Short answer...
Because the dog isn't capable of thinking about stuff. — creativesoul
I am quite sure she has no language going through her brain, — Hanover
Given all that's been talked about thus far, how important is our methodological approach in terms of providing the strongest possible ground for positing the existence and the necessary elemental composition of pre and/or non-linguistic thought/belief and/or meaning?
Oh, and I hope you can pardon my lack of proper greeting. Too many discussions, I suppose, that I ought to have ended participating in much sooner than I did. This one looks rather promising. It's a welcome change, because it's been a while to say the least. — creativesoul
...Any thought is a thought of x or that x, with x being a proposition...
If you want to disregard the empirical/scientific approach, then what are your options? You could approach it as a rationalist, in which case you'll need to lay out the principles you'll be using to draw your conclusions. Otherwise: phenomenology?
All thought consists entirely of mental correlation(there are no imaginable exceptions to the contrary). — creativesoul
If I say to my dog Ginger "where's Fiona" she darts around the house, looking everywhere where Fiona (my other dog) usually is (on the bed, under the bed, in the basement, upstairs in the kid's room) and she barks when she finds her. This is a very basic task for a dog. Part of Ginger's excitement is that she knows once Fifi is found, they both get to go outside.
That is, Ginger understood what I was talking about (Fiona and going outside) and her behavior was future oriented, fully expecting her current behavior to lead to an anticipated result. I am quite sure she has no language going through her brain, but the thought of her and her little buddy running outside was in her head as she went looking for her.
One's mind... prior to gaining one's initial worldview... is. — creativesoul
I'm not sure what you have in mind by "methodological approach"; I see it more as a matter of commitment. The assumption of an "elemental" real that provides the conditions for actual experience is essential. The assumption that actual experience, both pre-and post-linguistic is an expression of the real is essential. Without those commitments, everything we say will be, to quote Gurdjieff, nothing more than "Pouring from the empty into the void".
It seems you wanted to point out how important it is that post-linguistic ideas are strongly connected to real pre-linguistic feeling, belief and experience, and, implicit in this seems to be an injunction to avoid empty reification of mere "imaginaries" that are made (at least more) possible by language. I would agree with that, but it is a task that is not overly easy. And it is complicated by the fact that what is purely imaginary can certainly lead to real feeling, belief and experience. We're merely human, so perhaps we're never going to nail it, but to surrender to the merely arbitrary imagination is not an option, either. Welcome to the discomfort of uncertainty.
The "actual" is always superfluous in light of knowing the difference between what being true requires and being called "true" requires. — creativesoul
If - when we use the term "real" - we're discussing the category of things that have an affect/effect, then I may be willing to speak in such terms. — creativesoul
Sure, she understands the sounds, but in terms of her own thought processes, she doesn't rely on language. For example, should she think about where Fiona is, the meaning of those thoughts are not internally reduced to language. — Hanover
I wrote:
..."actual" is always superfluous in light of knowing the difference between what being true requires and being called "true" requires.
You replied:
I don't think so. The actual is what makes the difference between being true, and merely being thought to be true. As I see it. truth both speaks and reveals actuality; in the propositional as well as the alethic senses.
I think of the actual as the twin categories of things which act, which "have an effect", and which are acted upon, which are affected. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. The real I think of as both the actual, and the conditions that are necessary, whatever they might be, for the actual to be.
That I didn't quote your entire post doesn't imply that I wasn't addressing it.
What you are calling "the actual" requires further reduction into what I call "fact/reality" and "truth". Being true requires correspondence with/to fact/reality. Being believed(thought to be true) presupposes it. — creativesoul
On my view, saying that "truth both speaks and reveals actuality" is mistakenly attributing agency to a relationship. For poetry, that's beautiful... For philosophical rigor, not so much. — creativesoul
It seems to me that that is unnecessarily confusing.
Would I be correct in surmising that your use of the terms "real", "actual", and "actuality" indicate awareness of our own fallibility? I mean, do they include the unknown realm? — creativesoul
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.