Language serves to bind one thing as it is, to another.

[tar]

Was reading the Wiki article on Schopenhauer and was particulary taken with his critique of Kant.

 

When disussing the establishment of phenomena and nomena and their roles and existence in relation to each other, it occurred to me strongly, that abstraction and understanding of the outside world, is done, primarily in terms of what one can say about it.

 

It is hardly coincidental that the same language we use to form ideas is the one we use to communicate our ideas to others.

 

And if we translate our personal abstractions into a common language, understood by others, and understand the words another says to us, the mere fact of the communication, establishes the speaker as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is" to the listener, and establishes the listener as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is", to the speaker.

 

The "ideals" of Plato, thusly become abstractions indeed, shadows of reality, but commonly held ideas, between two instances of "the thing as it is".

 

Thusly the arguments between philosophers about who has a better grasp of the reality of the situation are somewhat mute, since they have already used each other to base themselves.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

Was reading the Wiki article on Schopenhauer and was particulary taken with his critique of Kant.

 

When disussing the establishment of phenomena and nomena and their roles and existence in relation to each other, it occurred to me strongly, that abstraction and understanding of the outside world, is done, primarily in terms of what one can say about it.

 

It is hardly coincidental that the same language we use to form ideas is the one we use to communicate our ideas to others.

 

And if we translate our personal abstractions into a common language, understood by others, and understand the words another says to us, the mere fact of the communication, establishes the speaker as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is" to the listener, and establishes the listener as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is", to the speaker.

 

The "ideals" of Plato, thusly become abstractions indeed, shadows of reality, but commonly held ideas, between two instances of "the thing as it is".

 

Thusly the arguments between philosophers about who has a better grasp of the reality of the situation are somewhat mute, since they have already used each other to base themselves.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The Theory of Forms (ideas) is a nice way to conclude that language passes understanding between individuals, but has a lot of problems in it's own right e.g. reconciliation of the Platonic form of tree (the ideal tree) with a 'reality' tree, which misses the fullness of tree but yet is still tree. If we are communicating in the Platonic form, then it is necessary that perfect meaning to transferred through language, by definition.

 

If however we don't communicate through prefect terms, meaning is almost guaranteed to be lost in translation.

[tar]

Villian,

 

Imperfect meaning, but commonly understood meaning, none the less. The existence of the ideal tree is somewhat in doubt, but the existence of a tree, a particular tree, is beyond doubt. It is my awareness of a tree, that establishes it as real, and likewise establishes me as a viewer of it. The tree in my mind is not grounded, not as securely as the one with its roots in the Earth I am standing on. And I can tell you this, and you have no doubt that not only are you standing on the same Earth as I am, but you know of a tree, that has its roots in the same Earth, and you know what I mean, by talking about a tree. In fact, if you would come to my house, and put your hand on the particular tree, I am talking about, you would agree completely, with no doubt, that that indeed is a tree. An Oak, in this instance.

 

It matters not whether a person calls a tree by its Japanese name, or its Russian name, or describe it by its scientific classification name. If its the Oak, standing in my backyard, the meaning is the same.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

Villian,

 

Imperfect meaning, but commonly understood meaning, none the less. The existence of the ideal tree is somewhat in doubt, but the existence of a tree, a particular tree, is beyond doubt. It is my awareness of a tree, that establishes it as real, and likewise establishes me as a viewer of it. The tree in my mind is not grounded, not as securely as the one with its roots in the Earth I am standing on. And I can tell you this, and you have no doubt that not only are you standing on the same Earth as I am, but you know of a tree, that has its roots in the same Earth, and you know what I mean, by talking about a tree. In fact, if you would come to my house, and put your hand on the particular tree, I am talking about, you would agree completely, with no doubt, that that indeed is a tree. An Oak, in this instance.

 

It matters not whether a person calls a tree by its Japanese name, or its Russian name, or describe it by its scientific classification name. If its the Oak, standing in my backyard, the meaning is the same.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There is of course a difference when speaking of a specific tree that we both have experience of, but what makes the Oak an Oak tree, since no Oak tree is the same as another Oak tree but there is a certain Oakness which makes them both Oak. Plato suggests that it's this Oakness that is contained in the ideal Oak which the others measure to but don't meet.

 

I would say that both trees are in our mind, with regards to the particular tree and the ideal tree.

[tar]

But neither would have gotten "in there" unless there were things that were Oak trees, in and of themselves.

The "ideal" tree is not required for the initial sensation that placed the image in my mind. Just an actual Oak tree is required.

The "ideal" tree is manufactured as a consequence in the commonality of each of our representations of it.

 

As language is a symbol system, with one thing standing for another, the representational nature of it, is important and instructive as to the nature of the original tree, and the nature of the existence of an "ideal" tree.

