Let's take a second, maybe two, and make it so that at least one of us has thought about what you've written.
This is blatantly false:
Language exists. Punctuation exists.
I -I'm sorry, did you forget your thesis? I thought that language didn't exist?
So then I reply:
For the Cliffs Notes users among you I've bolded the relevant comment.
For my wonderfully insightful extension of the conversation I am rewarded with this gem:
The parallel structure implies that you are merely asserting the opposite of my thesis. It's great that we know our respective positions. Can you back yours up though?
Here you continue to demonstrate a critical failure in abstract thought. Just because an idea is intangible does not mean it is non-existent. For instance: the English language exists.
And now you regail us your confusion between the subjective nature of language and the existence of a language at all. To cut to the chase: I don't care that my symbol for "FISH" has no direct relation to the amalgamation of carbon that is collinear with what I call an "arm." It is great that you've grasped this distinction (really. I'm not even being sarcastic here.) but the point you've made is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. We are not dealing with the material the symbols represent, but how the symbols are arranged. Thus, if I were to invent a new system (for instance: ;alkjsdkljasfiopuewqti is the root word meaning "matter" and all words consist of prefixes or suffixes to that root describing it (I am positing the unity of energy and matter) my argument would still be valid) I would still have to follow the conventions of the system I invented in order to maintain any coherence.
I've never claimed that the world makes sense. Not to me, at least- I have a family history of being able to sense only a thin band of the electromagnetic spectrum, in addition to reflexes honed for relatively small objects traveling very slowly in relation to the speed of light. So what do I know, amirite?
But wait! I'm not claiming knowledge of the world. I'm asserting the importance of conventions in communication. Another for instance: If you call the color of this text "blue" but I call it "green" then we will begin to have fundamental (and perhaps fatal) misunderstandings.
I like how you think that this clinches it. I don't know if I've been unclear, but your response has been a bit like a KKK member at a Greenpeace meeting:
I don't care about the "basis in fact" (which is an entire topic in and of itself). I don't even care a little bit. I care about maintaining internal consistence. I would not be in the least put out if you wanted to talk about warblefs (a fictional plant from which a certain spice is extracted) so long as you carried out the conversation in correct English. (This takes as a given that you are conversing in English.)
__________________ Every time this fool be come along
He gots you noobs cryin' out fo' mom
Leave the scene lookin' like Vietnam
Might as well call him "Matt Atom Bomb"
Like his name suggests, he's quite atomic
And this fool - he likes DC Comics
Two energy swords make up his symbol
And trust me, dawg, this homie's nimble
Where? Can you touch it? Can you feel it? Can it give oral sex in the back of your dads car that one time when you were drunk and wanted to know what it felt to go the other way?
The answer is no, of course. Like most things such as morality and its ilk, language is merely a human construct that we just made out of nothing. In fact we didn't even make those things, we just talk about them. They have no grounding in reality whatsoever.
Hmmm, you appear to be confused, or else to be making a poor attempt at humour. You see what I meant when I said 'that are not only constantly changing but also entirely dependant upon common-usage, something that is almost impossible to measure', was that language is essentially an entirely subjective force built around certain signifiers people have fed to them through conditioning in childhood yet that have no physical, concrete or logical links to the things the are meant to refer to.
But I can see how that might not have come across
Meaning is subjective remember. It not my fault you can't keep up with my superior intellect. And judging a text upon its implication is folly.
So just because something cannot be seen, smelt, heard, touched, felt or otherwise measured, has been entirely made-up on the spot and exists only in the signifiers the written word create that in actual fact have no links to the world we live in it, that doesn't make it non-exisistent?
Huh.
(needless to say this is false logic as it is essentially the 'can't prove the 4sided triangle doesn't exist' kind)
Well I do care. A requirement for something to be real is that it has possible to be proven that exists in a physical sense. Otherwise we just get into the realms of ideas, or meanings. Ideas don't exist (see Anselms hilarious ontological argument for an example) in the same way that a human does for example.
But I think we may have had some kind of misunderstanding. You are talking of something as being real in that you can see its effects. The meanings something has to people for example. Or how we are structuring blobs of colour into shapes in order to convey meaning to each other. I am speaking of the foundation for such things and how there are none. Like whether a a ruler is a ruler and not a regler (as I believe the word is in French). Is one the innately correct? No, neither is, because language has no innate basis. There is no reason why a ruler shouldn't be a gtyiytg (other than being a bloody toungue-twister). I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here.
No it isn't, because the point I was trying to make initially was the fallacy of trying to tell someone how you should utilise an imaginary construct that varies from person to person, place to place and time to time; a completely subjective force. It would be like me telling you you should like Jaina the most out of the Eu. No matter how many well-constructed arguments I make, all of them our baseless because they deal in opinion, something which exists only in your head. (hmm, not sure of that example but I'm tired and so screw it)
Dealt with above. There is no 'correct' way to structure language. If you want you could argue that it makes logical sense to arrange things in a certain way because the purpose of language is to convey meaning and if your method of doing so is inadequate then you might as well not bother, yet in most cases meaning is easy to convey, with only a few cases of stressing words or phrases otherwise, so those who do try to correct others even when this isn't the case are pretty much just being anal for the hell of it.
'Have to' is a strong word.
No offence, but that's a little stupid of you then. I mean, why disagree with a guy and then start talking about something completely different. I don't think I can be blamed for repeating my initial point when you haven't given your opinion on it. And why start another conversation in the first place when its clear I want to talk about my point?
I'm getting a little confused now.
Edit: In case you were wondering, yes, I am a Nihilist. Just so's you know.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 13th, 2009 at 12:38 AM
That and noone would be able to stand listening to him for long.
Win.
