God and time and space

[Juma]

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.

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.

"Germany" is a social construct. It is an agreement between humans. Each human has its own concept of "germany" that is synchronized by various sorts of interactions. Thus "germany" is in my head and that can be "wrong" if it is enough dissimilar to the "germany" in other peoples heads.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't see why a relativist view is any less illusory than what I'm talking about.

Then what are you talking about?

That beauty is eternal is no less an assumption than our living in isolation in our own private dream world that is unique and can't be compared to any other, which seems to be what you're proposing.

 

[Juma]

Then what are you talking about?

That beauty is eternal is no less an assumption than our living in isolation in our own private dream world that is unique and can't be compared to any other, which seems to be what you're proposing.

That we are separare entities of a changing species is no fucking "assumption". It is a fact.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That beauty is eternal is no less an assumption than our living in isolation in our own private dream world that is unique and can't be compared to any other, which seems to be what you're proposing.

That we are separare entities of a changing species is no fucking "assumption". It is a fact.

A fact with no relevance. It's an assumption to say our biological uniqueness by definition precludes our ability to understand each other. It's a biological answer to an emotional question.

 

[Juma]

That we are separare entities of a changing species is no fucking "assumption". It is a fact.

A fact with no relevance. It's an assumption to say our biological uniqueness by definition precludes our ability to understand each other. It's a biological answer to an emotional question.

I have never said that we cannot understand each other. Not in any reasonable understanding of the word "understand". Maybe you can explain why you mean?

 

[Horatio Parker]

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

That's a big step. Yes, there is something. And the tentativeness of that of course can't be forgotten or overlooked, but there is indeed something.

I understood your X variable to be a mechanism of beauty. Since the question is: what is beauty, it's mechanism is a side issue, particularly since these are speculative questions. If you're referrng to the metaphysical, it's a good question.

Ideas are what this about, not words. Words are the only medium we have to exchange and compare ideas. So they will have to do.

Yes, when you and I discuss apples, the only way to find out how much our ideas are alike or different is by talking about them. If we decide we have a mutual understanding, we do.

 

[Horatio Parker]

A fact with no relevance. It's an assumption to say our biological uniqueness by definition precludes our ability to understand each other. It's a biological answer to an emotional question.

I have never said that we cannot understand each other. Not in any reasonable understanding of the word "understand". Maybe you can explain why you mean?

That the experience of beauty can be conceived of, discussed, and agreed upon among humans as a universal experience.

 

[Juma]

I have never said that we cannot understand each other. Not in any reasonable understanding of the word "understand". Maybe you can explain why you mean?

That the experience of beauty can be conceived of, discussed, and agreed upon among humans as a universal experience.

Then we are done cause we know that we do not agree about what beauty is.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That the experience of beauty can be conceived of, discussed, and agreed upon among humans as a universal experience.

Then we are done cause we know that we do not agree about what beauty is.

I'm not interested in what you think beauty is. My point is that a conceptual framework that encompasses ideas such beauty, time, space and God is a reasonable one and not in conflict with Science.

 

[Juma]

Then we are done cause we know that we do not agree about what beauty is.

I'm not interested in what you think beauty is. My point is that a conceptual framework that encompasses ideas such beauty, time, space and God is a reasonable one and not in conflict with Science.

And noone argues against that. It is your silly idea about eternal universals that are totally laughable.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm not interested in what you think beauty is. My point is that a conceptual framework that encompasses ideas such beauty, time, space and God is a reasonable one and not in conflict with Science.

And noone argues against that. It is your silly idea about eternal universals that are totally laughable.

Noone? I thought you were Juma....

 

[Juma]

And noone argues against that. It is your silly idea about eternal universals that are totally laughable.

Noone? I thought you were Juma....

Yes. i am Juma and I have never argued against the usefullness of a
conceptual framework that encompasses those ideas. (Exactly as little as I have argued against the usefullness of a conceptual framework that encompasses santa claus or superman.)

Capice?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Exactly. As beauty and other concepts are real.

No doubt as mental objects. So what?

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

How could you possibly know that?

Each of our judgements about beauty is a particular judgement, not a Universal, just as each of our references to Germany is a particular reference, as informed by our perspective, knowledge, location, time etc.

I guess you are just badly confused about the distinction between the concept and what the concept may refer to, if anything. Whatever concepts in general may refer to, these are particular things, be it beauty, Germany or something else. The concepts of beauty and of Germany are of course abstractions, but only in the sense that they are mental idealisation of particular sets of particular things as we may have experienced them (all our experiences regarding beauty and all our experiences regarding Germany). Obviously our concept of Germany and our concept of beauty, as mental abstractions, are stripped of the particular differences between our experiences as we gain them over time and space. So of course mental abstractions may not include a time attribute, but that's not to say that the concept we have, be it beauty or Germany, is timeless or that what we mean by this concept (if it exists at all) is somehow actually timeless.

