world. --Pope
The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. --Sir W. Hamilton
She was beauty's self. --Thomson
"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." [Alan Watts]

For "herself":
She herself wrote the letter.
She supports herself.
She gave herself a facial massage. He asked her for a picture of herself.
She found out that the others were even more nervous than herself.
After a few weeks of rest, she will be herself again.
She bought herself a new car. She sculpted a likeness of herself.

For "himself":
He cut himself.
He congratulated himself.
He himself found the courage.
But he himself returned from the quarries. --Judges iii. 19
David hid himself in the field. --1 Sam. xx. 24

For "ourself":
It is for ourself that we should strive for greater knowledge.
We have taken unto ourself such powers as may be necessary.

For "yourself":
Don't blame yourself. Did you ever ask yourself “why”? You can think for yourself.
The surest way is to do it yourself.
Did you buy yourself a gift?
Of which right now ye han yourselve heard. --Chaucer
Why should you be so cruel to yourself ? --Milton

For "oneself":
One often hurts oneself accidentally.
One makes more friends by being oneself than by putting on airs.
One can congratulate oneself on one's victories.




That's not a scientific claim, it was a thought I had from observations of people communicating. I was trying to draw out a discussion on this phenomenon. Hence why I said the following:
Indeed not; I was being ironic. If it had have been, you'd have the evidence -- which you don't.
Irony is easily lost in written statements because large parts of communication (body language, voice tone, etc. which would make the irony noticeable) are not present.



If it looks like a sheep, does it mean its a sheep? Not always. It could be a person wearing a sheep costume. Just because something appears to be one thing, it doesn't mean that it is. What I said was meant to promote discussion on the idea, not the linguistics/semantics/syntax/language use/etc. I saw that you had already addressed that issue, so I was attempting to promote discussion beyond it. I don't actually care about the linguistic side of all of this, I'm interested in how the belief that one is separate from everything shapes that individual's perception of the world and influences their actions -so not philosophy of language, but metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics.
These side issues seem to interest you. Naturally, you are welcome to pursue them (in the science section). But they boor me rigid since they are not philosophical questions, but rather trite psychological puzzles.
Indeed, that's why I brought them up and don't believe them to be "side issues." I don't see how these are science issues or "trite psychological puzzles", when they have implications in at least 4, possibly 5, branches of philosophy (I italicized them above because I already mentioned them). If that bores you, then don't respond to the post and/or get involved in the discussion.

[Hoxhaist]

I think there is definitely something more than physical to the self because after death the body remains until nature absorbs it

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


Before you are inclined to believe me that individual people believe they are separate from everything? Or before you are inclined to believe me that individuals use "self" in their speech? In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation.

Many, including the Dialectical Mystics here, actually believe they are united and/or interconnected with everything in the entire universe.

But, my scepticism was in fact directed at your comments about 'the self', which is why I posted this comment:


You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.

Then you quoted the dictionary


Note: self is used in the formation of innumerable compounds, usually of obvious signification, in most of which it denotes either the agent or the object of the action expressed by the word with which it is joined, or the person in behalf of whom it is performed, or the person or thing to, for, or towards whom or which a quality, attribute, or feeling expressed by the following word belongs, is directed, or is exerted, or from which it proceeds; or it denotes the subject of, or object affected by, such action, quality, attribute, feeling, or the like; as, self-abandoning, self-abnegation, self-abhorring, self-absorbed, self-accusing, self-adjusting, self-balanced, self-boasting, self-canceled, self-combating, self-commendation, self-condemned, self-conflict, self-conquest, self-constituted, self-consumed, self-contempt, self-controlled, self-deceiving, self-denying, self-destroyed, self-disclosure, self-display, self-dominion, self-doomed, self-elected, self-evolved, self-exalting, self-excusing, self-exile, self-fed, self-fulfillment, self-governed, self-harming, self-helpless, self-humiliation, self-idolized, self-inflicted, self-improvement, self-instruction, self-invited, self-judging, self-justification, self-loathing, self-loving, self-maintenance, self-mastered, self-nourishment, self-perfect, self-perpetuation, self-pleasing, self-praising, self-preserving, self-questioned, self-relying, self-restraining, self-revelation, self-ruined, self-satisfaction, self-support, self-sustained, self-sustaining, self-tormenting, self-troubling, self-trust, self-tuition, self-upbraiding, self-valuing, self-worshiping, and many others.

Nothing there that I could see about 'the self', let alone an ordinary sentence, in ordinary circumstances that uses this term.

But what of this?


