Dertonarm, Your eloquence is staggering but I am very puzzled with your statement: 'high-end audio has nothing to
do with love for music'. I know that describing something one way or the other matters so it may be the case that you meant 'high-end' in pejorative sence but to me it is about having music at home and attempting to get as near as
possible to the 'real thing'. Without love for music such
attempts look to me as absurd.
Regards, |
Dear Syntax, I am not able to see Dertonarms 'system' so I
can only quess but I can see yours. Your system is in my opinion in contradiction to your opininion as stated. But my quess regarding Dertonarm system is that the Dollar value of it would allow him to spend the rest of his life in a concert hall.
Regards, |
Dertonarm & Syntax, Your storys rimind me of this chef cook at Maxime: 'there is nothing as tasty as a good cooked potato'.
Regards, |
Dear all, There is this strange conviciton that we intend to impress or show off with our audio-system. But impress
who? All of my family members and all of my friends (one
excepted) think that I am crazy to spend so much money for
my system. Besides all the ladys without exception stated
that they would request divorce if their guy would dare to
buy speakers as I own (Usher BE-20). I have no idea why but
the ladys somehow think that the home furnishing is some kind of their prerogatives. So no wonder that we from all
parts of the world seek for some understanding or empathy in this forum. We are, it seems, strange people.
Regards, |
Atmasphere, very well put. You can also use Tarskian aproch
in terms of satisfaction conditions: 'x satisfied Fx and Gx'. Dertonarm and I are still 'victims' of our philosophical education with Aristotelian 'essences';the inherent qualitys in the things. Quine made this joke about
the 'essence' (aka ratio) of humans: 'federless biped'. Ie
both desriptions of 'man' are true.
Regards, |
Dear all, When Raul posted his 'the best of the best carts'
there was much confusion, negation, explanation,etc . If I
remember well 'the argument' against such a pronouncement was: one can not value or judge a cart in isolotation. To use Dertonarms expression 'team': cart and tonenarm are a
'team' or 'combo'.Ie one needs two for the tango.
We have in casu essentialy the same question but 'disquised' in a different description: wich is the best of the best 3-4 or 5 tonearms? BTW I assume that there
is consensus about this 'fact': there is no universal tonearm (yet). But it may be the case that we all want 'the best tonearm' there is.
Regards, |
Dgarretson, I also thought about classical ecomicis in this
context but 'the old one'. Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc. They
made the distinction between 'value in use' versus 'exchange value'. The so called 'theorys of value'
were all over the place then. Ricardo was the only one who
was searching for the 'absolute measure of value'. His 'corn model'of economic process is still the best 'reduction'(of complexity) that I know of. Ie the whole process is explained in corn terms. Back then the usual explanation of the difference was: water and air have
tremendous 'use value' but no 'exchange value'. No idea if this helps but to my mind we should avoid mixing expressions like 'valuation', 'desription' and 'prescription'. Dertonarm uses obviously 'physicist'
approach: the objects have the qualitys they have, we can discovere them but we can not ascribe to them qualitys they
dont have. But this should be put it seems to me in dscriptiv terms and not in terms of valuation. Valuation without a subject who values is a strange construction.
Marx stated this in the context of 'use value' like this:
the humans value those things because they need them but to
a sheep it may look very strange that his 'value'consist in
the fact that he is edible by humans.
Regards, |
Atmasphere, If you are right then physical science is not
possible. Frege stated that science needs the sence as well
as reference by its statemens. Every single particle physicist knows the 'meaning' of Higs particle. Ie the contribution of this particle to the theory. But non of them knows if this 'name' has a reference. So we in Europe have build this colider for 2 billion Dollars in order to
(possible) answer the question about reference. If we do not succeed then the whole theory will colapse.I need not to defend Dertonarm, he is much smarter then I, but his
opinion is in accordance with physical science. One can
dispute his wording (inherent value of objects) but not
his physical inclination. The nature does not care about our feelings nor about our thinking. The arrogance of homo
sapince is self-deceit. Our 'mother náture' don't care about us.
Regards, |
Dear Lew, I have no idea what you mean. Anyway Davids
contribution wich I very much enjoyed and admire is not
about 'definitions'. He uses lingustic theory (from de Saussuree on) as á 'conceptual fráme'. Ie the diachronic and the synchronic linguistics to show the historical as well as present 'state of affair' in our knowledge and
'technology' in their mutual dependance.I realy don't like
to fight about words ( I am a foreigner) but I noticed that
David used the expression 'inherent quality' while Dertonarm used the expression 'inherent value'. I think that the word 'inherent' in both expressions is superfluous
and deceptive. Those are remainds of Aristotelian 'essences' one outdated 'theory'.Dertonarm uses obviously 'value' and 'quality' as synonym wich they
are not and David 'forget' the difference between the 'pure'- and 'applied' science. The objects have the qualitys they have independent of us (aka objective) so we need to discovere them before we can use them. It is of course impossible to discovere qualitys wich are non existant. And if some quality yet unknown to us exist then in some object. But 'the value' without valuation and valuating subject is a strange construction.
