About "wisdom" or "philosophy" in langua

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Textkit Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Post by Kalailan » Fri Dec 26, 2003 4:30 pm

facts have an external source, quality, and existence.
through our senses we evolve.
our brain develops by receiving stimulation from the outside world.

and to that information we could call "facts".
So a fact by your definition is not an eternal truth, but only an objective truth (objective being made up of all human subjective knowledge, what can be proven without doubt to be true for all humans)?
Because you say our brain just interprets the stimulations it receives from outside, that means that everything we know is 'just' an interpretation and so it cannot be an absolute truth. But if I my senses deceive me and I perceive something that doesn't actually exist, then I would argue that in this case my brain misinterpreted the information and it is no fact. A fact can only be something that every human being can also be able to perceive to give this supposed 'fact' any credibility and make it a fact.
You've already said you agree that a fact is not an eternal truth, but then to make it a human objective truth it must be something that is subjectively true for any human.
In which case this sentence doesn't make much sense at all:
when i see a fact that God and love have a connection
as you cannot prove a connection between Love and God to every human, only to those who
a) believe a God exists
b) believe love is some kind of force or anything likewise
It's not a fact at all, then.[/quote]

i think you are misreading my words.
what i said is not that everything we know is just an interpretation. i didn't mean to touch that subject. i meant to say that we base our thoughts on facts, and that every fact can turn into a thought in our mind. think of it as two levels: the external, and internal. in the external facts are. and, they are indeed facts. eternal facts.
in the internal our minds are.
from the external we take information into the internal, where we process it.
the facts out there remain facts.

but each one of us grows different trees on them.

User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:32 pm

Oh, sorry, I did misunderstand you. So a fact is an eternal truth (that's what I call what you call facts), that's where I was getting a bit confused.

User avatar
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul

Post by mingshey » Sat Dec 27, 2003 12:37 am

Kalailan wrote:to mingshey:

my belief isn't set. i have an open mind (at least i hope so).

and regarding this entire fact topic:

i recommend Buber. i am very influenced by him, even though only indirectly.
i am not sure how much he writes about facts, if at all, but the point i have hidden inside the argument is the :idea: of his mind.
Then I have misunderstood about your belief, sorry.

My argument against the numerology is focused on how it is played in the Christendom. So, you might have a different picture of numerology than I have. ;)

Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:50 am

Re: About "wisdom" or "philosophy" in la

Post by Dane » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:31 am

Kalailan wrote:In hebrew i have found that there is a lot of wisdom "built in" the language itself.
Regardless of it being really "wise", it is more then a mechanism of communication ... In english, i have not found anything except a mechanism of communication. English to me feels different to hebrew.

When I read the title, I (mis)understood it to refer to sofia, wisdom, and philosophy, i.e. loving wisdom. Got it well wrong, didn't I?!

As for any wisdom/gemetria in modern English, I don't believe there is any. (Auparavant, c'est le meme chose en francais, je pense.) I suspect the reason is that English is a bastard language that has stolen most of its vocabulary from Teutonic and Latinate languages. (I use stolen, rather than the academics' borrowed, because we English have no intention whatsoever of giving these words back!)

However, it seems that there was a form of wisdom/gemetria in the early runic alphabet, both in the germanic Elder Furthark and in its English usage. Literature on the subject is, regrettably, arcane and largely inaccessible - both in availability and in understood meaning. The difference seems to have been that it was the alphabet (I guess as with Greek gemetria), rather than the words, that offered the wisdom. Many little New Age companies seem to be making quick bucks by producing Runestones, for divination purposes.

The "wisdom" in modern English derives solely in the harmony provided by the multiple layers of meaning and subtleties of its usage.

Textkit Zealot
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am

Post by chad » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:51 pm

hi dane, do you really think the english "stole" french-based latin vocab from the normans? i think it was a gift the normans wanted to give :) :)

Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:50 am

Post by Dane » Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:19 am

Hi, Chad - and anyone else browsing!
My guess is that the first bits of Latin came into Anglo-Saxon/proto-English via the Roman Catholic church's ecclesiastical usage in the - let's say - 5th-10th cents AD; I doubt a route via the Roman occupation or pre-occupation trading made very much of a mark - Latin would have been to the English as French was to the Russians, a kind of posh lingua franca, that the posh would have wished to keep to themselves, in exactly the same way as the Clergy kept Latin (and, consequently, learning, knowledge and power) away from the hoi polloi.

Come 1066 and the Normans, the Norman French (with its stolen Latin) became the language of the Court: the differences between the Roman and the Normans, which mitigated for the greater incorporation of French and Latin into English were I think (1) the English and the Normans both held Roman Catholicism as THE church, which still used Latin; and (2) the Normans very quickly made England their centre of political activity, whereas, to Imperial Rome, Britannia was nothing more than a distant outpost (with little more status than a nuisance).

A gift from the Normans? Naah, an imposition: in my view.

Textkit Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Post by Kalailan » Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:10 am

When I read the title, I (mis)understood it to refer to sofia, wisdom, and philosophy, i.e. loving wisdom. Got it well wrong, didn't I?!
i blame you not, for my title is indeed to be misunderstood easily. i chose a bad title... i could not find the right one.

it is interesting, what you say about the runes. thanks for answering my question.

O dane, how happy am i that another participant has come to the academy.
surely the academy will someday run as fast as the open board runs today (in number of posts). obviously, by then the open board will move a lot faster. :wink:

Post Reply