For "self":
"An actor's instrument is the self" (Joan Juliet Buck)
"He would walk a little first along the southern walls, shed his European self, fully enter this world" (Howard Kaplan)
"For some of us, the self's natural doubts are given in mesmerizing amplification by way of critics' negative assessments of our writing" (Joyce Carol Oates)
a living wage for self and family
"Those who liked their real selves." --Addison
A man's self may be the worst fellow to converse with in the world. --Pope
The self, the I, is recognized in every act of intelligence as the subject to which that act belongs. It is I that perceive, I that imagine, I that remember, I that attend, I that compare, I that feel, I that will, I that am conscious. --Sir W. Hamilton
She was beauty's self. --Thomson
"Trying to define yourself is like trying to bite your own teeth." [Alan Watts]

Two mentions of 'the self'; one of these is involves a critic trying to summarise or express what an actor is trying to do -- hardly an ordinary use of this term, and we certainly do not know the background philosophical theory that motivated the use of this expression. The other is so crammed with metaphor, it is hard to take it literally. You'll be quoting critics' use of 'god' or 'royal prerogative' next...

Not a secure basis for drawing sound conclusions about the ordinary use of 'the self', quoting petty-bourgeois authors, philosphers and critics, who, naturally, have bought into this Platonic/Christian/Cartesian myth, as have many comrades here.

What next?


For "herself":
She herself wrote the letter.
She supports herself.
She gave herself a facial massage. He asked her for a picture of herself.
She found out that the others were even more nervous than herself.
After a few weeks of rest, she will be herself again.
She bought herself a new car. She sculpted a likeness of herself.

For "himself":
He cut himself.
He congratulated himself.
He himself found the courage.
But he himself returned from the quarries. --Judges iii. 19
David hid himself in the field. --1 Sam. xx. 24

For "ourself":
It is for ourself that we should strive for greater knowledge.
We have taken unto ourself such powers as may be necessary.

For "yourself":
Don't blame yourself. Did you ever ask yourself “why”? You can think for yourself.
The surest way is to do it yourself.
Did you buy yourself a gift?
Of which right now ye han yourselve heard. --Chaucer
Why should you be so cruel to yourself ? --Milton

For "oneself":
One often hurts oneself accidentally.
One makes more friends by being oneself than by putting on airs.
One can congratulate oneself on one's victories.

A total waste of space since I have already said that these are legitimate ordinary uses of 'self'.


Irony is easily lost in written statements because large parts of communication (body language, voice tone, etc. which would make the irony noticeable) are not present.

Not necessarily so; some of the greatest literary examples of irony were manifestly in written form. In this instance, what was lacking in the receiver (viz: you) was the required sensitivity.


Indeed, that's why I brought them up and don't believe them to be "side issues." I don't see how these are science issues or "trite psychological puzzles", when they have implications in at least 4, possibly 5, branches of philosophy (I italicized them above because I already mentioned them). If that bores you, then don't respond to the post and/or get involved in the discussion.

I am sorry, but I couldn't locate these alleged "4...[or] 5 branches of philosophy".

Perhaps you were being ironic...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoxhaist:


I think there is definitely something more than physical to the self because after death the body remains until nature absorbs it

As I surmised, you are a dualist, not a materialist.

Take my advice: don't admit that embarrassing fact to your fellow Hoxha worhippers...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We really do not need this ruling-class rubbish dumping here. The rules of the forum ban preaching, so please desist. If you want to spout more of this mytsical crap, naff off to OI, and waste some space there.

Says the person who doesn't think that consciousness is a process of the brain.

Using your car analogy from earlier, but in a different way:

Car = Body
Wheels = Brain
Car moving = Consciousness

A primary part of a car's/body's function is to move/be conscious. Wheels/brains take a direct part in this process. If the wheels/brains are removed or otherwise interfered with, the process of moving/being conscious is thus interfered with also.

Basically, we're complex biological machinery, and consciousness is a continuous function/ongoing process involved in the larger examples to different degrees.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Says the person who doesn't think that consciousness is a process of the brain.

Unfortunately for you this sentence lacks a sense, since it contains an empty word, namely 'consciousness' -- either that, or this word is being used in a technical sense, and as such is unrelated to what we mean by 'consciousness' when we speak about it in everyday life.

And, Noxy baby, you are mistaken; I have never denied this, since the denial of non-sense is also non-sensical. What I have said is in fact contained in the paragraph above.

Perhaps you weren't conscious of this?