Regards, |
Asa,'what would IT see?' Ie what a perception beyond,etc
would see? Metaphors are, I thought, meant to explain or 'enlight' something in a lucid way. You obviously
constructed one but whay should we explain your metaphor?
A metaphor is supposed to do this by itself, so to speak.
To my mind our eye can see, our ear can hear, etc. But what
our brain does we can only 'quess' with the help of produced sentences by the brain in casu.Ie I have no idea
what your 'message' is.
Regards, |
Dear Dertonarm, We all are, I assume ,familiar with 'concepts' from our education. Thy were somehow always 'split' in two then four, etc: You know: thesis versus antithesis, value in use versus value in exchange,
real estate versus movables,etc.etc. So I may think and
ask: are there also 'extraherent' qualitys or values in objects?
Since Frege we are not searching for the 'meanings' of
words in isolation but only in the context of a sentence
(proposition or statement) with the question regarding the
contribution some word makes to the meaning of the whole sentence. BTW Frege also proposed to treat a 'concept' as a function with one argument and relations
as function with two or more arguments. Well my I ask what
kind of contribution the expression 'inherent' adds to the
meaning of whatever sentence? To my mind the content of such a sentence qua information will be the same without expression 'inherent'. Then there is the objective fact that there are objects wich we know without knowing all their qualitis as well as objects
that are unknown to us. But according to your 'philosophy'
even the unknown objects must have 'inherent values' and
'inherent qualitys'. As I stated before the objects have
qualitys they have independant of us while 'the value' of
any object whatever is dependat on the 'value' we put or
attribute to them. I already mentioned Marx sheep and its
'use value' without mentioning 'value in exchange'. This animal has both (to us)I am sure. Is this sheep entitled to say to a elephant: 'you are a worthless animal'?
Regards, |
Dear Dertonarm, Because of our educational system with,say, the concepts and their opposites there is this
'system' expectation: if there are 'inherent qualitys' in objects what about the 'opposite' kind? So to give them a
name I constructed 'extraherent' kind obviously with some succes because you grasped my intention direct. However your examples of 'extraherent' kind are subject of the discipline called semiotik. This discipline investigates
all kind of symbolism in the contex of symbolic interactions between people.Ie an important symbol of
nation A has no meaning whatever for nation B. There are no
universal kinds. Scietific statements on the other hand are
universal. There is (no more) German versus Russian science. All knowledge we have is regarded as 'public' in
the sence that it belongs to us all. But what about your 'extraherent' qualitys or values? Even in one single
country like China there are many different symbols that are not common to them all. So your 'extraherent' qualitys
may depend of many,many different situations. Aka to many
variables ,so to speak. So to answer any question about your 'symbols' one should ask : wich one have you in mind
and for wich society? But this is not much of a theory as
we may have expected from your conviction.
Regards, |
Asa, ...'try to bound ourselfs in literary terms, as in,
the linquistic, academic regression,etc.'
I had no itention whatever to discuss with you any issue
at all because we seem to be from differnt planets. But
your disapproval of linquistics and the progress made
since,say, the German philosophy including Heidegger is
impossible for me to swallow. When Wittgenstein asked Frege to comment on his Tractatus the first question Frege
asked was: is this meant as a literary or scientific work?
Frege has drawn the separation line between the two. Litarature as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. Ie their sentences need not the truth conditions. So these sentences may have whatever meaning they have but they do not need the reference. However scientific sentences need both. In the other post I
mentioned ,uh, the 'value' of Higs particle. We in Europe
spend 2 billion Dollar in order to discovere if this particle exist. I don't believe that anyone will surch for
Pegasus while any poet or writer is free to write a intersting story about the beauty of his wings. There is no sence in science to askribe or 'attribute' whatever qualitys to a non existent object. Even in mathematics you
can not ask the question about peculiar qualitys of sets without any member. But 'your' Heidegger was able to write
a book about 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. The German expression is 'Das Nichts nichtet' and I am not able to put
this in English. I hope Dertonarm will help , his Englisch
is much better then my. I speak 5 different lanquages and
know how difficult literary translation are. I regard Serbo-Kroatian and Dutch both as my 'native' lanquages but I would never dare or try to translete a literary work from one to the other. But there is no such problem at all in translation of scientific works. That is why the science is the same in any part of the world.Why should this be so you think? Well choose your favourite.
