Dak
mentat
Just because it cannot be materially verified (we can obviously give material gifts, but that's not a guarantee of sincerity) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We created these categories because there is something there.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
Now you're being superstitious. Furthermore, you make it sound as though those categories were created intentionally, that specific agents can be pointed to. Again, this is not the case. They happened as accidents of language; there need not be any reason for their creation other than that language opens a space for them to be represented as such. It is true that loving action might really exist; but the representational methods of speech do not, nor do they need to, correspond perfectly to reality. Language refers to the world, but words don't find their ontology in the things they refer to.
Dak
mentat
I don't think it's superstition. "I think, therefore I am", "I love, therefore there is love"
Dak
mentat
Not to change the subject, but I have to point out the absolute uselessness of this statement:
They didn't define what "engaged in combat" means.
They didn't define what "engaged in combat" means.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Descartes isn't helping your argument. The Cartesian division of body and mind contributes to the homuncule concept: the "little human" inside the "big human" (i.e. the spirit controlling the body). You're making a basic assumption that isn't supported by anything other than the common sense justification: "That's just how it is."
There is "love" only insofar as people love; there is no love that preexists human behavior, that humans can then "give" to one another. You said that we created the category because "there is something there." That's where you go wrong. We didn't create them because there's something there; it appears that there is something there because we created them.
There is "love" only insofar as people love; there is no love that preexists human behavior, that humans can then "give" to one another. You said that we created the category because "there is something there." That's where you go wrong. We didn't create them because there's something there; it appears that there is something there because we created them.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
It does according to what you said. You said: "We created these categories because there is something there."
Furthermore, you're entirely confused about this process, in my opinion. "We labeled it because we created it"; what does this even mean? The appearance of the category has to coincide with its labeling; there is no "space" in between its creation and its "labeling," as you call it. Language, as a material field (which I maintain that it is, although speech complicates this), contains the possibility of all categories. At the same moment of their "creation" (more appropriately, their "coming-into-being"), the name exists.
Furthermore, you're entirely confused about this process, in my opinion. "We labeled it because we created it"; what does this even mean? The appearance of the category has to coincide with its labeling; there is no "space" in between its creation and its "labeling," as you call it. Language, as a material field (which I maintain that it is, although speech complicates this), contains the possibility of all categories. At the same moment of their "creation" (more appropriately, their "coming-into-being"), the name exists.
Dak
mentat
We coin words as the need arises. It isn't "love" until we label it "love" in English. Technically we don't have to label it at all, but for communication purposes we do so.
I exist. I feel a feeling. This feeling does not exist before I feel it, and does not exist without me obviously. I wish to express this feeling so I label it. I call it "love".
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's not the way it works at all. That's a horribly simplified view of how language works.
Your experience of love doesn't create it as a concept that can be possessed and given. Furthermore, what you call "love" might not be recognizable by someone else as such. Finally, everything you're describing is still confined by action: you "experience" a sensation, which has to be directed toward someone. Your confidence in the concept betrays a misunderstanding in the logic of the process. It's a very idealistic and mystical view.
Your experience of love doesn't create it as a concept that can be possessed and given. Furthermore, what you call "love" might not be recognizable by someone else as such. Finally, everything you're describing is still confined by action: you "experience" a sensation, which has to be directed toward someone. Your confidence in the concept betrays a misunderstanding in the logic of the process. It's a very idealistic and mystical view.
Dak
mentat
It is simplistic (which I see as a virtue, not a vice), and there are certainly limitations in comparison between people, just like you cannot quantify it. I don't see anything "mystical" about it.
Also, love doesn't have to be directed at someone. It can be directed at some thing (although some would, and iirc some languages have different words for "love" for a person and "love" for a thing.)
Einherjar86
Active Member
My point was that it's an action; loving a thing is still an action directed toward an object.
You're flipping the directionality of meaning; you're saying that something we call "love" exists prior to our naming it, and that it subsists without our naming it and that our naming it correctly and accurately communicates the ideal "love." This is mysticism; you may not want to see it that way, but it's essentially how you're characterizing it.
You're flipping the directionality of meaning; you're saying that something we call "love" exists prior to our naming it, and that it subsists without our naming it and that our naming it correctly and accurately communicates the ideal "love." This is mysticism; you may not want to see it that way, but it's essentially how you're characterizing it.
Dak
mentat
Accuracy would be relative to the feeling vs the definition agreed upon or sometimes merely understood by the speaker of the language.
The feeling exists prior to the naming.
The feeling exists prior to the naming.
Einherjar86
Active Member
But "naming" is not something one person does. There's no such thing as a "private language."