Using your car analogy from earlier, but in a different way:

Car = Body
Wheels = Brain
Car moving = Consciousness

A primary part of a car's/body's function is to move/be conscious. Wheels/brains take a direct part in this process. If the wheels/brains are removed or otherwise interfered with, the process of moving/being conscious is thus interfered with also.

Alas, once more, your weak attempt to construct an argument using sophomoric logic also fails.

For example,


Car moving = Consciousness

1) 'Car moving' is a verb phrase, whereas 'consciousness' is an abstract noun. In that case, there is no way they can be equated.

2) Once again, this 'equation' of yours contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), which renders it less than useless.

Either that, or you are once again using this word in a new, and as yet unexplained sense.

We wait with bated breath for enlightenment (and have been since this theory was dreamt up by the ancient Greeks/Christians).


Basically, we're complex biological machinery, and consciousness is a continuous function/ongoing process involved in the larger examples to different degrees.

Nice rhetorical flourish, alas ruined by that empty word again.

So, you can return to cleaning test tubes now...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) 'Car moving' is a verb phrase, whereas 'consciousness' is an abstract noun. In that case, there is no way they can be equated.

Irrelevant semantics. They're both processes.


2) Once again, this 'equation' of yours contains an empty word (namely 'consciousness'), which renders it less than useless.

Either that, or you are once again using this word in a new, and as yet unexplained sense.No actually, "consciousness" has a specific meaning. Which I'm using.


We wait with bated breath for enlightenment (and have been since this theory was dreamt up by the ancient Greeks/Christians).What theory? All I'm saying is that consciousness is a process generated by a specific part of the human body, namely the brain. That seems to tally with what we actually know about the human body.


Nice rhetorical flourish, alas ruined by that empty word again.

So, you can return to cleaning test tubes now...Why don't you focus on what's being said, rather than picking at my choice of words like some persnickety English teacher?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Irrelevant semantics. They're both processes.

Irrelevant excuse for sloppy thought.


No actually, "consciousness" has a specific meaning. Which I'm using.

Except you can't tell us what it is.


What theory? All I'm saying is that consciousness is a process generated by a specific part of the human body, namely the brain. That seems to tally with what we actually know about the human body.

You clearly haven't read this thread.


Why don't you focus on what's being said, rather than picking at my choice of words like some persnickety English teacher?

It's not my fault if you can't write clearly.

[Hoxhaist]

Hoxhaist:



As I surmised, you are a dualist, not a materialist.

Take my advice: don't admit that embarrassing fact to your fellow Hoxha worhippers...
I dont think there is a real answer to what the self is, only speculation. I dont think our mind can ever really completely understand how it works totally because to do that it would need an objective point of reference that the mind cant get. (Im not a philosopher...)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoxhaist:


I dont think there is a real answer to what the self is, only speculation. I dont think our mind can ever really completely understand how it works totally because to do that it would need an objective point of reference that the mind cant get. (Im not a philosopher...)

Well, as I have been arguing throughout this thread, the phrase 'the self' is devoid of meaning, so it is not a question of whether we can understand what it is any more than it is a question how we can understand the Adhedral triangle.

[The 'Adhedral triangle' is a fictional name (from some novel or other I once read), and does not name a triangle of any sort.]

[DesertShark]

DS:
But, my scepticism was in fact directed at your comments about 'the self', which is why I posted this comment:

You will need to give me an ordinanry sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.
I believe you are referring to my comment (this is where your skepticism is directed?):

"The Self" --> the belief one is separate from everything ('else')
Of which you said:

DS:
1) This is a re-definition, and so can have no bearing on our ordinary use of words like 'herself', 'oneself', 'yourself'.
I responded with:

to your 1): What I said is true and applicable to the ordinary use of the words you brought up ('herself', 'oneself', 'yourself') because people use those words to distinguish what they believe is their own body/self from everything else. That's actually the purpose of those words. (...)
I think it is philosophically interesting that on the whole language users believe in "I/the self" and that it exists (in addition, "others/you/they")
And so you asked for a sentence that uses "self" in ordinary language. You first brought into the discussion, "herself," "oneself," "yourself" etc. Those words are used to distinguish between peoples (usually previously mentioned, because they're reflexive pronouns). Those uses follow my initial claim about being separate. But when I gave you examples of the ordinary uses of these words, you said:

What next?

A total waste of space since I have already said that these are legitimate ordinary uses of 'self'.
If you knew they were legitimate, why ask for them? I also included sentences using just "self." Which you said,

But what of this?

Two mentions of 'the self'; one of these is involves a critic trying to summarise or express what an actor is trying to do -- hardly an ordinary use of this term, and we certainly do not know the background philosophical theory that motivated the use of this expression. The other is so crammed with metaphor, it is hard to take it literally. You'll be quoting critics' use of 'god' or 'royal prerogative' next...

