Go on then; define God. Because from what I've seen, you are woefully distant from doing so.
Examples:
1) "Also, note that Genesis contains claims that 'God made man in his image' and mentions God 'walking' "
You seem to imply that because of this, you can define God in purely physical terms. But if God can be defined in PURELY physical terms, then that isn't the definition of the judeo-christian (or in fact ANY transcendent) God. Its clear that anything which is a PURELY physical entity is a part of the universe, and so cannot have created it. Therefore you cannot define God through such a description. You can describe and ASPECT or a MANIFESTATION of God in purely physical terms, but that will never embody the entirety of God. I mean, do you think its possible to describe God in purely physical terms?
In all honesty, what would you say if I described God as "a man with a white beard and a wise face. He has a body like any other human. He can perform miracles. But there's nothing else to him - other than the miracles, he's just a human being."
2) "Well, we're trying to define God aren't we? Then, why are we closing ourselves off to our main sources of information for this?"
You're seeming to sugget here that we can use the bible as a source to describe God in purely physical terms. But he simply cannot be described that way, otherwise he ISN'T God.
At no point have you come anywhere CLOSE to defining God. You've simply said that you believe he can be defined. That's not an argument.
Can God Jump?
Started by: Zed | Replies: 88 | Views: 4,275
Dec 8, 2013 7:57 PM #1120555
Dec 8, 2013 9:35 PM #1120577
Quote from walker90234
1) "Also, note that Genesis contains claims that 'God made man in his image' and mentions God 'walking' "
You seem to imply that because of this, you can define God in purely physical terms.
From now on I believe we should explain our trains of thought and logic because, in the above, I'm don't think implying such things but, you think so, so I ask 'Why?'. Explain, please.
Dec 9, 2013 12:27 AM #1120625
You seem to suggest that we can use bible quotes such as "God made man in his image" and God "walked" to define God.
Such descriptions are in reference to a physical form.
If we attempt to define God through these descriptions and these descriptions alone, we define God only as a physical being, and not as a transcendent entity.
You suggest we can use these descriptions to define God.
These descriptions are the only attempts you have made to define God. You say you are 'close to defining God'.
Ergo, you suggest that such descriptions and such descriptions alone are what have brought you 'close to defining God'.
A description of God as a physical and not a transcendent entity is therefore, according to your argument, close to a complete definition of God.
You imply therefore, that there is little more to God than a physical form.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm not saying that you BELIEVE or WANT to conclude that God is purely physical. What I'm arguing is that the arguments you have put forward fail to describe God as anything more than a physical being.
Now, I'm assuming you don't believe God is simply a physical being; there is more to him.
But so far, you have failed describe/define this 'more to him' part of God - you can only define his physical manifestation. Ergo, this seems to suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE to define this 'more to him' part of God. Therefore, God, as a whole, cannot be described in any meaningful way.
You seem to fail completely in your attempt to define God.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's put it another way:
There are, it seems, two 'parts' (this is sheerly a debating term - based on what you've attempted to argue) to God:
1) His physical form
2) His transcendent form
Now, in order to describe something, we need to be able to describe ALL the parts of it, not just one.
If, for example, I provided a description of a chicken sandwich, I would need to describe, say:
1) the fact that it has a slice of bread on either side
2) the fact there is chicken in the middle
If I failed to 1 within my description, what I am describing is not a sandwich, but a piece of chicken. If I fail to describe 2 within my description, what I am describing is not a sandwich, but 2 slices of bread.
In a similar manner, if I try to describe God, and describe only his physical form, I AM NOT DESCRIBING GOD! I am describing a physical being. In order to describe God, I need to include his transcendent aspects within the description.
Ergo, no matter how well you define god's physical form, you do not 'come near' to describing God. You fail woefully, you fall short completely. Describing a piece of bread is not 'close' to describing a sandwich. Describing a piece of chicken is not close to describing a sandwich. Yes, you need to describe both to describe a sandwich, but either on its own does NOT 'come close' to a description of a sandwich.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the difference between a sandwich and God:
With a sandwich, it is possible to describe both a piece of chicken, and slices of bread, so we can easily put the two together to describe a sandwich. This isn't complicated.
In contrast: its easy to describe the physical manifestation of God. However, we CANNOT describe God's transcendent form.