Oh and DE, first time you've made a QFP
__________________ Every time this fool be come along
He gots you noobs cryin' out fo' mom
Leave the scene lookin' like Vietnam
Might as well call him "Matt Atom Bomb"
Like his name suggests, he's quite atomic
And this fool - he likes DC Comics
Two energy swords make up his symbol
And trust me, dawg, this homie's nimble
Last edited by mattatom on Dec 13th, 2009 at 01:01 AM
Should feel honoured, not many people make it, though Lucien seems to get there alot.
__________________ Every time this fool be come along
He gots you noobs cryin' out fo' mom
Leave the scene lookin' like Vietnam
Might as well call him "Matt Atom Bomb"
Like his name suggests, he's quite atomic
And this fool - he likes DC Comics
Two energy swords make up his symbol
And trust me, dawg, this homie's nimble
u rnt evn usng teh rite defnitshun v exst ur rong- teh idea exsts vn f u cnt pnt 2 t [etc. I think that by now the point is eminently clear, so I'll revert to convention]
While it is true that there is not a physical manifestation of English (except perhaps the collected writings of its users) it is not true that there is no English language. The common usage that you so boldly defended () classifies "English" as a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. Therefore, under the rules you've accepted by initiating conversation with me, English is a thing.
Semantics aside, I would have to ask what you are using to converse if not English. But that would be a word trap, which is unfair. So I wont.
Not so. That one cannot prove a four sided triangle is merely an exercise in semantics- the position relies exclusively on the disconnect between language (triangle) and form (three sided polygon). It amounts to "prove there is no such thing as a four sided three sided polygon." Gibberish.
I am taking a different track. I do not care one whit about what you are proving or disproving or verbally fellating in the back of a cartruck. Not one whit. I care about the way you are conveying meaning.
We have both agreed that the word "square" has a concrete definition. The definition is an arrow that points to the platonic idea of "square." The issue at hand is how important the vehicle you use to deliver that idea is. You called me out for telling people how to package their ideas. The link was an informative illustration about what is the correct way to wrap an idea: grammar and punctuation are methods of sending meaning:
Let's eat, Grandpa.
Let's eat Grandpa.
Those two sentences are very different, but only because of the punctuation used to specify the meaning.
I think you see what I am saying, so I'll move on.
...
You're making the same mistake he did- you are taking yourself too seriously. Just because an idea exists doesn't make it true. The idea of Social Darwinism exists (in that I know of the idea) but it is not correct. Anselm's argument (way to know the name beyond simply "the ontological argument") makes a claim but that claim may not reflect reality. It is downright revisionism to say that it doesn't exist or didn't happen.
I think that this is the core of the problem. You are forgetting that there are like a bajillion languages that are not English. I wouldn't dream of telling a Spanish speaker what the correct parsing of "me llamo pablo. me gusta tacos!" is. Never in a million years.
You've decided to use English "blobs of color." This means that the context of your symbols is at least partly contingent upon my knowledge of those symbols. I've never said that English is the correct language. I've said only that there is a correct English language.
Common usage must confine itself to within a standard deviation (defined as "whatever the hell kind of English the listener is willing to tolerate") of proper English or else lapse into a different language.
But here is where you go astray: Language simply cannot be purely subjective. It is built on a base of common knowledge and ignoring that base leads to a total breakdown in communication.
If plugging the leak in a submarine with a boy-band-esque earring can save Homer Simpson's life, then I can at least slow down the fruition of the vision in Idiocracy. Imagine someone plugging a hole in a dam with one finger and you'll see what I'm doing.
And, once again, it is very true that there is a "right" version of English and a wrong one.
This is the part where the argument becomes a personal failing of mine, rather than the expression of different worldviews? I'd like to note that you tried to call me on dictating proper English with a poorly-worded explanation of the symbolic nature of language (which, once again, ignores the utility of conventions by focusing instead on the irrelevant issue of what the conventions surround).
RE:Edit: I'm not entirely sure what being a N.ist (goddammit I h8 that word) has to do with the utility of grammar in terms of communicative ability?
PS: does qftwq mean "quoted fortsuccessfully (the "t" is silent) wtrolling (as is the "w") qNemesis?
PPS: Mandatory disclaimer for posts advocating proper English (that necessarily have at least one error):
my bad on any mistakes!
Then why are you arguing with me? We're not even having the same argument for Christ sake! Can't you just agree that I'm right when I say meaning and language isn't factual and I'll say you were right that language and punctuation make things a hell of a lot easier to communicate. We can pass 'round some peeps then pat each other on the back in comraderly fasion.
Peeps?
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 13th, 2009 at 01:28 AM
__________________ Every time this fool be come along
He gots you noobs cryin' out fo' mom
Leave the scene lookin' like Vietnam
Might as well call him "Matt Atom Bomb"
Like his name suggests, he's quite atomic
And this fool - he likes DC Comics
Two energy swords make up his symbol
And trust me, dawg, this homie's nimble
Ahh, the term qftwq is one steeped in mystery my friend. I dare not describe it too you lest the sheer win should manifest itself as a cyborg-ninja-pirate-dragon-vampire halfway through my sinuses and end my sad lonely life. Why many a time have I seen men, the best and brightest of a generation, make that same mistake and go down faster than a drunk chick at a kegger.
[SPOILER - highlight to read]: It involves soft cheese, lube and Kate Beckinsale. Just telling you that made Hugh Jackman appear in my arm.
I'm asserting the importance of conventions in communication. Another for instance: If you call the color of this text "blue" but I call it "green" then we will begin to have fundamental (and perhaps fatal) misunderstandings.
Dec 12th, 2009 11:20 PM
) classifies "English" as a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. Therefore, under the rules you've accepted by initiating conversation with me, English is a thing.
