Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: LE SUPERDUARD, DUDE

Expand Messages
  • Mattlzpf@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/2/03 8:20:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, god@theabsurd.com writes:
    Message 1 of 56 , Aug 3 10:13 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 8/2/03 8:20:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, god@...
      writes:

      << All I know is I can't know anything -- except that any fact is absolute >>

      Eduard spoke in his message about language and how our brains come to
      understand words and their meanings. To respond to this question and to the above
      statement about fact I have provided an excerpt from On Truth and Lie in an
      Extra-Moral Sense:

      "In a limited way man wants the truth: he desires the agreeable
      life-preserving consequences of truth, but he is indifferent to pure knowledge, which
      has no consequences; he is even hostile to possibly damaging and destructive
      truths. And moreover, what about these conventions of language? Are they
      really the products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Do the designations and
      the things coincide? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?
      Only through forgetfulness can man ever achieve the illusion of
      possessing a "truth" in the sense just designated. If he does not wish to be satisfied
      with truth in the form of tautology-that is, with empty shells-then he will
      forever buy illusions for truths. What is a word? The image of a nerve
      stimulus in sounds. But to infer from the nerve stimulus, a cause outside us, that
      is already the result of a false and unjustified application of the principle
      of reason. . . . The different languages, set side by side, show that what
      matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there
      would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure
      truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the
      creators of language and not at all worth aiming for." -Friedrich Nietzsche (1873,
      published posthumously)

      I suggest reading the entire work for a more in depth understanding.
      Nietzsche's sarcasm in the last sentence is all too regular and comes not with
      destruction but motivation seeking pure truth, if indeed there is such a thing.
      Aren't concepts the basic foundations to which humans are able to build their
      knowledge? We should look at concepts to explain language. I would suggest that
      this is the primary characteristic of our brain, rather than the size which
      has been shown to be irrelevant. Through our ability to understand and expand
      upon concepts we learn and produce language.

      --MATT_C
    • Mary Jo Malo
      Knott, It might take some time. I think truth might be a structural thing, you know, like the scientists are looking for a unified theory that will make sense
      Message 56 of 56 , Aug 7 5:46 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Knott,

        It might take some time. I think truth might be a structural thing,
        you know, like the scientists are looking for a unified theory that
        will make sense out of everything. I'm intrigued with the ideas of
        Madoc Owen in The Blue Rose Project. Truth might be based on logic,
        rather than scientific exploration. Also, some truth will be
        fundamental. Other truth might be infinitely changing.

        Mary Jo

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <god@t...> wrote:
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Mattlzpf@a... wrote:
        > > Is it possible for language to discover and express truth?
        >
        >
        > If it were, someone would be expressing it.
        >
        > Masterov Obvious
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.