Ergo, you can focus on the physicality of God all you want - this won't succeed in describing God as a complete entity, only a minor part of him.
------------------------------------------------------------
Below follows an illustration of my point, and exposition of further errors:
I have colour coded my responses.
1) RED STUFF:
This is the only allusion to the transcendent part of God you have made.
However, you describe very little here: you say he is a 'being of some sort'.
Basically, this amounts to nothing. If I try to describe 'paul' and say he is 'a being of some sort' that doesn't describe paul in ANY way, other than to say 'there is something (either fictional or real) to which the descriptor paul applies'. It doesn't tell you what paul looks like, how he acts, or anything. It literally gives NO description of Paul.
Also, you say he is ''sovereign' (sovereign means having free will, or not obeying others, or being a ruler. However when you describe 'sovereign', you seem to mean something different - I assume you actually mean transcendent? As in not a part of the world?).
So, if all you can say is that god is 'transcendent' ('sovereign' in your words) this is just as useless: I have already said that to describe God, you must DESCRIBE the transcendent part of him. Simply saying there IS a transcendent part of God isn't a description of that part.
So, all in all, you fail to describe a description of the transcendent part of God.
2) Blue Stuff
Whether the bible describes gods 'face' is irrelevant. Let's go to the two part description again, shall we?
1) God's physical manifestation. Has a face.
2) God's transcendent form. Has no face as it isn't a physical being.
Right, so even if we did have a description of the face of God's physical manifestation, this would bring us no closer to describing God. You can try to describe a face all you want: no matter how much you try, you will still ONLY be describing an aspect of 1, and get no closer to describing 2. Ergo, you get no closer to describing God.
3) Orange
Again: it doesn't MATTER whether or not we can describe the physical form of God. He isn't a purely physical being. Here, you are describing the bread, and not the sandwich.
4) Pink
Right, here's a line which I think has caused much of your problems in this entire debate.
NO! This debate does NOT assume we believe in God.
Atheists discuss God all the time, right? They don't believe in him, but they still discuss him, and provide arguments that he doesn't exist.
Similarly, we don't need to believe in God to discuss whether or not he has a definition. Zed's main argument has been that we CANNOT define God. He is not trying to find a definition of God. He is saying IT CANNOT BE DONE!
---------------------------------
If we cannot define God, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN HIM.
- In order to believe in something, you need to be able to think of it
- In order to 'think' of something, you need to be able to define it. Here's an example, in green: You can think of a hamburger, because you know what a hamburger is - you have a definition of the word 'hamburger' in your head (I'm going to now introduce you to the distinction between 'signifiers' and 'signifieds'. A signifier is a word which refers to a thing - the signified is the thing itself. So, you can think of the signifier (the word) 'Hamburger', and ALSO, because you have a definition of that the signifier hamburger refers to, think of the 'signified' - a hamburger itself.) What if I asked you to think of a flibbertyjibbit? You have no definition for a flibbertyjibbit in your head, do you? Therefore you cannot 'think' of it, because you have NO idea of what it is defined as. You CAN think of the signifier - the word itself. But you CANNOT think of the THING itself.
Now, what if I told you flibbertyjibbits were beings? This brings you no closer to thinking of them, does it? What if I told you that flibbertyjibbits caused gravity. Does this bring you closer to thinking of them? NO! you can only think of their effect - gravity. Or the fact that gravity is caused by 'something' called a flibbertyjibbit - you can think of the SIGNIFIER alone, NOT the signified.
- You cannot define God; you can define his physical form, but you CANNOT define his transcendent form.
- You cannot think of God. Yes, you can think of a signifier, a label called 'god' - BUT you cannot think of the signified, what the label refers to: God himself (in his entirety - not just his physical manifestation). You cannot describe God's transcendent form with adjectives, from what I have seen. Also, a description of the result of 'god's actions' brings you only a thought of a signifier, not a thought of the signified.
- You cannot believe in God.
Have I made myself clear? Hope that helps.
Such descriptions are in reference to a physical form.
If we attempt to define God through these descriptions and these descriptions alone, we define God only as a physical being, and not as a transcendent entity.
You suggest we can use these descriptions to define God.