Just smoke and mirrors.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

Noone? I thought you were Juma....

Yes. i am Juma and I have never argued against the usefullness of a
conceptual framework that encompasses those ideas. Or argues against the usefullness of a conceptual framework that encompasses santa claus or superman.

Capice?

Learn some new songs, please.

To compare trivial fantasies with critical core experiences of life is laughable.

 

[Juma]

Yes. i am Juma and I have never argued against the usefullness of a
conceptual framework that encompasses those ideas. Or argues against the usefullness of a conceptual framework that encompasses santa claus or superman.

Capice?

Learn some new songs, please.

To compare trivial fantasies with critical core experiences of life is laughable.

Not getting the point is.... Priceless....

 

[Horatio Parker]

No doubt as mental objects. So what?

So what? How else does a person relate to reality?

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

How could you possibly know that?

By studying and comparing people's experiences.

Each of our judgements about beauty is a particular judgement, not a Universal, just as each of our references to Germany is a particular reference, as informed by our perspective, knowledge, location, time etc.

Our judgements are particular, but beauty is not.

I guess you are just badly confused about the distinction between the concept and what the concept may refer to, if anything. Whatever concepts in general may refer to, these are particular things, be it beauty, Germany or something else. The concepts of beauty and of Germany are of course abstractions, but only in the sense that they are mental idealisation of particular sets of particular things as we may have experienced them (all our experiences regarding beauty and all our experiences regarding Germany). Obviously our concept of Germany and our concept of beauty, as mental abstractions, are stripped of the particular differences between our experiences as we gain them over time and space. So of course mental abstractions may not include a time attribute, but that's not to say that the concept we have, be it beauty or Germany, is timeless or that what we mean by this concept (if it exists at all) is somehow actually timeless.

Just smoke and mirrors.
EB

What is not smoke and mirrors? What is "actually" timeless? Everyone projects a mental framework onto the universe. A metaphysics that includes aesthetics as fundamental recognizes the forces that these things play in our lives. The academy may consider them pointless speculations reeking of superstition, but virtually no one lives that way.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Learn some new songs, please.

To compare trivial fantasies with critical core experiences of life is laughable.

Not getting the point is.... Priceless....

Point? You flatter yourself. You may as well compare ping pong balls to elephants.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

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?

I never referred to the whole discussion.
I based my replies on what Horatio said during our exchanges. And I really don't understand his posts. I still don't know what it is, if anything, that he really wants to say in relation to Universals. If his use of English is so erratic that I can't decide what he means then his posts, the ones I'm replying to, are as good as meaningless to me. If he is too unhappy about my comments he can ignore me. If he wants to be understood and taken seriously, he can start by being more explicit, less vague, less ambiguous. But the unfortunate thing is that he keeps at it.
Also, you should know it's not the first time I reproach posters their sloppy English. Few people have escaped my vindictive inclination on this subject. Nothing special about him here if that's your concern.
And commend your ability to decide you can see through the haze of his verbiage.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

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?

I never referred to the whole discussion.
I based my replies on what Horatio said during our exchanges. And I really don't understand his posts. I still don't know what it is, if anything, that he really wants to say in relation to Universals. If his use of English is so erratic that I can't decide what he means then his posts, the ones I'm replying to, are as good as meaningless to me. If he is too unhappy about my comments he can ignore me. If he wants to be understood and taken seriously, he can start by being more explicit, less vague, less ambiguous. But the unfortunate thing is that he keeps at it.
Also, you should know it's not the first time I reproach posters their sloppy English. Few people have escaped my vindictive inclination on this subject. Nothing special about him here if that's your concern.
And commend your ability to decide you can see through the haze of his verbiage.
EB

What I'm trying to say is that universals are a useful and valid framework through which to view reality. Particularly that part of reality where we live our lives.

What I get from your posts does not seem like an attempt to understand me. I'm not questioning your motives, I'm just relating my impression. I find it odd.

I find your posts obtuse, perhaps confused at times, but also containing some excellent thoughts. FWIW.

I don't mind your remarks about my English one little bit. Fire away.

 

[Juma]

What I'm trying to say is that universals are a useful and valid framework through which to view reality. Particularly that part of reality where we live our lives.

Ah, finally a goal description! Good!
As it stands it seems not to be what you have been arguing for though. To me it seems that you argue for a specific view on what universals are: that they are something more than a feature of our mind.