Muslim Ban Over Handshake. Whaddayareckon Liberals?

[Exi5tentialist]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

Hmmm. Our sniping knickers appear to have got into a slight twist here.

[Hermit]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

[Forty Two]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

More of the same nonsense from you. Miss the point. It's been explained before. You're trolling. It's the same thing with you every thread. Everyone who disagrees with you misses the point, or trolls or ignores your explanations.

None that, of course, requires you to behave like you do and talk to people in your nasty and sniping fashion. You choose to react the way you do.

[pErvinalia]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

Hmmm. Our sniping knickers appear to have got into a slight twist here.

I've addressed his dumb "trolling" hypothesis enough times before to not have to keep seeing it every time he gets sooky because I've call out dishonest behaviour in someone's debating style.

[Exi5tentialist]

Despite these issues, we have a fairly reliable way to send messages through the generations.

We have a way of modelling what previous generations' meanings were. But the moment we buy into the idea that those are "messages" or that we are reading "their ideas" we commit an act of bad faith, through which we can drive a lot of prejudices of our own. That's exactly what happens with this "Evil Quran" propaganda so favoured by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and 99% of the "atheist community". They don't realise they are recycling their xenophobia as rational analysis.

Here we part company, because a writing is not a one way communication involving only the biases and meanings of a reader. It's a two way communication between a writer and a reader. So, indeed, I am willing to acknowledge that the meaning we take from writing X may not be the meaning intended by the writer. However, this does not mean that we cannot understand what the writer meant. What it means is that there are degrees of reliability.

If a monk writing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle wrote that on X date the sun went dark during the daytime, and orb-shaped thing appeared in the sky with a tail on it - we can be pretty sure that he meant that he meant to describe an eclipse and a comet. We can be very sure he did not mean to say that King Aethelred invaded Northumbria. Your correct suggestion that the reader's understanding of words is not the same as the writer's intended meaning does not result in writings being valueless in conveying information.

The Devil is the details, and your correct suggestion that caution when reading passages is necessary is only of any value as we apply it to a given writing. It's not enough to say that Harris reads the Koran and applies his biases and xenophobia to make it mean what he wants it to mean. What is necessary is a discussion of passages in question, and an argument that they do not actually mean what they say they mean and why. The writer intended to write something that meant something. The words are evidence of that meaning, and word meanings from different generations and eras can be explored such that we can focus on reasonable parameters. If a law says, for example, that commission of crime X shall be punished by death, then we can be reasonably sure that it means what it says. If, however, the milieu, context or other evidence indicates that "punished by death" as used in the writing means something else - perhaps metaphorical or whatever, then we can adjust our understanding. We aren't necessarily just applying our own biases and phobias in coming up with meanings.

The meaning we project onto ancient writing is entirely ours.

Our consciousness is the only one that is alive. And meaning can only exist in consciousness.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

Well it doesn't if you hold to solipsism. But if you hold to solipsism, then you've probably got bigger things to worry about.

[pErvinalia]

God you are a fucking whiney little bitch.

rEv? Please.

I don't know if that was meant to be funny, but I chuckled.

[Exi5tentialist]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

I know about Newton's publication. But its meaning can only exist in a living human brain.

[Exi5tentialist]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

Well it doesn't if you hold to solipsism. But if you hold to solipsism, then you've probably got bigger things to worry about.

I agree, solipsism is a very frightening philosophy, and even more frightening if it is true. I'm not surprised people get snipey about it too.

[Svartalf]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

[pErvinalia]

Your problem, Coito, is that you write masses of words that are often total non-sequiturs to the point you are replying to, because you utterly miss the point being made so often. And you are also pathologically immune from accepting that you could ever be wrong.

More of the same nonsense from you. Miss the point. It's been explained before. You're trolling. It's the same thing with you every thread. Everyone who disagrees with you misses the point, or trolls or ignores your explanations.

More made up rubbish. I disagree with Jim all the time. Ask him if I accuse him of any of those three things. Or shove your head up your arse again. Either one is fine.

None that, of course, requires you to behave like you do and talk to people in your nasty and sniping fashion. You choose to react the way you do.

What's the point of this? I've never claimed otherwise. I get that you don't like my personality. You aren't required to like it. Deal with it.

[Exi5tentialist]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

So - is the Quran evil or not?

I mean, it's all very well expressing your exasperation at a philosophical discussion.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit - your meaning of the theory of gravity is in your head, so you have understood it and I congratulate you for inventing it.

The fact that my understanding of the theory of universal gravity appears to be identical to Newton's makes the notion that I invented it nonsensical, particularly since I would not have understood it, had I not learnt about it in school. The fact that my understanding of it is identical to that of Newton's also makes a nonsense of your claim that meanings don't survive their authors' deaths by much. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published well over three centuries ago.

Well it doesn't if you hold to solipsism. But if you hold to solipsism, then you've probably got bigger things to worry about.