Some combination of material factors in your brain produces some sensation, emotion, discomfort, pleasure, etc. This is a result of forces acting upon you; it does not originate in your body, but arises from an amalgamation of forces that work to produce this sensation you feel. The ability for humans to experience a sensation known as "love" was only possible after the concept/notion/word for it already, somehow, came into use. It isn't as though one day someone felt something and suddenly realized she needed a name for it. The ability to feel the sensation requires that it be understood as love. Do you see the paradox?
This combination of forces is almost always certainly unique. Even if the same combination occurs more than once in your body, and even if it occurs in someone else's body, it does not occur that exact same way in everyone's body. I.E. what you refer to as "love" is not someone else's "love," is not someone else's "love," etc.
Bruno Latour said (as I'm sure you recall) that smallpox did not exist prior to its discovery. "Love" works even better in this case. With diseases we can use microscopes to see the organisms, the viruses, the bacteria, we can point to it and identify it.
I challenge you to show me "love" under a microscope. I challenge you to find the exact combination of material forces that create the sensation you call love, and prove to me that it's the same as mine and everyone else's. Because when we use the abstract ideal "Love", this is what the language insinuates: that "Love" is a constant, universal ideal that accurately describes each person's internal sensations, and that is somehow subsists without anyone's experiencing and directing it.
Some combination of material factors in your brain produces some sensation, emotion, discomfort, pleasure, etc. This is a result of forces acting upon you; it does not originate in your body, but arises from an amalgamation of forces that work to produce this sensation you feel. The ability for humans to experience a sensation known as "love" was only possible after the concept/notion/word for it already, somehow, came into use. It isn't as though one day someone felt something and suddenly realized she needed a name for it. The ability to feel the sensation requires that it be understood as love. Do you see the paradox?
This combination of forces is almost always certainly unique. Even if the same combination occurs more than once in your body, and even if it occurs in someone else's body, it does not occur that exact same way in everyone's body. I.E. what you refer to as "love" is not someone else's "love," is not someone else's "love," etc.
Bruno Latour said (as I'm sure you recall) that smallpox did not exist prior to its discovery. "Love" works even better in this case. With diseases we can use microscopes to see the organisms, the viruses, the bacteria, we can point to it and identify it.
I challenge you to show me "love" under a microscope. I challenge you to find the exact combination of material forces that create the sensation you call love, and prove to me that it's the same as mine and everyone else's. Because when we use the abstract ideal "Love", this is what the language insinuates: that "Love" is a constant, universal ideal that accurately describes each person's internal sensations, and that is somehow subsists without anyone's experiencing and directing it.
Dak
mentat
I'm not making the argument you are trying to shoot down. I think we mostly agree, except you are saying we name things before they exist. Regardless of the accuracy respective to the person/concept, this simply isn't the case. Even if our attempt at explanation/labeling is poor, that has nothing to do with what came first. Of course language isn't private. We wouldn't have a word for "love" if only one person ever felt it.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I digressed or as Ein stated regressed in this convo. I can't keep up with you guys lol. It's exhausting.
Here's a clip of Neil Tyson DeGrasse.
Here's a clip of Neil Tyson DeGrasse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dak
mentat
I don't see what's narrowminded about that (other than that humans do converse very crudely with animals).
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
It is my opinion that often the greatest critiques to ideas come from somewhat relative but separate ideas and not counter positions, in large part to being more accurately familiar with them.
I read some work where "Voluntarism/Voluntaryism" was critiqued as being weak because voluntary is not the same thing as consensual. While I could easily dismiss this as a semantics issue (the blogger I read this via seems to make a lot of their arguments in terms similar to Ein, and then somehow handwave where their conclusions don't line up with rejection of the self, etc) I think there is a legitimate point made. "Consensualism" might be a more accurate term, since theoretically everything we do is voluntary excluding being physically forced to do it while struggling against it.
For example: I pay my taxes voluntarily, but not consensually.
I read some work where "Voluntarism/Voluntaryism" was critiqued as being weak because voluntary is not the same thing as consensual. While I could easily dismiss this as a semantics issue (the blogger I read this via seems to make a lot of their arguments in terms similar to Ein, and then somehow handwave where their conclusions don't line up with rejection of the self, etc) I think there is a legitimate point made. "Consensualism" might be a more accurate term, since theoretically everything we do is voluntary excluding being physically forced to do it while struggling against it.
For example: I pay my taxes voluntarily, but not consensually.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
I think certain aspects of this article relate to this thread.
http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/the-male-bond/
http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/the-male-bond/