Regard,
|
Atmasphere, Your Quine (assuming your are American) is a
philosopher, logician and mathemtathician. He made very important contributions to i.a.the philosophy of lanquage.
Since Frege this ,say, discipline is a scientific undertaking. I admire Quine very much and made much effort
to understand his work (mathematics not included). But he
has made many contributions to linquistics wich is certainly a science. Where would you drow the line?
I myself am sure that the results reached by the modern philosophy of lanquage belong to knowledge. I am not Popperian but look at his,uh, conceptions reg. refutation,confirmation and objective knowledge.
He btw borowed 'objective knowledge' from Frege ('the third world') Now deed you ever heard about confirmation or refutation of literary works? There is no problem at all to provide for arts of any kind. This is our cultural heritage that we all care for and admire.
In the same sence as scientific knowledge belongs to us all
this applys for arts. But they are to me different categorys. The arts don't belong to objective knowledge.
The word 'objective' in the 'conjunction' should point at
this fact. Ie they lack confirmation and refutation in scientific sence.
Regards,
|
Asa, No discussion but some hints regarding Wittgenstein.
You can find (Google) by Frege the corresopndence with Wittgenstein about Tractatus. To my mind very painful for
'the greatest phylosopher of the 20 century'. Regarding
the later Wittgenstein you should use your own 'seen' and
try to 'see' with your mental eye what will be involved in
reserching 'lanquage games' in,say, China.
Regards, |
Dear Dertonarm, If you assume that some qualitys are
essential (say the ratio by humans) and the other are accidental you can not say that being biped is not accidental. This was the point made by Quine. So probable you should admit that being biped is also essential.But this way we get many 'éssences' in the same object . This is how logic works: contradictory statements will not do.
So if you still want to be Aritotelian you need to find
some other way out.
Asa very interesting to know that sheeps are no objects.
Regards, |
Atmasphere, I would not dream to 'refute' any literary work whatever. Poppers refutation and confirmations are about the truth of theorys. Refutation if they are 'false',
confirmation as a kind of temporal state. Ie he does not
believe that a theory can be proven but well refuted.
So confirmitaion is for as long as the theory 'stnds'.
Regards, |
Atmasphere, I forget to mention the dramatic aspect by
CERN. If the existance of Higs particale is not proven
then the whole theory will be refuted in Poppers sence.
Regards, |
Asa, If you persist I will try to answer your question.
But look first to this question:'what kind of man is your
sister?'
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. Besides he also
stated that there are three of us in each of us: ego,superego and it. I hope you deed not meant this 'it' in your 'what it see'? I personaly would be only interested in what the super ego has to say. This state of
affares would of course be a nightmare for the logicians because of the identity relation. No entity without identity and then no supstitutio salva veritate without identity. But worst of all no quantification theory. As Quine put it: quantification and substitution go hand in hand'.
The second possibility is dramatic one. But for the sake of argument I may be in coma. In such state of my brain I
would be not able to answer any question whatever. My doc
should speek for me. He also should comfort my family
stating the hope regarding awakening. If ever.
Regards, |
Dear Dertonarm, As I stated before I am realy astonished
with the extension of your eloquence. As you stated elswhere you consider your self to be 'a child of enlightment'. Ie the dream regarding homo universalis. I have never 'met'a better example. But I noticed this. In the çontext of áudio system you are able to relate tonearm,
cart,TT, amps.and speakers. This is obviously RELATIONAL
issue. Correlation of those, say, different parts is the
same. But when you are talking about ,uh, philosophy you
are using only concepts. There are limitations on what you
can do with concepts. So no wonder we get 'adding up' on
qualitys. Add éssence befor the word object then inherent
or éxtraherent qualitys and even the values. Those are morphems wich you can add as you please with the illusion ofsome 'extra meaning'. Read any philosopher you like about
essence and you will get 10 of them while 'the essence' is
supposed to be one. Now I mentioned Freges invention to deal with cocepts as function with one argument and relations as function with two or more arguments.There is a
theory of relations so we can talk about relations in relational terms. But the 'subject predicate' sentence form
is not suitable for relations. The most peaople 'see' (sic)
some 'name' in the subject place and provide or add up
predicates to the (pre)suposed name. So 'the Germans are
defeated by Stalingrad by the Russians' seems to be about
Germans but 'the Russian defeated the Germans by Stalingrad' express, as Frege would say, the same thought.
