h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, darkness is a property - not an object. I guess that count nouns tend to be objects, while mass nouns aren't. Therefore non-objects include 'snow', 'money' etc. I'm struggling with 'vacuum'. Can you have 'three vacuums'? If so, then you have three objects. I don't seem to be able to use 'vacuum' with competence and precision!

I agree about those rules of inference which I tend to call 'semantic criteria of validity' because a rule is usually fixed and these ain't (abominations of Leviticus again). I think the word 'rule' is overused when describing cognitive phenomena. As you say, people are unable to articulate them. They tend to be no more than concepts in the mind of the observer, and therefore of no value in explaining the phenomenon as it is out there, except in an 'it is as if' sense.

I don't go quite as far as Wittgenstein in his 'following a rule' mode. I think I can demonstrate that he is simply wrong. But then, his examples are easy ones to refute. Come to think of it, it's his choice of examples that I disagree with. I could agree with him if his idea had a more restricted domain of applicability.

I'd say a shadow was a proprty too. I can't see any problem with calling mass nouns objects in the sense I was discussing. (Money is a special case; it's not an object in the way that a five pound note obviously is.)

According to Berkeley matter was inert and therefore did not exist. Spiritual substance he defined as being dynamic and existing in its own right, which is much the way a modern physicist would describe matter. By inert I basically meant - not capable of interacting with anything else in any way.

I'm inclined to agree with you about Uncle Ludwig, though he's still one of the greats. His concepts of grammar, logical space, and certainty, and the idea of language as a primary representational system are all central.

Noggin

Ok, I responded to your main question about inert objects but also had a go about what counts as an object. A shadow is an object because it has the usual set of properties such as a size, shape, colour, location, motion, duration etc.

Mass nouns are stuff, substance if you like, not objects. I think that's just a grammatical point though. Snow is not an object but a snowflake is. Bit of a trivial distinction.

I understood what you meant by inert. Of course, if any material object were, there would be no way that we could know about it because none of our probes would be affected by it. My way of getting round that was to select mere physical (but not material) objects which are detectable by the absence of something. I think you'll find that most philosophers accept shadows as physical objects.

If a shadow is a property, of what is it a property; the object casting the shadow, the light whose absence constitutes the shadow or the background object on which the shadow is cast? It seems to me to be an effect of all of the above rather than a property of all or any of them.

To get back to India, have a quick look @

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm

Not only were they advanced at astronomy and maths they were writing philosophy, poetry, , music etc long before anyone else. The oldest of the Hindu scriptures called Praise contains 1017 hymns.

Many philosophical questions are asked in Hindu scipture. What is the process of everyday life? Has it any purpose? Is the world real or appearance? Is there a Creator of the universe? If there is a Creator, what is its nature? What is the relation between man and the Creator? Is there any way to escape from rebirth? Is there such thing as the Impersonal Absolute? If so, what is Its nature? How did man come into bondage? What is his nature? Is he a part of the Supreme Soul, or is he identical with It? What is the difference between Personal God and the Impersonal Absolute? What is the source for this world? What is matter? What is mind? What is individual soul? What is the goal of life?

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Thanks Alji, but you won't get me interested in history this way; although I hope your work is of value to other researchers. This may surprise you, but I'm not even all that interested in the history of philosophy!

My main interest is in philosophy as an activity: 'doing philosophy'. Really I'm not very interested even in who thought what although naturally I have my personal hall of fame - headed by Kant; and my personal gurus among living philosophers I've seen in person or read in detail - headed by Swinburne, my old teacher. I'm also interested in what thinking has been tried and whether it has stood the test of time. That, at least, gives us the illusion of progress and maybe a little of the real thing.

I'm here for the exchange of thoughts. I can get factoids from Google

I've now had a look at the article. I have to admit that archaeology does sometimes get me in the gut. Especially being physically present at an ancient site. If I have the odd mystical bone in my body, that is the time when it twitches a bit. I also have to admit that Welsh sites do this for me (to me?).

You list the questions asked all those millennia ago. Did they come up with any answers? Are any of em worth nicking?

Toxxin, I can't tell you about it (the last time I tried it got moderated), you'll have to look for yourself. This might interest you - Nature of Reality @

http://www.hinduism.co.za/newpage12.htm

Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

OK Alji. Yes, I admit that I am impressed. This is precisely why I'm an agnostic. The possibility of the unknown transcendental is impossible to rule out but equally impossible to study. The speculations of the ancients must have been largely subjective I guess; but then they didn't have the distraction of science I suppose - so what else could an intelligent mind apply itself to?

There are also some remarkable parallels between the ancient Hindu beliefs and some results of parapsychological research. At least, so I read. I guess I prefer to leave that kind of thing to others except as a core of private reflection.

Every culture has its own tradition of talking about (loosely) philosophical questions about the nature of people and the world they find themselves in. Hinduism (and also its main offshoot Buddhism) have a rich and venerable tradition, but its a tradition voiced in a different "language" to the one I'm familiar with. I suspect that sometimes similar things are being said in very different ways, and that sometimes similar turns of phrase conceal conceptual differences.
Many traditions have ways of expressing the fact that everything is connected. In western scientific metaphysics the notions of space, time and causality perform this as a logical function, but for most people they lack the "resonance" of mythologies and religions.

. Or God is noumenon, not phenomenon? Or possibly, God bears the same relation to the noumenon as the noumenon does to the phenomenon?
Just thinking out loud.

Noggin

My two pence...

'Everything is an image of truth'...Orson Scott Card

I guess just about everything 'out there' is noumenon and our perception/knowledge allows us to contemplate only the phenomenon. Don't think we should make too much of this distinction tho. I'm prepared to throw into the ring that maybe phenomenon is just noumenon filtered by our (infinite) ignorance. We can discover more and get closer to the actualité, I'm reasonably sure.

<'Everything is an image of truth'>

Oh how I hate metaphors. What is the word 'image' doing there? Aaarrrggghhhhh!!!

Why is that a metaphor?

My understanding of it was that everything is part of a larger Truth, yet nothing is totally true [make any sense?]

I suppose it relates to Plato and his Forms...

Yep, kinda makes sense now you have explained it; which is precisely why it is a metaphor! Could just as well relate to Adrian Mole and his diary!

He, he, he.........

He, he, he.........

He, he, he.........

Or it could relate to everything...like in the sentence

OK. Are you going to give me an example of a sentence that relates to everything? Or did that last one I just wrote? OK, the reference of a sentence is its truth value. Is that what you mean?