I believe that fact is wrong, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is right. Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? That without the need of experience, every man, blind or sighted, already knows the idea of colours a priori? Well this still would not change my point that words point to things, in this case, to ideas that we know a priori; am I wrong?...and yet they do indeed use these words. How can that be, if your account is right? — Banno
this still would not change my point that words point to things, in this case, to ideas that we know a priori; am I wrong? — Samuel Lacrampe
And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do. — Banno
If true, then indeed the flavours must have one thing in common, — Samuel Lacrampe
I am starting to think your position is merely that people can use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct, even if they don't understand the meaning of the words. If that is all you are trying to say, then no dispute here.He uses them correctly in most cases — Banno
Banno, please try to understand your opponents' position prior to arguing against them. Right now, you are attacking a straw man, because I said that it was your fact, which I disagreed with, that suggested the existence of Innate Ideas. This is not my position. I side with Aristotle and Hume who claim that we obtain our ideas and meanings from experience, and this video proves my point.And notice that your argument above, for some sort of innate ideas, simply falls apart when you talk to a blind person. Edison's use of colour is not innate; nor is it complete. But it is there for you to see. — Banno
'Red' points to this, which he has not apprehend. That is his whole point. He said "When somebody says 'something is red' to me, I don't quite get it. [...] Stuff I picked up from hearing about it". He says he does not understand, but can repeat what others told him.What is pointed to by Edison's use of "red"? — Banno
Red comes in many shades. They both have some shade of red.A red sports car and a red sunset need not be the same colour. Yet they are both red. — Banno
And this post should be read in a tone of voice that is somewhat contemptuous of the able bodied telling the disabled what they can and cannot do. — Banno
But there is a thing, a being, as defined in my previous post. To side with philosophers like Aristotle and Hume, we apprehend meanings by observation. And to observe is to observe something.
A blind man born blind would not know the meaning of the words 'colour' or 'blue' or 'bright'. — Samuel Lacrampe
The meaning of the word 'blue' in common language is literally this. How could he know this meaning? How would you describe it to him? Note that talking about its light wavelength would not cut it; because that is not its meaning in the common language. Even before people knew about wavelengths, they knew the meaning of the word 'blue'. — Samuel Lacrampe
He literally says "What is [color]? I don't know. [...] I don't have any concept of what it is. — Samuel Lacrampe
So one move open to you is to suggest that Edison can only use colour words syntactically, but without the semantics that can only come from knowing what the words point to. Of course, that would be to negate the evidence of his correct use of the words; an ablist insult that I'm sure you would not commit.I am starting to think your position is merely that people can use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct, even if they don't understand the meaning of the words. — Samuel Lacrampe
Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? — Samuel Lacrampe
(lost link in the quote)'Red' points to this, which he has not apprehend. — Samuel Lacrampe
You are correct about my position.I understood you to be claiming that any and every word points to something - which you call a "being"; and further that this "being" is in some way individual, giving the meaning of the word. It would follow that if there were someone who could not understand what some given word pointed to, then that person could not understand the meaning of the word; and that therefore, they would not be able to use the word. — Banno
I continue to choose finesse. :wink:You now have the choice of finessing your theory using ad hoc material; or you can accept the falsification. — Banno
If this means roughly the same as being able to use words in a sentence that is grammatically correct but not understanding it, then yes, that is what I am saying. But don't take offence. Mr Edison said it himself:So one move open to you is to suggest that Edison can only use colour words syntactically, but without the semantics that can only come from knowing what the words point to. — Banno
You are misquoting me. Here is the full quote:You misunderstood; the notion of innate ideas was yours, I was just pointing out that Edison obviously learned to use colour words, and was not born with an understanding of them. — Banno
From the full quote, you should be able to pick up that this is not my position, and that I am deducing it from a fact that you brought up. Moreover, I already clarified this in my last post. Shall we move on?I believe that fact is wrong, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is right. Would this not suggest that we have Innate Ideas, as per Plato and against Aristotle and Hume? — Samuel Lacrampe
