Now premise 2 is just false. — khaled
What about ideas makes you think they don't survive death? I don't see why it needs defending in the first place. — khaled
I know that I know nothing — Socrates
What about ideas makes you think they can't survive after death? Saying "socrates died and his ideas survived" isn't an answer to that question. — khaled
thoughts, ideas to be specific — TheMadFool
I'm afraid it is. — TheMadFool
Thought =/= idea. Thoughts don't survive after death, heck, most of them don't survive for 5 minutes. You conflate thoughts and ideas. — khaled
what about ideas makes you think they shouldn't survive after death. — khaled
They (ideas) survive death. — TheMadFool
Right but you think if they're physical they shouldn't. What makes you think that? — khaled
nothing physical (configuration also included) that can be identified as Socrates exists as of 2021 — TheMadFool
yet his idea that, to be wise is simply to realize one's own abject ignorance (I know that I know nothing) exists still, alive and well I might add in, truth be told, 2021. — TheMadFool
Socrates "lives" as an idea and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come. — TheMadFool
Where's the inconsistency here? No configuration that can be identified as Socrates remains. However a configuration that can be identified as the thought "I know I know nothing" persists. — khaled
"I know I know nothing" is not Socrates specific. The thought is a pattern that can arise in anyone. The first guy to point it out died, and the pattern then arose in others at later times, is how a materialist would explain it. I still don't see what inconsistency you're pointing to. — khaled
Does this not make you :brow: ? — TheMadFool
No it doesn’t because the Socratic paradox isn’t a Socrates exclusive idea just for having Socrates in the name. The Socratic paradox is not a part of Socrates. That’s what I meant when I said “Not Socrates specific”. I don’t know how to explain it more. I don’t get what you’re :brow: ing over. — khaled
Thoughts are, let's just say, immortal, they survive the Grim Reaper's menacing scythe. — TheMadFool
Empirical verification of a mortal's ability to experience the existence of immortal ideas would require prior empirical verification of that mortal's ability to experience the existence of an immortal mind, or minds. — charles ferraro
I think that Ouspensky suggested that certain minds would be able to survive if they were developed in such a way to be distinct. Of course, Ouspensky's ideas were based on the ideas of Guirjieff, and focused on the idea of waking up beyond robot consciousness. However, I was not really sure what to make of the ideas that certain minds might exist beyond death, but not all, and it is so different from the idea of the eternal soul, or spirit — Jack Cummins
This is the issue that Derrida went on and on about.
Spoken and written language, and all other sorts of gestures and markings which intend meaning, exemplify bound idealities.Even as it is designed to be immortal, repeatable as the same apart from any actual occurrences made at some point, the SENSE of a spoken or inscribed utterance, what it means or desires to say, is always tied to the contingencies of empirical circumstance. Language is designed to transmit intact the pure meaning of a thought. But it is also the nature of language that it be expressed. And because it must be expressed it must expose itself to interpretation and new context. — Joshs
t I believe language is simply a way of capturing sensory data (5 senses) and/or superimposing data sets so obtained and averaging them as it were to extract patterns from them. In both cases, words, nothing more than auditory/visual/tactile symbols, are assinged either to individual sense datum or to the pattern observed in them — TheMadFool
This is an adequate model if youre programming a computer , because computers don’t have to understand what is programmed into them. We do. What you described is merely computation . Computers aren’t capable of affective, goal-oriented relevance, which is essential to the understanding of language. — Joshs
To cut to the chase, we don't understand what understanding is. — TheMadFool
We do know — Joshs
You are, in fact, equating, or confusing, the non-physicality of thoughts/ideas with their alleged immortality. Why should this be the case? Thoughts/ideas may be non-physical, but they are not immortal, because they do require the existence of a mortal mind, or minds, to think about them and to comprehend their meaning. Without the latter, they are absolutely useless.
Thoughts/ideas have an ersatz immortality only, because they are preserved in the written works of human beings.
And, by the way, you never clarified your understanding of the meaning of the term immortality. — charles ferraro
I'm not really claiming that ideas are immortal — TheMadFool
Ok. So, what's understanding? Your entire post contains nothing about what understanding is despite beating around the bush for two paragraphs. :smile: — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.