These descriptions are the only attempts you have made to define God. You say you are 'close to defining God'.
Ergo, you suggest that such descriptions and such descriptions alone are what have brought you 'close to defining God'.
A description of God as a physical and not a transcendent entity is therefore, according to your argument, close to a complete definition of God.
You imply therefore, that there is little more to God than a physical form.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm not saying that you BELIEVE or WANT to conclude that God is purely physical. What I'm arguing is that the arguments you have put forward fail to describe God as anything more than a physical being.
Now, I'm assuming you don't believe God is simply a physical being; there is more to him.
But so far, you have failed describe/define this 'more to him' part of God - you can only define his physical manifestation. Ergo, this seems to suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE to define this 'more to him' part of God. Therefore, God, as a whole, cannot be described in any meaningful way.
You seem to fail completely in your attempt to define God.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's put it another way:
There are, it seems, two 'parts' (this is sheerly a debating term - based on what you've attempted to argue) to God:
1) His physical form
2) His transcendent form
Now, in order to describe something, we need to be able to describe ALL the parts of it, not just one.
If, for example, I provided a description of a chicken sandwich, I would need to describe, say:
1) the fact that it has a slice of bread on either side
2) the fact there is chicken in the middle
If I failed to 1 within my description, what I am describing is not a sandwich, but a piece of chicken. If I fail to describe 2 within my description, what I am describing is not a sandwich, but 2 slices of bread.
In a similar manner, if I try to describe God, and describe only his physical form, I AM NOT DESCRIBING GOD! I am describing a physical being. In order to describe God, I need to include his transcendent aspects within the description.
Ergo, no matter how well you define god's physical form, you do not 'come near' to describing God. You fail woefully, you fall short completely. Describing a piece of bread is not 'close' to describing a sandwich. Describing a piece of chicken is not close to describing a sandwich. Yes, you need to describe both to describe a sandwich, but either on its own does NOT 'come close' to a description of a sandwich.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, the difference between a sandwich and God:
With a sandwich, it is possible to describe both a piece of chicken, and slices of bread, so we can easily put the two together to describe a sandwich. This isn't complicated.
In contrast: its easy to describe the physical manifestation of God. However, we CANNOT describe God's transcendent form.
Ergo, you can focus on the physicality of God all you want - this won't succeed in describing God as a complete entity, only a minor part of him.
------------------------------------------------------------
Below follows an illustration of my point, and exposition of further errors:
Quote from Naimad
let's look at some basic stuff we can take from Abrahamic Scripture
...
He is a being of a kind
...
he is a sovereign entity
...
I will find verses and the like that give definition to this soon.
...
... the Bible doesn't describe His face. He did appear to Moses, who saw Him but, from behind so, presumably He does have that hair thing that Jesus is commonly shown with. At least, that's what He opts to use; at the time, maybe if the Abrahamic God would appear now, he would have some other modern hair.
*Note: This, like the question, assumes the belief in a/The God because, we won't discuss something that we think doesn't exist, right?
I have colour coded my responses.
1) RED STUFF:
This is the only allusion to the transcendent part of God you have made.
However, you describe very little here: you say he is a 'being of some sort'.
Basically, this amounts to nothing. If I try to describe 'paul' and say he is 'a being of some sort' that doesn't describe paul in ANY way, other than to say 'there is something (either fictional or real) to which the descriptor paul applies'. It doesn't tell you what paul looks like, how he acts, or anything. It literally gives NO description of Paul.
Also, you say he is ''sovereign' (sovereign means having free will, or not obeying others, or being a ruler. However when you describe 'sovereign', you seem to mean something different - I assume you actually mean transcendent? As in not a part of the world?).
So, if all you can say is that god is 'transcendent' ('sovereign' in your words) this is just as useless: I have already said that to describe God, you must DESCRIBE the transcendent part of him. Simply saying there IS a transcendent part of God isn't a description of that part.
So, all in all, you fail to describe a description of the transcendent part of God.
2) Blue Stuff
Whether the bible describes gods 'face' is irrelevant. Let's go to the two part description again, shall we?
1) God's physical manifestation. Has a face.
2) God's transcendent form. Has no face as it isn't a physical being.
