• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

God and time and space

Underseer said:
Horatio Parker said:
Sure he does. And so do I. The point is not that empirical proof of universals exists, but that people use them, constantly, in their lives. I can refer to "Germany" without referring to an individual, a location, a group, any instituion or law, in fact nothing specific at all and be understood. No one will say, "you can't say 'Germany' because there's no such thing as a universal".
Click to expand...

Wait, so one has to believe in 100% truth or else they can't say the word "Germany"?
Click to expand...
That would be awesome.
 
Underseer said:
Horatio Parker said:
Sure he does. And so do I. The point is not that empirical proof of universals exists, but that people use them, constantly, in their lives. I can refer to "Germany" without referring to an individual, a location, a group, any instituion or law, in fact nothing specific at all and be understood. No one will say, "you can't say 'Germany' because there's no such thing as a universal".
Click to expand...

Wait, so one has to believe in 100% truth or else they can't say the word "Germany"?
Click to expand...

No, people who speak of Germany assume the truth of Germany.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Underseer said:
Wait, so one has to believe in 100% truth or else they can't say the word "Germany"?
Click to expand...

No, people who speak of Germany assume the truth of Germany.
Click to expand...
Why do you use such a weird wirding as "The truth of germany"? What "truth"? There is a social construct referred to, in english, as germany. And there is nothing eternal or universal about thay construct.
Sorry, i forgot I already left. Bye.
 
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
No, people who speak of Germany assume the truth of Germany.
Click to expand...
Why do you use such a weird wirding as "The truth of germany"? What "truth"? There is a social construct referred to, in english, as germany. And there is nothing eternal or universal about thay construct.
Sorry, i forgot I already left. Bye.
Click to expand...

To the ordinary person, Germany is a reality. IOW the statement "Germany is real" is true.

I'm not arguing that Germany is eternal.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Juma said:
Why do you use such a weird wirding as "The truth of germany"? What "truth"? There is a social construct referred to, in english, as germany. And there is nothing eternal or universal about thay construct.
Sorry, i forgot I already left. Bye.
Click to expand...

To the ordinary person, Germany is a reality. IOW the statement "Germany is real" is true..
Click to expand...
So what? Social constructs exists so they are real as such.

Horatio Parker said:
I'm not arguing that Germany is eternal.
Click to expand...

So why bring it up? What are you discussing? I dont think you know yourself...
 
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
To the ordinary person, Germany is a reality. IOW the statement "Germany is real" is true..
Click to expand...
So what? Social constructs exists so they are real as such.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As beauty and other concepts are real.

The difference is that while Germany may change, come or go, over history or even over a lifetime, beauty will not.
 
Juma said:
Horatio Parker said:
Exactly. As beauty and other concepts are real.

The difference is that while Germany may change, come or go, over history or even over a lifetime, beauty will not.
Click to expand...

Beauty is different for all and changes over time.
Click to expand...

Then there is no Germany. No law, no literature, no art, no wisdom, love, or philosophy.
 
Speakpigeon said:
Togo said:
Horatio seems to be making sense to me. I'm not sure what the problem is.

Beauty is the feeling that something is attractive.
Eternal beauty is a reference to attractiveness that does not change with time, hence 'eternal'.

So in a social context, a man might refer to his wife as possessing 'eternal beauty'. This is because she looks beautiful to him irrespective of the passage of time. It's a reference to concepts of beauty and attractiveness that are partaking of an ideal of beauty that is not contingent on time and circumstance.

It's the same point I was making about mathematical concepts. Beauty is no more a fleeting emotion than E-MCsquared is. Both are abstractions, or as Horation puts it, universals. The content of a single person's head does not define or encompass the concept, because the concept is shared.

I'm really not following why this would be controvertial.
Click to expand...
Philosophers have been in disagreement over the notion of Universal for something like ten centuries, possibly more. Some are still at it. It’s not just a controversy in philosophy, it’s very obviously a fundamental one. Don't you know that?
EB
Click to expand...

So, if you're so familiar with the notions that Horatio is expressing, then why are you saying he has zero point, questioning his use of English, and claiming the whole discussion is nonsense? Surely you could say that you recognise and understanding what he's talking about, even if you deny that it's a meaningful or coherant concept, rather than giving the impression you don't understand the posts?
 
Horatio Parker said:
Speakpigeon said:
Philosophers have been in disagreement over the notion of Universal for something like ten centuries, possibly more. Some are still at it. It’s not just a controversy in philosophy, it’s very obviously a fundamental one. Don't you know that?
EB
Click to expand...

Sure he does. And so do I. The point is not that empirical proof of universals exists, but that people use them, constantly, in their lives. I can refer to "Germany" without referring to an individual, a location, a group, any instituion or law, in fact nothing specific at all and be understood. No one will say, "you can't say 'Germany' because there's no such thing as a universal".
Click to expand...
When you say "Germany", you either refer to Germany right now, or to Germany between its creation and now or in the future. I fail to see the difference between that and referring to a particular. Ok, in this case, I guess you just chose the wrong example (your mistake), but what about a good example (from your point of view), like "apples"? Well, I will always say "this apple", "one apple", "two apples", or even "apples" in general etc. As I understand it, I will always mean particular apples, including possible all particular apples that have ever existed and will ever exist. Of course, I have this abstract notion of apple but when I talk about it I will indeed talk about it, that is, I will talk about this particular abstract notion of apple, which is broadly just an idea in mind like my idea of Germany is presumably an idea in my mind. So talking about this particular abstract notion of apple is just again talking about a particular. Sure, the abstract notion of apple is abstract but there is nothing to say about it except as an idea in my head. I sure use it to talk about actual apples, i.e. particular apples, i.e. those that I believe exist such that maybe I could pick one of them to eat it. You may think we have the same idea of apple but this is precisely what you need to prove. Yet, you don't have access to my mind. All you may have, broadly, is access to what I say. So, you're left with words. What you may want to call "Universals" are at best just words. And then only particular words, i.e. words as they are being used at some place and point in time. We may of course suspect that there are something in the world which may cause us (each in our own particular private way) to think of apples in a general way. This is what I called X, which you have already dismissed without even thinking about it. So, I guess there must be something, but what it really is exactly I certain don't know and I haven't seen you, or anybody else, justifying about they would know what this is, be it something material, i.e. apples as they grow on trees, or abstract, as Universal, whatever that means.
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
Horatio Parker said:
Sure he does. And so do I. The point is not that empirical proof of universals exists, but that people use them, constantly, in their lives. I can refer to "Germany" without referring to an individual, a location, a group, any instituion or law, in fact nothing specific at all and be understood. No one will say, "you can't say 'Germany' because there's no such thing as a universal".
Click to expand...
When you say "Germany", you either refer to Germany right now, or to Germany between its creation and now or in the future. I fail to see the difference between that and referring to a particular.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to a particular idea of Germany in your head, then a claim that you were wrong about "Germany" would be nonsensical. It's the idea in your head, and is right by definition.

If the idea of "Germany" in my head includes the idea that Mozart was born there, then am I right about "Germany" or wrong? If the idea in my head includes that concept, does that mean my idea of "Germany" is right (I'm referring to the particular idea of "Germany" in my head) or am I actually referring to a shared concept "Germany" that I can actually be factually incorrect about, and hold wrong ideas about?

If the idea in my head about "Germany" can be wrong, then "Germany" can't refer to the idea in my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom