Well, I am having quite a peaceful (peaceful means "woman visits her parents") night, so I decided to collect various writings I did online during my troublesome times. They are not completely over (both times and writings
), but I think it's time to post a bit of this and that in various places.
"Language doesnt produce meaningless nonsenses as long as people try to talk about things which really exist. Example: there are two apples on the table. So, almost every human on Earth will say: there are two apples on the table. The sad fact is that there are not two apples on the table - there is an apple and an apple. The word "two" is the nonsense, because it has nothing to do with the cruel reality and tries to simplify and classify, instead of depicting. You replace the existing objects with language names, so instead of apple and apple you now have "two apples" and, because it is easy to create meaningless words you can multiply the number of apples and finally reach the conclusion that it is possible that the "infinite" (meaningless word) number of apples exist. Since there is nothing like "two apples", because there's nothing like "two" in nature how is it possible that "infinite" number of apples exist? Things just exist by themselves and are never countable or uncountable."
"Nobody is talking nonsense, as long as he talks about things which are observable and really exist. It is obvious that there are two apples on the table, but one must be aware that he simplifies the reality with language - so we can still talk about two apples, but we must be also aware that the expression "infinite number of apples" depicts the imaginary reality that is possible to create, because our language is capable of creating them.
For example we are capable to automatically create the antonyms to almost everything. If something can be warm, something other can be cold. But is it really like that, that things are either warm or cold? They just are in this or that state, they vary in colour, temperature, density, but their physical properties aren't based on oppositions. They are never warm or cold, because these states are only the empty names, created by us to define the objects. Imagine the creature which is capable of feeling ok only in the absolute zero temperature. For such creature nothing can be "cold", because the only state it knows is absolute zero, so everything above it is "warm". So these creatures create the word "warm" for the experience of unpleasant feeling directly related to the increase of temperature of their bodies or environment. But they can't feel "cold", because there is no "cold", they are the absolute cold.
Philosophers often talk about the origins of Universe and regardless of various beliefs or theories there always come up the discussions about existence and possible state of "unexistence" (sorry, I don't know the proper English word). Why something exists? How is it possible that Universe was once only a "hot dense state" and what was outside it? It's an example of language trap, because the term "existence" is nothing more than a term depicting outside reality to which some people (thinking too much imo) automatically assign its antonym - nothingness. But what is nothingness, if not merely the word? Everything just exists. But things dont exist, because we call them "existing things", they exist regardless of our definitions and our capability of observing and analysing them. We can't observe "nothingness", because we can't observe the empty language antonym which was created by our voluntary use of language which is capable of creating pretty much any imaginary reality or object.<<<
>>>Basically, I am almost sure (almost means I would bet 100$ on my stance and maybe 5 or 10 on the opposite) that mechanics of our communication are exactly the same as in other animals, only this communication is zillions of times more complex. But not different. Dogs, birds and other animals also have their means of communication - but very limited. Evolution of humankind created powerful creatures who are capable of writing books, creating music, maintain philosophical discussions, but all this is just a very complex set of rules evolved from the simple vocalizations.
It would be great if theyve discovered some lost tribe of hominids (on Borneo, Papua or somewhere
), but since it's less than likely we must try to imagine how could it have been in the past. Hominids evolve, their communities become more and more complex, and so becomes communication. Slowly they learn that instead of various barks, growls etc. used in various situations (danger, hunting, sexual intercourse etc.) they can try to differentiate all these sounds slightly, producing longer or shorter, calmer or louder proto-words. Two cavemen sit in the cave and one, unexpectedly, decides that he needs a rock (I don't know why the heck he would need it, but it's not important for this discussion) and, assuming that he is able to produce a bit more intricate vocalizations he says to the second one (presumably standing lower in the hierarchy) "rock!". There are two loose rocks in the cave. So the other one understands and he brings him one of the rocks, but it appears that the first one isnt pleased, because he wanted the other rock. How to say
"the other rock"? Well, modern human can say "I want the other rock" or show what he means with his hands, but both our friends probably can't. The practical problem arises. So they again "learn" (unaware to themselves) that if they want something and they want it to be brought by someone other they can not only growl, but also point the finger at the object (it probably won't happen immediately in this case). Of course I may be wrong, because pointing objects with fingers may be the activity which they learned earlier than producing sounds which correspond to particular objects. It would be nice to know how children learn - do they first point at objects with hands or learn how to correlate the sound their mouths produce with the object they desire to possess. Or they learn both abilities in the same time.
