The Absurdity of Absolute Philosophy on Basis of Language

[FLCL@floydrock]

Consider the following:

Language is an evolving phenomenon, belong to the speakers, and such has a Historical and Conditioned existence(it changes over time).

Language also encodes the thought of a people through it's grammatical rules, and is deeply rooted in their culture(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relat ... ment2.html), an idea known as Linguistic Relativity, which current Scientific Evidence suggests.

All thought can only be expressed by words and with a Language.

This means that all thought then must fall within the conditions and confines of the culture within it, and it cannot express a contradictory motion without betray the very language it speaks, making it if too different incapable of being understood.

Consequently, a Philosophy cannot be expressed in Languages to vastly different from one another, and the meaning will inevitably be lost in any attempt at translation.

This means we will never leave the Sphere of Thought of the language we speak.

Thus, no Philosophy could ever be established that is not rooted in innately Historical ideas and expressions.

This means a Philosophy only holds bearing to the Time and Place it is created in, or at least to Times and Places sharing the conditions of the origin of the Philosophy.

Thoughts?

[zilabus]

I think that, although this is true to a point, it isn't absolute. Although the exact original meaning of something archaic or in another language is, in reality, impossible to divine, so is any statement, even one made in your language in your time.

Essentially, only the speaker will ever be able to pinpoint the exact message, regardless. Or at least that's what I feel like.

And while it may be difficult for a message or meaning to transfer, it certainly isn't impossible. If it is, then how are teachings so far flung still taught? In theory, Sun tzu should be meaningless to us, although that certainly isn't the case. Clearly something is lost in translation, but not so much that it would make reality totally dependent on the constraints of your language and the era in which you exist.

Almost as if to misprove my own point, I feel as though I didn't articulate that very well.

[FLCL@floydrock]

I think that, although this is true to a point, it isn't absolute.

Well not quite absolute, just you could not express a truly TOTALLY revolutionary new philosophy in the language of the old one.

Essentially, only the speaker will ever be able to pinpoint the exact message, regardless. Or at least that's what I feel like.

Seems a little like that Relativism is too Absolutely Relativistic. I think that in order for a word or sentence to be Cultural, it most be found in general parameters, whilst it may have individual connotations, that if too great become nearly impossible to express.

Clearly something is lost in translation, but not so much that it would make reality totally dependent on the constraints of your language and the era in which you exist.

The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis isn't that you can't UNDERSTAND another completely different language per-say, you just can't THINK in that language.

[zilabus]

Clearly something is lost in translation, but not so much that it would make reality totally dependent on the constraints of your language and the era in which you exist.

The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis isn't that you can't UNDERSTAND another completely different language per-say, you just can't THINK in that language.

But is it really possible to prove you can't think something comprable or identical in a language of your own?

I realize that nuances and the very base of thought and communication are based in the language you speak, but to me, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a thought that matches one from another language.

Although you may have to express them differently, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are different.

[FLCL@floydrock]

But is it really possible to prove you can't think something comprable or identical in a language of your own?

Comparable, that I don't think is true, but could be tested. Identical, yes. We have shown that color perception differs from viewers of different languages.

I realize that nuances and the very base of thought and communication are based in the language you speak, but to me, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a thought that matches one from another language.

Elaborate.

You may all perceive a car to be red, but perceptions, of say where one city is on a map.

In a speaker of an Eskimo language, one would say:
"That city is upwards/downwards/left/right of this city."
While a speaker of English could say:
"It is Northwest", or "At 52 degrees North and 32 degrees South."

An Eskimo is incapable of expressing the idea of Absolute Location or Direction, only relative directions can be conveyed in an Eskimo Language. So, how could he express the idea to himself?

Although you may have to express them differently, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are different.

If you only speak an Eskimo Language, then you only have been taught and only understand the idea of Relative Location. To understand the Western View, one would have to speak the language.

[Yellow_Rock]

Spoken/written language is not the only way to express thought. Facial expressions and gestures, basic vocal sounds, and pictures are also ways of doing this.

Your example with the Eskimo language is flawed, different people may perceive and explain things in different ways, but the basic meaning is the same. That is the barrier that translators have to overcome, the fact that the same idea can be expressed in different ways in different languages, but the core meaning is the same in all languages. Where one person may say "That city is above that one", and another would say "That city is north of that one", they both mean "That city is in this relative location to that one". Direct translations will always be flawed and not make much sense, so a person doing a translation from one language to another needs to be able to discern the MEANING of what they are translating, not just the words themselves.

[FLCL@floydrock]

Spoken/written language is not the only way to express thought. Facial expressions and gestures, basic vocal sounds, and pictures are also ways of doing this.

This is true, but I am mainly referring to Philosophy, to change a Philosophy it is done through Written Means primarily.

Your example with the Eskimo language is flawed, different people may perceive and explain things in different ways, but the basic meaning is the same.

What, that the Eskimo does see it below the one city? That is undoubtably true, because they are seeing the same essential reality, but it what is changed it drastically alters the Philosophy or base assumptions that come with it.

That is the barrier that translators have to overcome, the fact that the same idea can be expressed in different ways in different languages, but the core meaning is the same in all languages

That has been debated.