Right, so even if we did have a description of the face of God's physical manifestation, this would bring us no closer to describing God. You can try to describe a face all you want: no matter how much you try, you will still ONLY be describing an aspect of 1, and get no closer to describing 2. Ergo, you get no closer to describing God.
3) Orange
Again: it doesn't MATTER whether or not we can describe the physical form of God. He isn't a purely physical being. Here, you are describing the bread, and not the sandwich.
4) Pink
Right, here's a line which I think has caused much of your problems in this entire debate.
NO! This debate does NOT assume we believe in God.
Atheists discuss God all the time, right? They don't believe in him, but they still discuss him, and provide arguments that he doesn't exist.
Similarly, we don't need to believe in God to discuss whether or not he has a definition. Zed's main argument has been that we CANNOT define God. He is not trying to find a definition of God. He is saying IT CANNOT BE DONE!
---------------------------------
If we cannot define God, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN HIM.
- In order to believe in something, you need to be able to think of it
- In order to 'think' of something, you need to be able to define it. Here's an example, in green: You can think of a hamburger, because you know what a hamburger is - you have a definition of the word 'hamburger' in your head (I'm going to now introduce you to the distinction between 'signifiers' and 'signifieds'. A signifier is a word which refers to a thing - the signified is the thing itself. So, you can think of the signifier (the word) 'Hamburger', and ALSO, because you have a definition of that the signifier hamburger refers to, think of the 'signified' - a hamburger itself.) What if I asked you to think of a flibbertyjibbit? You have no definition for a flibbertyjibbit in your head, do you? Therefore you cannot 'think' of it, because you have NO idea of what it is defined as. You CAN think of the signifier - the word itself. But you CANNOT think of the THING itself.
Now, what if I told you flibbertyjibbits were beings? This brings you no closer to thinking of them, does it? What if I told you that flibbertyjibbits caused gravity. Does this bring you closer to thinking of them? NO! you can only think of their effect - gravity. Or the fact that gravity is caused by 'something' called a flibbertyjibbit - you can think of the SIGNIFIER alone, NOT the signified.
- You cannot define God; you can define his physical form, but you CANNOT define his transcendent form.
- You cannot think of God. Yes, you can think of a signifier, a label called 'god' - BUT you cannot think of the signified, what the label refers to: God himself (in his entirety - not just his physical manifestation). You cannot describe God's transcendent form with adjectives, from what I have seen. Also, a description of the result of 'god's actions' brings you only a thought of a signifier, not a thought of the signified.
- You cannot believe in God.
Have I made myself clear? Hope that helps.
Jan 21, 2014 8:50 PM #1144904
Quote from Zed
The point of this example is to make you see how you cannot define something by its actions or abilities. If I ask you what "God" means to you and you tell me "God created the world" or "God is all-powerful" that tells me nothing whatsoever about God. Every definition we have of "God" is based on verbs, when a meaningful description should be based on adjectives. Therefore the word "God" is meaningless.*
tl;dr
Can God jump?
That question doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because we don't have an object to apply the action "jumping" to.
"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
Therefore people don't know what the word "God" means.
What about people that say God can do anything except something that implicitly requires his own physical form, and yet he can still cause change in the physical world? I.e. he can't jump because he has no physical form, but he can cause others to jump even though he has no form (and if you say how can the physical interact with the non-physical, then yes that is indeed a problem, but most people wouldn't take that as a defeater of the argument, rather an unsolvable mystery; "we may never know"). They can comprehend this interaction and therefore see it as meaningful, even if they don't understand just how it works. Someone can talk about magnets without understanding magnetism and still talk about it meaningfully. And as far only classifying God through verbs, then yes that is true, but most people have meaningful discussions about for instance the wind, without making reference to its physical properties. In other words, people have meaningful discussion about the wind, and how as an entity it blows their hair back, without ever referencing any more than what it does. The same could be argued for God. Furthermore, one could qualify God as a transcendent creator, and even though they cannot picture him in their mind, they can still picture his effects. Why do you feel that something has to be able to be pictured for it to be meaningful? If someone "feels the presence of God", they are doing no more than supposedly feeling his effect (and not him) but they still discuss it with each other and all understand the same being that was the cause of it.