The most strange construction is when people put some quantifier in the subject place. Thy then think that those
are also names with refering function. But then why complain with: 'someone has stollen my car?' If this quantifier is a name with refering function you should be able to find this person.
Asa thinks obviously that 'not','nothing',etc is some kind of philosophical concept. One with some very important meaning that is probable only available to him,
Heidegger, and some. But this is ,uh, a ordinary quantifier
that should be treated as (universal) quantifier 'all'.
Ie: there is no object that satisfied conditions Fx and Gx.
Regards, |
Asa, Thanks to Lew I need not to state my 'materialistic'
conviction. I am 'physicalist' all the way .Ie all events
are physical and we are hoping to be able to reduce all
sciences to physical terms. So in this sence even 'semanticalisam' is a provisional state because of lack of better. What I like to address is your talk about
'linquistic decomposition'. You are obviously not familiar
with 'compositionality principle' as introduced by Frege.
A sentence is a composed whole such that every expression
in a sentence contributes to the meaning of the whole sentence. The analysis of a sentence may involve 'decomposition' but this is only for the sake of
analysis: trying to stipulate wich 'part' play which function in the whole sentence.
Now : 'cogito ergo sum' is not my conviction but I attributed this to you as your possible premisse. One can easely 'deduce' from there the conclusion 'I am not' when
not thinking. The problem is 'I am not' is not a sentence
or not completed sentence. Ie badly composed because this sentence lack 'some parts' and consequently has no complete
meaning. Say like 'x + 4'. As long as we have not put some
number in the 'marker' x this expression has no sence nor
reference. So producing some bewildering 'meánings' from
the word 'not' and constructing 'nothingnees' as adding
up to the presuppoosed meaning has nothing to do with semantics or linquistic theory but illustrates the lack of
needed knowledge. Stating the same in a question statement:
how can one discuss quantification theory with a person
who has never heard about quantification?
Regards, |
Concepts and relations, I think that we mostly think as we
are teached to do. In some sence we think as we speak. We
are programmed with our native lanquage and progrmamed with
our education. Is a student capable to question his teachers? Think about 'my' (aka Marx) sheep. We are talking
about 'his qualitys ' as: 'has quality a,b,...c. Even ín
terms of 'tasty'. Aristoteles was I think aware about the
fact that a object 'has' more quality then,say, just one.
But if one quality is assumed to be 'essential' what about
the other qualitys. Well he provided a way out for him self
and us. The other (possible) qualitys are then accidental.
Have you ever heard in your education about those?
We in Europe thought about Aristoteles as about the sheep.
What 'quality' has Aristotele. Well he was 'the truth'. Ie
the greatest mind of all times in Europe. What was our conseption of 'the truth'? well: veritas est auctoritas.
The truth is the authority. So Aristotels dominated our education for more then 2000 years and in some diciplines
still does. I am not familiar with American educational system but if 'it' is different then I don't believe that
American can comprehend his influence.
In my education those 'essences' were everywhere. Say: what
is the essence of collective ownership of the production means(in Yugoslavia) versus the essence of state ownership
in the USSR. Well of course the our kind was much better ,
more social and essentialy more true to the workers.
Why is it the case that we never heard something about those 'accidental qualitys'. Well those were obviously not
important. Ie not essential.
There are some moments in life that the Germans call Aha Erlebnis .say, Heureka ( no idea what the English phrase is).My first was this 'Marxian sheep'. I got the picture
so to speak. Sheep and man are both objects so there is
RELATION between them. Well I am originaly from the Balkans so I know something about this relation. It is
the man who decides what qualitys a sheep 'has'. Ie the
man attrubutes qualitys a,b,c..n to the sheep but his
description of those is : has the qualitys such and such.
But what about the sheep? In what sence are those qualitys
'inherent','essential' or 'atherent' in the sheep on its own as a separate object? Well we are obviously not used to
think in RELATIONAL terms so we are adding up on concepts.
But concepts and relations are different logical tools.
Thanks to Galileo physics was liberated from Aristoteles
in ,say, 16 century. What about Humanoria?
My second Heureka was by reading Quine and his 'fight' against Essentialist. Btw I think or wish that Quine is a
Dutch descendant (see his full name) so we can put him next to Brouwer to tease the Germans.He described man as
a 'featherless biped' and asked the question: in what sence is biped accidental?' And I will add: do we need
some new biology?
Freges new logic (is the 'father of') is the liberation of
Aristotels logic. But it seems to me that this fact is not
generaly known.
Regards, |