Where one person may say "That city is above that one", and another would say "That city is north of that one", they both mean "That city is in this relative location to that one"

No, I specifically demonstrated one has a sense of Absolute Location, or that there is an intristic North, South, East, and West in English, while there is a relative upwards, downwards, left, right in the Eskimo language. Giving you the Latitude and Longitude doesn't just give a relation, it gives an ABSOLUTE value of North, South, East, and West.

Direct translations will always be flawed and not make much sense, so a person doing a translation from one language to another needs to be able to discern the MEANING of what they are translating, not just the words themselves.

And our understanding are still different, because some things simply can't be conveyed unartificially without breaking certain grammatical rules.

[Yellow_Rock]

the grammar doesn't really matter though. it can be translated too.

[FLCL@floydrock]

the grammar doesn't really matter though. it can be translated too.

Did you really just say that? I'm really shocked, you're usually say very intelligent things, but that statement was singlehanded the dumbest statement I've heard, in, well awhile...

No, it cannot.

The idea of "That city is above that city" and "That city has an absolute numeric value and co-ordinates of x,y." are two very different ideas about location. In fact, the different between General Relativity and Classical Physics is basically only this, and they have entirely different Mathematical Rules!

The differences in Language give not different concepts, but different relationships between concepts! There cannot be Reductionism, one must consider the interaction of the parts, how they relate. Maybe x=y/4 and x=4/y all agree on the definition of x, y, and 4, but they are related in a completely different way!

Do you understand now what I have been saying? Are you using a translator, maybe our different languages are making it hard to understand each other .

And again, I'm sorry if I offended you with the first statement, you're a smart guy, but I think it's best I leave it there so you understand how shocking it was to hear that.

[Yellow_Rock]

if you show a man a map, he will say, that city is there.

if you show a man that speaks another language the same map, he will say the same thing, but in his own language.

if you point to a tree and say "what is that", they will both say 'a tree', but in their own languages.

identifying something in another language does not change the nature of the item. they say different things, but it has the same MEANING.

grammar can be translated. for example, many things in spanish are backwards to how you would say them in english. someone with an understanding of both languages can translate from one to the other.

[FLCL@floydrock]

identifying something in another language does not change the nature of the item. they say different things, but it has the same MEANING.

The differences in Language give not different concepts, but different relationships between concepts!

grammar can be translated. for example, many things in spanish are backwards to how you would say them in english. someone with an understanding of both languages can translate from one to the other.

How do you translate the idea of an objects ABSOLUTE location into an Eskimo Language? You change it RELATIVE location. That is changing the way the RELATION BETWEEN THE OBJECTS is conceived and perceived.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE, NOT THE OBJECTS!, IS DIFFERENT.

[FLCL@floydrock]

Accidental Double post.

[Yellow_Rock]

you would use whatever system of measurement is used in that language. you're comparing someone giving the exact location of a place with someone giving a relative location of it.

if i were to ask someone here where arkansas was, they would say "to the south". this would be the same in any language, south is south. if i were to ask exactly where arkansas is in relation to where i am standing now, they would give a measurement, most likely in miles. an eskimo would use what ever measuring system they use. they may not have an equivalent of latitude and longitude, but every culture has units of measurement.

in the case where one language has a word or phrase without an equivalent in another language, translators have to take a best guess at explaining it. something will be lost, sure, but in the modern world this doesn't happen all that often.

if you look at some of the native american languages, their word meanings were a lot deeper than they are in english, so translating is virtually impossible. due to this complexity though, the language has virtually died out, because of its inability to reliably translate to more commonly used languages.

languages survive because of their ease of use and number of people that speak them. the exceptions to this are languages that are spoken by people isolated from the rest of the world.

conquest, trade, and diplomacy are things that spread language from one place to another.

[FLCL@floydrock]

you would use whatever system of measurement is used in that language. you're comparing someone giving the exact location of a place with someone giving a relative location of it.

Exactly. They are different. And this leads to different world-views in Philosophy, one with a "Container" or "Absolute" version of space, the other with space being "A Relative System of Measurement". That is my point.

if i were to ask someone here where arkansas was, they would say "to the south". this would be the same in any language, south is south.

The differences in Language give not different concepts, but different relationships between concepts!

Can I please stop posting this, please? Please? I have stated a great number of times, "Yes, a tree is a tree in any language", "Yes, South is South in any language." Please, actually read my post, or if you actually did, please get that I have already agreed with that over and over again. Please, don't tell me again. And if you really did read this post, acknowledge it, because I seriously doubt it after I agreed with you 10 times after you've stated 10 times(this is a hyperbole, you probably stated it less).

ask exactly where arkansas is in relation to where i am standing now, they would give a measurement, most likely in miles. an eskimo would use what ever measuring system they use.

That is accurate. This is not:

every culture has units of measurement

At least with regards to all things. The Hopi view time as an Indivisible Process that you can't cut into segments, therefore, they have no units of Time.

Which, again, creates very different philosophies.

the language has virtually died out, because of its inability to reliably translate to more commonly used languages.

Or because of Americans especially and other colonizers killed them off until they might has well of been on the endangered species list .

As Chef Emeril would say, "BAM!"

[Yellow_Rock]

i was referring to measurement of space.

and maybe if you would stop being so overly verbose i could actually understand what you are saying. :P

and the native americans would have survived better if they could communicate easier with each other and the settlers. the main reason there was so much conflict is because of the big differences in culture and outlook on life. the natives felt that they were being pushed out of their own territory, and the settlers felt superior to the heathen dirt worshipers.