Now, as for abstract notions? How are they born? This may sound weird, but I also think that they were born in the same way like the names of real objects. Let's come back to our cavemen, or maybe better let's observe their grandchilds. [;)] So there are again two rocks and again two cavemen, both capable of saying "rock" (or something sounding like "rock") and pointing finger at the object they want. But now both rocks lie in that way that one is further than the other one, but they lie on the same line of sight. So first caveman says "rock!" and points at the rock (in fact at both rocks). Now, specialized growl and gesture are both not enough, because both don't make the other caveman understand which rock he should bring. I don't know what happens in this very moment, but I believe this is how the abstract language notions are born. So maybe both learn with time that a louder shout "rock!" word will mean "the rock which is near" and simple and calm "rock" will mean "the rock which is behind the first rock". Who knows? But it's certain that producing the same sound with your mouth and making the same gesture is not enough in this case and going for the rock yourself each time your subordinate doesn't precisely understand what you mean gets a little tiresome with time. Again they have practical problem to solve and their verbal communication becomes with time a bit more intricate. Later comes writing. And so on.
Anyway, this shows that language for less complex organisms could have been merely a tool which can solve practical problems. So (I know it's a big jump - from cavemen and babies to the world of Socrates, Kant or Hegel), but isn't philosophy just this basic tool, only zillions of times more intricate, because we are zillions of times more complex beings and our societies are also? Philosophy, just like music, (or art in general), writing etc. are just means of communication of a highly evolved creatures with the other highly evolved creatures?
After all, whenever you write something, say something, paint a picture, play the piano - don't you want somebody other to read it, watch it, listen to it?"
"A question came to me: "what does it mean "how something works"? What does it mean "how"?
I, when I'm interested in something, tend to ask "why" something works in this or that way, "why" something happens. Sure, I'm not free from the "how" questions, especially when I don't understand something. But always, right after the "how" question comes the "why" question. Why do I want to know "how"? What is the nature of the question which appears to be not fixed in timespace?
Follow my thought. When you ask "why" something happens you inconsciously assume that something happens, because something happened earlier which led to the state of things which is present. It's a causal kind of question. But when you ask "how" you inconsciously try to understand/feel/experience what happens right at the very moment when you ask about it. It's like you try inconsciously to "stop" the causality.
I don't know yet how to apply this wild observation to my other thoughts, like the one that to understand philosophical problems we should understand the origins of our language and our religious thoughts and that both should be studied simultaneously.
I also think that human language can be somehow represented on some kind of graph or chart. Where questions like "how", "why", "where", "when" are represented by mathematical functions, formulas etc. In my opinion human language is largely mathematical and geometrical, because it was born in a mathematical and geometrical environment (see my post about cavemen and rocks).
For the starters you can apply my thought to the simpliest timetable. Where your plans are represented by "what" and days of the week are represented by "when".
Of course, the school timetable doesn't explain why people ask questions like "why" and "how". But at some point hominids started to ask themselves those questions, so they also must find their way into the charts."
"Body = word. Mind = meaning?
But since mind is part of the body - meaning is part of the word. Word comes first, meaning later, but it is not completely separated from the word; meaning is awereness that word was spoken.
Babies and animals produce sounds without being aware what they mean. They simply do it, because they are driven by instincts. Mature people are capable of lying (assigning different meanings to the same words), the problem is that a lie can be also easily deconstructed, so in fact lying is just the more complex baby/animal communication. The wall of "meanings" can be torn down and will reveal the naked word/sound - cry for help, will to live, lust for power."
Constructive criticism is more than welcome.
(truly, now I miss OG where you could exchange your opinions with tens of people)