 

The original tree is certainly an Oak tree. The "ideal" tree, is a commonly held idea about it.

[Villain]

Consider the thought experiment of applying a current to a certain part of your brain which produces pleasure, now take it a bit further and you manage to stimulate the part which creates the image of the oak tree. Is that a real experience of an oak tree? And if one had never seen an oak tree would it be possible to create the same experience?

[tar]

Villian,

 

I am thinking that the Oak tree is a real thing, existent in the waking world. My memory of the Oak tree can be recalled, by my focus on it, or a chemical combination, or a possible electrical stimulus, but I doubt the particular combination of form and color, depth and relationship, that makes a "real" Oak, can be found in the word "Oak".

 

I had a "visual migraine" one time at work. I was sitting there, looking at my computer screen, and hands, and keyboard, and I "really" saw distortions and fringes occuring "in front" of my eyes. I knew I was "seeing" things, and those distortions where not "really" happening, even though they were EXACTLY as real things appear to me. The same "mechanisms" that brought reality solidly and consistently to me, where having a "little" problem. Everything was not "right". I was still "aware" of the consistency of the things I was viewing, and counted on, and soon received, a "return" to normalcy, where everything "looked" right.

 

Point is, that the "things" I was looking at, can be counted on to be as they are, whether I am seeing them right, or my eyes are closed, or indeed if I leave the room. The Oak tree stands, regardless of our perception of it, or memory of it, and is available to others to percieve and remember, in any fashion they chose, consistent with workings of their eyes and brain.

 

That whatever we sense and percieve of it is enough to call it an Oak, establishes it as a referrent for us both. I doubt we could "think up" such a solid thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Villain]

Villian,

 

I am thinking that the Oak tree is a real thing, existent in the waking world. My memory of the Oak tree can be recalled, by my focus on it, or a chemical combination, or a possible electrical stimulus, but I doubt the particular combination of form and color, depth and relationship, that makes a "real" Oak, can be found in the word "Oak".

 

I had a "visual migraine" one time at work. I was sitting there, looking at my computer screen, and hands, and keyboard, and I "really" saw distortions and fringes occuring "in front" of my eyes. I knew I was "seeing" things, and those distortions where not "really" happening, even though they were EXACTLY as real things appear to me. The same "mechanisms" that brought reality solidly and consistently to me, where having a "little" problem. Everything was not "right". I was still "aware" of the consistency of the things I was viewing, and counted on, and soon received, a "return" to normalcy, where everything "looked" right.

 

Point is, that the "things" I was looking at, can be counted on to be as they are, whether I am seeing them right, or my eyes are closed, or indeed if I leave the room. The Oak tree stands, regardless of our perception of it, or memory of it, and is available to others to percieve and remember, in any fashion they chose, consistent with workings of their eyes and brain.

 

That whatever we sense and percieve of it is enough to call it an Oak, establishes it as a referrent for us both. I doubt we could "think up" such a solid thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

In your original post you cite three idealism philosophers but seem to be mixing in realism now, I'm not sure why you mention them in the first post if you're going to insist that things are completely independent of human perception.

[tar]

Villian,

 

Who said anything about reality being independent of perception? What else would we be percieving?

 

One of my "thoughts", one of my main thoughts is that there must be an explanation for why realists argue with idealists. That is, it must be two sides of the same coin. That both are right if you don't require that one or the other is wrong.

 

If one starts with the logical assumption of the two basic intuitions of Kant, that of time and space...AND assume there is actually time and space to be of and in, in the first place...everything is good.

 

You might know from many of my posts that I had a religious mother, and a scientific minded, atheistic father. A mathematician eccentric Mom and a down to Earth Freudian Psychologist PhD Dad. An Idealist and a Realist, if you will. Half of me, comes quite literally from each. And I have majored in Philosophy, graduated with a Business Degree, served in the Army, taken Science courses toward and EE degree, raised two girls with a Christian wife and worked for a Japanese Business equipment manufacturer. I have been around this place for 60 years, seen people come and go, and I am rather sure that the Earth spins on its axis, and travels around the Sun in quite a regular fashion, "independently" of my take on the situation. I am also rather sure that we as a species evolved in lockstep with other life forms on this planet, and are subject to the cycles of the Earth, in very many real ways. So I am an idealist or a realist to buy life insurance for my wife and family should I stop "percieving". Am I a realist or an idealist to feel a part of the life on this planet, from first protein til the sun dies?

 

I do not exist independent of the universe, and it just wouldn't be the same place, without me.

 

Am I atheist or religious, realist or idealist? I would guess both, or all four, in all the ways that make sense.

 

Regards, TAR2