A lot of thoughts there, sorry, and I'm only half being the devil's advocate. They're questions I'm undecided on, because I'm not sure that I like an absolute definition of meaningfulness (specifically in language) in the first place.
Feb 3, 2014 12:50 AM #1151767
He don't need to jump cuz he can FLY.
But really. Assuming that he is omnipotent, is a spirit and can have a temporal body we can go from there.
Zed:The point of this example is to make you see how you cannot define something by its actions or abilities. If I ask you what "God" means to you and you tell me "God created the world" or "God is all-powerful" that tells me nothing whatsoever about God. Every definition we have of "God" is based on verbs, when a meaningful description should be based on adjectives. Therefore the word "God" is meaningless.*
tl;dr
Can God jump?
That question doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because we don't have an object to apply the action "jumping" to.
"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
Therefore people don't know what the word "God" means.
What is a verb in its basic sense? An action. Again, by Zed:It doesn't make sense because we don't have an object to apply the action "jumping" to.
"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
Therefore people don't know what the word "God" means.
Sentence example:The dog is jumping. God is jumping. If he is omnipotent, that must mean that he can jump because omnipotent means: (of a deity-being God) having unlimited power; being able to do anything.
Zed:"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
God doesn't need a physical form to jump. Jumping can be performed by anything. If that was false, the universe wouldn't have been made.
But 'doing' is a verb, and you are saying that we have no adjectives. Not true.
Your example:"God is all-powerful"
Break that sentence up. God-noun, the thing doing/is-the action being done by the noun|all-powerful-adjective, the thing of the noun.
Now grammar says you can't do: God great. You must do: God IS great. Otherwise the sentence is incomplete and nothing is being referred to as a a complex idea(being the sentence God is great). You CAN do: God is jumping and God is good. good-adjective not known as verb and jumping-verb not known as adjective. Hope that cleared stuff up. I bet this is all over anyway.
But really. Assuming that he is omnipotent, is a spirit and can have a temporal body we can go from there.
Zed:The point of this example is to make you see how you cannot define something by its actions or abilities. If I ask you what "God" means to you and you tell me "God created the world" or "God is all-powerful" that tells me nothing whatsoever about God. Every definition we have of "God" is based on verbs, when a meaningful description should be based on adjectives. Therefore the word "God" is meaningless.*
tl;dr
Can God jump?
That question doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because we don't have an object to apply the action "jumping" to.
"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
Therefore people don't know what the word "God" means.
What is a verb in its basic sense? An action. Again, by Zed:It doesn't make sense because we don't have an object to apply the action "jumping" to.
"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
Therefore people don't know what the word "God" means.
Sentence example:The dog is jumping. God is jumping. If he is omnipotent, that must mean that he can jump because omnipotent means: (of a deity-being God) having unlimited power; being able to do anything.
Zed:"God" has only ever been defined by what he does or what he can do (eg. "omnipotent"), but that is no description at all.
God doesn't need a physical form to jump. Jumping can be performed by anything. If that was false, the universe wouldn't have been made.
But 'doing' is a verb, and you are saying that we have no adjectives. Not true.
Your example:"God is all-powerful"
Break that sentence up. God-noun, the thing doing/is-the action being done by the noun|all-powerful-adjective, the thing of the noun.
Now grammar says you can't do: God great. You must do: God IS great. Otherwise the sentence is incomplete and nothing is being referred to as a a complex idea(being the sentence God is great). You CAN do: God is jumping and God is good. good-adjective not known as verb and jumping-verb not known as adjective. Hope that cleared stuff up. I bet this is all over anyway.
Feb 15, 2014 10:13 PM #1159240
Quote from walker90234
If we cannot define God, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN HIM.
- You cannot believe in God.
Islam makes it very clear that the believers are not to visualise Allah, or Muhammed, or any such 'holy' figure, because they would not be believing in the real object/thing, only worshipping the visualised one. Then they go and decorate their mosque with patterns and say they aren't worshipping the mosque either but that's beside the point.
Define:
a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
Thus, you could say Muslims can not define Muhammed's face, because they can not give the exact appearance of it. Perhaps they can't, but they can define Muhammed's life and actions, without defining Muhammed. You made the same very clear with God, but here I disagree. Ask a Muslim to define Muhammed and they will think have no problem giving what they consider Muhammed to be. If they know what Muhammed is, much like we know what a Hamburger is, then it comes down to language. If we don't know how to say our definition, we still have it in our heads but can not communicate it.