Not a secure basis for drawing sound conclusions about the ordinary use of 'the self', quoting petty-bourgeois authors, philosphers and critics, who, naturally, have bought into this Platonic/Christian/Cartesian myth, as have many comrades here.
I believe there were 9 sentences and the first 8 mentioned the "self" (the last one said "yourself"). If you had taken into account when I said, "In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation," you wouldn't be making the claim that authors and artists are not part of the ordinary use.
From all of this, all I can conclude is that I don't know what you mean by "ordinary." So if you can give me an example of an "ordinary sentence," or define what you mean by "ordinary sentence" I can attempt to discuss this further.


Then you quoted the dictionary

Nothing there that I could see about 'the self', let alone an ordinary sentence, in ordinary circumstances that uses this term.
Yea, I just thought it was interesting that there were so many uses of "self."


Not necessarily so; some of the greatest literary examples of irony were manifestly in written form. In this instance, what was lacking in the receiver (viz: you) was the required sensitivity.
That's interesting, what examples did you have mind when you wrote this? Its hard to be "sensitive" to irony when I was trying to take everything you said at face value so as not to be disrespectful or misunderstand what you were saying. If you jump back and forth, it becomes difficult to know when you are saying something you actually mean.


I am sorry, but I couldn't locate these alleged "4...[or] 5 branches of philosophy".

Perhaps you were being ironic...
I was not being ironic. Like I said, I italicized them, they were at the bottom of the quote; and were as follows: "metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics."

[Hoxhaist]

Hoxhaist:



Well, as I have been arguing throughout this thread, the phrase 'the self' is devoid of meaning, so it is not a question of whether we can understand what it is any more than it is a question how we can understand the Adhedral triangle.

[The 'Adhedral triangle' is a fictional name (from some novel or other I once read), and does not name a triangle of any sort.]
Then I think we agree!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


And so you asked for a sentence that uses "self" in ordinary language. You first brought into the discussion, "herself," "oneself," "yourself" etc. Those words are used to distinguish between peoples (usually previously mentioned, because they're reflexive pronouns). Those uses follow my initial claim about being separate. But when I gave you examples of the ordinary uses of these words, you said:

Not so; in fact I said this:


You will need to give me an ordinary sentence, used in an ordinary situation, that contains the phrase 'the self' before I am inclined to believe you.

Notice the definite article.


If you knew they were legitimate, why ask for them?

I didn't. Re-read what I actually said, not what you would like me to have said.


I believe there were 9 sentences and the first 8 mentioned the "self" (the last one said "yourself"). If you had taken into account when I said, "In either case, have you ever read a story? All stories are created on this foundation," you wouldn't be making the claim that authors and artists are not part of the ordinary use.
From all of this, all I can conclude is that I don't know what you mean by "ordinary." So if you can give me an example of an "ordinary sentence," or define what you mean by "ordinary sentence" I can attempt to discuss this further.

Once more, all wasted effort.

By 'ordinary sentence', I mean one that we are inclined to use in everyday life.

In fact, you yourself have given several examples of these, but unfortunately not of the required sort, since you seem to think the definite article can be ignored.


That's interesting, what examples did you have mind when you wrote this? Its hard to be "sensitive" to irony when I was trying to take everything you said at face value so as not to be disrespectful or misunderstand what you were saying. If you jump back and forth, it becomes difficult to know when you are saying something you actually mean.

Perhaps we can begin a new thread on this. Apologies if I misled you.

Until then, maybe this will help:

http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-70


Like I said, I italicized them, they were at the bottom of the quote; and were as follows: "metaphysics, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, logic, and/or perhaps ethics."

Apologies once more; I should read your posts with more care than you read mine.

[Decolonize The Left]

Rosa, does not the fourth option in the poll satisfy your position on this question?

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


does not the fourth option in the poll satisfy your position on this question?

Well no; I dealt with this earlier:


A 'linguistic imposition' is where you impose a word on something, but here we are not even clear what it would be to suggest there is any sense to be made of the question whether there is a something here to have anything imposed upon it.

This is not a factual question in other words, but one of making sense.

Here's an analogy: the question "Is there a creature called 'Big Foot'?"

Someone could say, "Ah, but you have imposed a name on this creature. It might be called something different. Sasquatch, perhaps."

Here, there is a factual question that makes sense ("Does this creature exist?") and an additional question as to whether we have got its name right. You can't solve either by pure thought.

Neither option exists with your question.