I agree, solipsism is a very frightening philosophy, and even more frightening if it is true. I'm not surprised people get snipey about it too.

There's no point worrying about it. Worrying about it won't change or effect whatever reality there is.

[Svartalf]

Interestingly, Exi5tentialist does not actually "contradict" himself there.

He points to the unreliability of writings, and correctly says that if the writer were there we could talk to the person to get more information from the horse's mouth. That, of course, does not mean that the horse's mouth is not also subject to similar issues.

At that rate we ought to stop trying communicating, because what's in my head that I think you said may not have any truck with what you actually meant due to language being intrinsically unreliable... I studied that in philosophy in high school, and later in linguistics in the uni, and I'm thoroughly tired of that egg-hen debate

So - is the Quran evil or not?

I mean, it's all very well expressing your exasperation at a philosophical discussion.

given that it openly advocates making war on "the infidel", and does not properly warn you that Jihad is supposed to be mainly an inner fight, and generally is not really clear about being a 'religion of peace' despite what some of its apologetics claim, yes it is.

[Forty Two]

Ultimately, in the solipsistic universe we have each invented, we cannot be sure of anything. But we have to proceed as if we are sure of some things. I generally compromise when writings come from the era of current-living human beings. But when they have been dead for 1,300 years - I mean, come on, there just aren't enough physical, dynamic and emotional references there for us to trust what we are reading. Yes, you can come up with an academic model of what it appears to look like, but to then say that people now are influenced by such a model seems completely absurd to me. I think people are motivated by a desire for economic security, not some silly old bizarre text. And that goes for what are popularly called "Jihadis" too.

I see where you're coming from, but I do not agree that the writings are rendered untrustworthy. Really what we're talking about degrees of reliability and never absolutes. So, some 1300 year old writings are more trustworthy than others. There will be disagreement among readers as to how much and why, but the reality is that there is a degree of value and truth to many past writings that render them reliable. Perfection is never attainable, so to "proceed as if we are sure of some things" is not really the way to go -- what should be done is to "proceed as if we are sure ENOUGH about some things," and keep our minds open to be changed through additional information. Lack of perfection or complete surety doesn't mean that every statement or writing is equal.

Yes. But I think the variable you are not taking into account is that human consciousness can only arise from the brain of a living human being. Since consciousness is itself defined by the ability to create meaning, you are at risk of saying that a particular meaning can outlive the death of the brain, albeit in degraded form. I completely oppose that interpretation - I think it is unscientific and is derived from popular ideas injected into present-day society by the ruling classes, their religion, and capitalism.

Well, i agree that our minds create what we believe to be reality by amassing the imperfect input from our senses and drawing a picture. Our eyes don't see the universe as it really is. Our ears don't hear sounds -- they take vibrations in the air and convert some of them imperfectly to a thought in our head. This is all true -- but, our imperfect picture drawn from imperfect input, has value and reliability to a certain degree. Science and methodology lets us use our best efforts to remove as much imperfection as we can and settle on what can be known with some degree of certainty and what cannot be known with much if any degree of certainty.

When my wife calls me to the kitchen from my office, can I be sure that it's her? Can I be sure that she means for me to come there? Molecules of air vibrated against little bones in my ear, and my brain used those vibrations to create words in my head that I have taken to mean "Forty Two! Get your ass in the kitchen!" But, is that what she said? Did she say anything? Did she mean "when the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the bonds which have connected themselves with another...?" Maybe. Maybe she wasn't calling me to the kitchen, but she was singing "Wasted away again in Margaritaville - looking for my lost shaker of salt - " and what she really wanted was for me to say "where's the salt, where's the salt, where's the motherfuckin' salt!"

Can I be "sure" of that one way or the other? She might have been reciting the US Declaration of Independence or singing Margaritaville. How do I know for sure.
I can never know for sure. Even if I go to the kitchen and say "Honey, did you want me to come to the kitchen?" and she says "yes, I did," I cannot be sure that's what she really meant when she spoke words. She may be untrustworthy, and just lying. She may have a bad memory, or she may be so malleable that my suggestion that she wanted me to come to the kitchen makes her believe it. She may really have been singing Margaritaville.

Understanding that to be true in the literal sense of "possible" and "know for sure" etc. -- in reality - in the real world -- the indicia and evidence pile up, and we can conclude that if the little bones in my ear vibrate in such a way that the apparatus in my brain create what my brain interprets as a sound, and the pattern created by my brain is "Forty Two, get in the kitchen!" and then I go there and ask "did you want me here?" and Wifey says "Yes, I did." The likelihood that she meant that she was wasting away in Margaritaville, looking for her lost shaker of salt, is pretty slim.

The same concept applies to monstrous or not so monstrous writings of the distant past. Indicia and evidence can mount to one degree or another. Sometimes, we can't draw any reliable conclusion about what the fuck they were talking about - but other times there can be a lot of indicia that point to a given meaning. Nothing will be perfect, but we can be pretty sure Mohamet was not writing about Margaritaville, right?