Here's an adjective to define transcendent God: loving.
You may disagree with that (somewhat not finished) definition, but it is a definition of God that does not describe God through indirect means and uses adjectives.
Feb 15, 2014 11:02 PM #1159252
Quote from SkeletonxfIf we don't know how to say our definition, we still have it in our heads but can not communicate it.
How could you learn the meaning of the word in the first place?
Feb 16, 2014 12:36 PM #1159597
Quote from ZedHow could you learn the meaning of the word in the first place?
Simple. You learn your first language the same way.
You can't define words in a language you don't yet know, and if you learnt English as a first language, then I'm willing to bet that you can't give me a definition of words such as 'the' and 'and' unless you by chance have looked them up for some reason. Yet since you started speaking you learnt how to use them, and you knew what they meant at some level.
Feb 16, 2014 1:17 PM #1159615
Quote from SkeletonxfSimple. You learn your first language the same way.
You can't define words in a language you don't yet know, and if you learnt English as a first language, then I'm willing to bet that you can't give me a definition of words such as 'the' and 'and' unless you by chance have looked them up for some reason. Yet since you started speaking you learnt how to use them, and you knew what they meant at some level.
"And" looks something like this: [λx : x ∈ {0, 1} . [λy : y ∈ {0, 1} . x × y]]. Sorry. If you'd asked last week I wouldn't have that. Part way through a course on formal semantics :o.
But yeah, I was using the word "and" long before this year. The words in your first language are learned by ostensive definition - people point things out to you and you learn to correlate the objects with the words. You learn that "and" is used to connect two statements, in a way which is supposedly expressed by the formula up there, and you learn that "the" implies whatever you're talking about is singular, because those are the facts which tend to be there when people use those words.
What you were talking about is different. It was something fundamentally incommunicable. If there is no way to define a word in terms of other words, and there is no way to define it in terms of things you can see or touch, then there is no way to teach that word to others. If you cannot teach a word to others then it is useless as a word.
Feb 16, 2014 3:45 PM #1159711
Quote from ZedThe words in your first language are learned by ostensive definition - people point things out to you and you learn to correlate the objects with the words. You learn that "and" is used to connect two statements, in a way which is supposedly expressed by the formula up there, and you learn that "the" implies whatever you're talking about is singular, because those are the facts which tend to be there when people use those words.
What you were talking about is different. It was something fundamentally incommunicable. If there is no way to define a word in terms of other words, and there is no way to define it in terms of things you can see or touch, then there is no way to teach that word to others. If you cannot teach a word to others then it is useless as a word.
I can look up any word and see it defined by other words by various dictionary websites. Even if that definition is wrong or badly worded, the word has been defined.
Feb 16, 2014 3:59 PM #1159720
Words are defined in terms of other words, and those other words are themselves defined in other words. This process is going to be circular unless at some point you can connect the words to experience. My original complaint in this thread was that the words used to define God are meaningless.
Feb 16, 2014 4:37 PM #1159740
Quote from ZedWords are defined in terms of other words, and those other words are themselves defined in other words. This process is going to be circular unless at some point you can connect the words to experience. My original complaint in this thread was that the words used to define God are meaningless.
So really, unless you can convey something in a way that everyone understands without the use of words, words are only circular definitions. I don't see how even an experience fulfils that task, experiences tend to be subjective.
Feb 16, 2014 4:49 PM #1159751
And miscommunication happens. In general, sense experience is shared enough that people don't completely talk past each other, but I'd agree that's not always the case. Try explaining what "red" means to a blind man.
And if you don't want to use sense experience to stop language being circular, what would you use instead?
And if you don't want to use sense experience to stop language being circular, what would you use instead?
Feb 16, 2014 5:28 PM #1159762
Quote from ZedAnd miscommunication happens. In general, sense experience is shared enough that people don't completely talk past each other, but I'd agree that's not always the case. Try explaining what "red" means to a blind man.
And if you don't want to use sense experience to stop language being circular, what would you use instead?
I'd accept that all (or far too much of) language is circular and would give up ;)
For that red thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59YN8_lg6-U