No, I don't mean that. And thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Gotta celebrate those small steps towards progress.So "red" points to a web page? You don't mean that. Nor do you mean that "red" points only to that shade of red, which will be different on your computer than on my laptop, and even on my laptop varies as I move from room to room. There is no being to which the word "red" points, and in virtue of which it gains a mythical thing called a meaning... All there is, is the different and changing ways in which the word is used. — Banno
There is a being which is pure red, close to this... — Samuel Lacrampe
The fact that some things are red (to a more or lesser degree) and some things are not red is sufficient to demonstrate that 'red' points to a being with essential properties. — Samuel Lacrampe
Yes. Not only is it possible, it is asserted by Mr Edison himself: "In this video, I have no idea what I am talking about." He says purple is his favourite colour by association with Prince, which he likes. Whatever purple is, it must be good because Prince is good.Do you really take Mr Edison's use to be nothing but syntactic? — Banno
Nothing. The word is to him meaningless. That is the point. As he stated in the previous video, he knows a colour is a physical property of objects which we perceive with our eyes (and later our memory), but cannot go any further than that. Thus the blind can know the material cause but not the formal cause of colours.To what does the word "purple" point, for Tommy? — Banno
As purple is not a basic colour, it has more than one essential property: red and blue. But purple still has an archetype or form. We know this because, again, we observe some colours to be more purple than others. And for a thing which degree does not go to infinity, a more and less implies a most. Like an arrow aimed closer to the target until it hits the bullseye.It can't point to a archetypal purple swatch, as you suggest with red and blue. — Banno
"In the mind" insofar that the subject has apprehended the object. Otherwise, only in reality. Where? In no physical location because forms are not physical, but that is a great discussion for another time. :wink:This is your theory in a nut shell? An essence of red, a Platonic Form of red, something like these examples, but not actually these examples; and while these examples exist in the world, the true form exists... where? in your mind? In my mind? Somehow, shared between minds? Think of the ontological and epistemic complexity here. — Banno
As per Occam's Razor or Law of Parsimony, we should side on the theory that is the simplest AND can explain all the data. My theory is not simpler than yours, but explains all the data, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not the case with yours. How does your theory explain the fact that some statements are true and some are false?And you offer this as somehow simpler that the claim that we just use the word to talk about different colours. — Banno
Not so. That range of colours must have that form of red to a more or lesser degree, in order to truly call that range red. "This has red" is true. "This has red" is false. Therefore the former range must have a thing which the latter range does not have; and this thing must be defined, that is, must have limits, because it does not appear in the latter range.But the fact that we use the word "red" to talk about a range of different colours might be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that there is no one thing to which the word "red" points. — Banno
The word is to him meaningless. — Samuel Lacrampe
SO the only possible conclusion is that one does not need the meaning of a word in order to be able to use it correctly. — Banno
I have also been puzzled by some poster's aversion to defining terms. But I gradually came to suspect that it's due to a recent (20th century) split in the philosophical community that has been labelled as Analytic vs Literary, or Modern vs Postmodern. It may also be viewed as Reductive vs Holistic. I try to integrate analytical objective methods with holistic subjective intuition in my own personal worldview. But to see them as implacable enemies seems to require a desperate Win-Lose Good vs Evil attitude toward the world.What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? — Tomseltje
The answer to your OP question seems to hinge on the definition of "philosophy". And that is the implicit topic of my previous post. Some hold to Aristotle's definition of "First Philosophy" as Metaphysics (being, wisdom, theology). Which, ironically, leaves Physics as "Second Philosophy". But since the enlightenment era, Science has split-off pragmatic Physics as its own domain, and left mushy Metaphysics to feckless theoreticians and theologians.What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions? . . . . I used to think this was the common vieuw among rational people discussing philosophy, but seeing several topics in this forum that don't seem to abide by this, I'm starting to doubt it. So I think that the answer to the question I posed ought to be 'none', but perhaps I'm wrong about this. — Tomseltje
what do you think of the idea of the ability to view a thread sorted by "best posts" independent of any sort of rating system that does anything toward the poster. — Outlander
21st century polarized politics has taken Relativity to an extreme, undermining the ground under most of our traditional definitions — Gnomon
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.