Synthesis in Language

Earlier today I was walking into the library and I overheard a discussion which I will paraphrase for you. Three individuals were talking about how two of the group had bad knees but they still wanted to compete in some form of physical activity. One of them proposes that they do a three-legged race and they all chuckle a little. Then she decides it would be interesting to extrapolate on this and begins to talk about how they should make the two bad knees in the center so that they have two good legs; also noting that “two weak legs [in the middle] make one strong leg.” This is the most important aspect of their conversation. She carefully noted that the situation seemed incredibly advantageous to the other two for the fact that adding two weak legs makes a strong leg.
The problem with this assumption is that it builds off of notions within language that have become skewed between mathematical synthesis and language skills. The individual in my example was proclaiming that it would be totally fine because two weak legs added together get you a strong leg. This is a concept that we gained from math, but it is also an attitude built on causal relationships. The problem with this causal relationship is that throughout nature it isn’t always proved accurate. The concept of weak, if involving two things, synthesized together could gain you a bigger weak thing, a strong thing (as is believed in the example), as well as even the destruction of the two things. There are even more possibilities dependant on the situation. But the important thing to note is that language really has no bearing on whether or not the two qualities of weak will join together and become a strong concept. If you look at a spectrum of qualitative statements, one could find that “weak” is on one end and “strong” is on another end, but the spectrum nor any language concept allows you to deem whether or not the quantities of weak statements can create strong statements. An incredibly large amount of weak minded individuals will fall just as easily to mind control than just two or three weak individuals.
The ultimate question that needs to be asked in this situation then is where does math fit into all this. This, as well as the points I am drawing on already are, as far as I am told (I haven’t read anything by this man yet), extensively written about by Immanuel Kant. Kant believes that there is a different between a mathematical concept and a language-based concept.
The notions that society holds towards addition are most likely drawn from the heavy use of math on a daily basis to do all of the simple things. Interestingly enough, we add, count, subtract, and do simple measurements regularly and it eventually has become so deeply rooted in our culture that it could be argued that it is the foundation of modern causality.
Hume had an excellent point in arguing that causality lacks any foundation in real knowledge, or knowledge of the supposed causal situation. Many have scoffed at his belief and argued how far from “common sense” it really was. But if you really think about what he is saying, “common sense” doesn’t seem to be the right term for him.
When people think of “common sense” they think of the popular way of thinking, or the popular belief on a particular issue. A popular idea that is widespread in a population (strong or weak….) will undoubtedly scoff at anything new that comes along. Such was what happened with Galileo, Da Vinci, as well as many other minds presenting new thoughts/creations to the world. A group of people had an idea for the ‘personal computer’ they brought it to a major company that scoffed at the individuals noting that it would never catch on and would never be anything big, those individuals went on to create the Macintosh computer and soon grew immensely rich. The company that thought the idea was horrible was Hewlett-Packard, a move that, undoubtedly, they regret to this day. HP serves as a perfect example of this common sensical attitude we have towards ideas and towards thoughts. It really is centered on an instinctual feeling of security that all human beings would prefer over a chaotic state. Chaotic states mean that the brain and the body must to work harder to stay involved, and if this is a constant thing, it becomes difficult and taxing on the body. So we, as human tend towards routines and attributes that remain constant. This attitude stems into preferring the “common” things as they are, technically speaking, common. Hence the term “common sense” applies to beliefs that seem to be the easiest, fastest, understandable, etc, concept that could be applied.
So we see these new ideas that people bring to the mass population and the ideas are shot down, preferring those views that they have accepted for years, whether or not they are thinking about security, it is a subconscious process that pigeonholes the ideas.
Now that we understand that human nature is coded, currently, to default to perspectives that are common or currently accepted and considered rational. What is interesting about this is that it seems completely strange to call Hume a common sense philosopher based on the idea of “common sense” as described above.
So the ultimate question then becomes, if causality is an assumption we create, is math an assumption we create? Or is math a representation of reality in a different form, and where do the relationships that it has come from?

Words

Today I had an epistemology class and I was stricken by a few things in that class. One of them being that the teacher can go on endlessly talking about tangents, something that I would agree is a lot of fun. But I think that it could be representative of a core facet of philosophy that is extremely strange.

We are currently discussing some attributes of Hume, Berkeley, and Reid. Talking, specifically, on their positions in regards to perception, most of them referencing the qualities that Locke categorizes as primary and secondary qualities.

But as I saw in the debates on skepticism, it always seems that they all have problems with the definitions of words. Hume, as far as I am concerned, was the most realistic about the whole thing. But Reid comes in and argues against both Berkeley and Hume but in regards to some words that Reid views differently. And actually, Hume does a similar thing with "abstraction" in regards to Berkeley's idealism.

But it got me wondering, most of these philosophical debates seem to be just debating terms and their meanings. That throughout history it has just been about how to define particular words and feelings.

And I currently see this as a wholly wrong position to take. Because as Hume and Moore both show in many of their writings, that you just can't show that something exists, but that is wholly irrelevant to use and practicality.

So why are philosophers still, to this day, debating about direct realism (the belief that things exist because we can sense them)?

It seems that philosophers are not satisfied with that definition, but also, on some levels they probably already have a preconcieved notion of what existence is and should be.

If you look at Berkeley's arguments, they can wholly be applied to existence without changing any perception at all of anything, in a sense this is the perfect viewpoint because it does not affect anything about reality as we know it.

But another argument is that we exist within this realm, as many common sense philosophers have shown, and that is all that matters.

But this point is also irrelevant to my real point that I want to discuss, which is the fact that all philosophical debates seem to be wholly involved in terminology. It could be the use of philosophy is to expand terminology, definitions, ideas within language. But I think that accepting language as the purest tool and the one by which we can explain and understand, is kind of egocentric.

THis is where I will potentially lose people. If we have a beautiful landscape that we see and we stand back in awe. Is it because the tree is placed in the right place? is it because the grass sways in the right way? Have you ever just thought something was beautiful for no true reason at all?

Nature is the best example of this because some could argue that the composition of a painting is about techinical beauty (to which I would ask: name any painting you know, and tell me what, on a technical level, makes it beautiful).

But nature kind of defies this because it isnt about how someone can interpret, its pure, already depicted reality.

So, imagine some beautiful scenery, and please tell me, in detail, what makes this scenery beautiful?

Finding meaning in it all

In the past couple days I have found myself having this feeling that can be reflected in a couple things that I particularly want to blog about. I don't know if anyone will be interested, and I possibly could be wrong, but this blog is more of the feelings that are going through my mind on a daily basis.

So if you're interested, have a read. otherwise just past this by.