WHY DID god give us ...( 4 months ago by oneundergod)
WHY DID god give us dogs DOG>,GODGod loves everyone unless YOU chose to POKE him through a fence fence =VEIL/veil=vile vile=evil/evil=LIVE LIVE/LOVEsee the symbol for dog its all how we percieving it not the reality that a dogs unjudgmental love seems SO LIKE GOD living loving GRACE GOD is GRACE!forgives as ONLY god can so what does a dog signify? god is love live love NOW;if a dog forgives what cant YOU God can/dog can
i like pies( 4 months ago by nourozi)
i like pies
I can never use the ...( 4 months ago by elewho)
I can never use the words byzantine or conduit without recalling this scene. Also, I never would have used either word had I not seen this.
Annoying woman.( 4 months ago by TheGreatOne544)
Annoying woman.
The words may be ...( 4 months ago by A550RGY)
The words may be inert, but they still have meaning because we encounter countless examples of it over a lifetime to confirm that meaning. To a 2 year old, "love" may be inert, but not to a 70 year old who has seen it demonstrated by many different people, in many different situations over a lifetime to be able to gather the commonalities of all examples and arrive at a good definition.
totally agree with ...( 4 months ago by samraw22)
totally agree with you.. i was going to write a comment along those lines, but you nailed it! I think the significance of what she is saying isn't lost though.. there's still something amazing in the fact that our language is "inert".. there seems so be a "general consensus" about what love is, for example.. it would seem the idea belongs to some collective human consciousness that is external to us. waking life is fantastic i get something more out of it every time i watch it
Thanks, samraw22! ...( 4 months ago by A550RGY)
Thanks, samraw22! The fact that we're able to turn certain sounds into ideas and convey emotions is pretty incredible. And although we can never be 100% sure we're being fully understood by another being, my opinion is that we're probably at least 80% understood, and that's "good enough". That general consensus may be external, and at the same time we put our own spin on it. Sometimes I'll see people handling really bad situations really well, and I'll wonder how much they really suffered.
really good idea ...( 4 months ago by wingtsunnineoeight)
really good idea man cool, thanks for sharing
Mentally I can ...( 4 months ago by KenshiRyden)
Mentally I can explore the ideas of this film easily; but I still have trouble wrestling with "oneundergod"'s comments.
Dogs don't love ...( 4 months ago by lilpep4ever)
Dogs don't love everybody.
you are essentially ...( 3 months ago by pippismo)
you are essentially describing the movie ZEITGEIST, if you haven't seen it, you should see it! Most religions are actually derived from old worships of the sun
This video contains ...( 3 months ago by xenos82)
This video contains some of the most nonsensical drivel I've ever heard regarding language. _Someone_ needs to read Wittgenstein, Kripke, Tarski, etc., and soon.
i havent seen the ...( 3 months ago by rorrt)
i havent seen the film ZEITGEIST, but its true, the idea that the sun gave us life was the building blocks of all religions, the giver of life and the giver of the land.
whats nonsensical, ...( 3 months ago by rorrt)
whats nonsensical, she is pointing out that its impossible to get into another persons head and be able to ensure they understands the true meaning of words, words and their meanings are not cemented in anything they are squiggles on a page, the meaning is much deeper i certainly learnt to speak before learning the true meanings of the words, i learnt their context in sentences and therefore they derived the meanings. and maybe you should read Hume and Decartes "etc?" writings about perception.
yeah, i wrote above ...( 3 months ago by rorrt)
yeah, i wrote above that i learnt to speak before really learning the meanings and i put together a picture in my brain about the words and the context they are used in. Though to say there are some words lost in translation is a very weak argument, i say "car", the french say "Le Voiture" (i think, they are the same thing, the same meaning, just with a different symbol. however another thing, that a definition is finite, in the case of almost all words, there is never a "Good" definition.
Words aren't just " ...( 3 months ago by xenos82)
Words aren't just "squiggles on a page" -- we do speak them, after all -- and they are cemented in their use. I've read Descartes and Hume; I don't see, really, what they have to do with philosophy of language or linguistics. I think you should catch up with the times. Maybe you meant Chomsky's "Cartesian Linguistics" but I don't know. Open a book.
"I am a bundle of ...( 3 months ago by rorrt)
"I am a bundle of changing perceptions" Hume. How words can and are perceived to the listener, and Decarted "Cogito Ergo Sum" is all about perception though is less about perception than the Hume quotation. i do read philosophy and also teach english to spanish and czech students, and linguistics interest me alot. and when i said squiggles on a page, that is the symbol, the symbol and spoken word are changes in amp. pitch and freq., the meaning is very much deeper and is intangible.
rorrt: I'm sorry, ...( 3 months ago by A550RGY)
rorrt: I'm sorry, but I'm really having a hard time understanding what you're saying. And I don't think it's the fault of "language" in general.
Please read Ludwig ...( 3 months ago by xenos82)
Please read Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" and Saul Kripke's "Naming and Necessity"; your ideas about language seem to me very skewed.
i just said that ...( 3 months ago by rorrt)
i just said that words are just sounds or squiggles on a page. and the meaning is never cemented in the word. the word "Slew" is past tense of to "Slay" and is now being said more popularly as "Slayed", though the meaning has never changed the word, or sound has. and so the word is inanimate, and forever evolving. PS Coincedently Wittgenstein was on my to read pile. currently im struggling through Thus Spake Zarathustra, and Kant Critique of Practical (not pure, i misordered) Philo.
I still think your ...( 3 months ago by xenos82)
I still think your ideas about language are skewed, but I think I initially misunderstood your comment. Sorry. Which work of Wittgenstein's is on your pile?
you gotta watch is ...( 3 months ago by camilleelizabeth)
you gotta watch is as soon as possible, it's an amazing film!
the fact is , we ...( 3 months ago by rickwyant)
the fact is , we communicate in the most general way, what is happening internally to "YOU" or "I" will never be fully communicated.. the universe is a mystery... answers aren't forthcoming because there is nothing to ask the question...
I think language ...( 2 months ago by BronzeEleven)
I think language came out of neccecity before it came out of desire to break isolation. There's an obvious natural benefit towards survival in verbal communication.
DOG>,GODGod loves everyone
unless YOU chose to POKE him through a fence
fence =VEIL/veil=vile
vile=evil/evil=LIVE
LIVE/LOVEsee the symbol for dog
its all how we percieving it not the reality that a dogs unjudgmental love
seems SO LIKE GOD living loving GRACE
GOD is GRACE!forgives as ONLY god can
so what does a dog
signify?
god is love
live love
NOW;if a dog forgives
what cant YOU
God can/dog can
I think the significance of what she is saying isn't lost though.. there's still something amazing in the fact that our language is "inert".. there seems so be a "general consensus" about what love is, for example.. it would seem the idea belongs to some collective human consciousness that is external to us.
waking life is fantastic i get something more out of it every time i watch it
That general consensus may be external, and at the same time we put our own spin on it. Sometimes I'll see people handling really bad situations really well, and I'll wonder how much they really suffered.
Though to say there are some words lost in translation is a very weak argument, i say "car", the french say "Le Voiture" (i think, they are the same thing, the same meaning, just with a different symbol.
however another thing, that a definition is finite, in the case of almost all words, there is never a "Good" definition.
and when i said squiggles on a page, that is the symbol, the symbol and spoken word are changes in amp. pitch and freq., the meaning is very much deeper and is intangible.
PS Coincedently Wittgenstein was on my to read pile. currently im struggling through Thus Spake Zarathustra, and Kant Critique of Practical (not pure, i misordered) Philo.
Which work of Wittgenstein's is on your pile?