Do you consider Man a metaphysical being?

[quatona]

Dont worry about quatona.
He comes off as prickly sometimes, even when he's agreeing with you.

I guess I just don´t understand why the statement "you can think conceptiually without words" makes someone fly off the handle. I mean, people can disagree, but it´s not like I said "God doesn´t exist" or something.

 

[afishamongmany]

Great thread Mademoiselle Thehehe, You've got the neurons jumping, the synapses pumping and a wind-up artist creating vortexes of emotion and thought.
"If all we be is meat tis sad that life's so sweet", sang the fish to a worm on the hook.
><> $

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you give me an example?

Many people when at a high location and gazing down feel a certain sensation, an almost instinctive impulse to jump, and it can be very unsettling. English lacks a word or term to describe this concept, this phenomenon. The French, however, have a term for it: L’appel du vide. The Russian word toska is downright untranslatable, but indicates a sensation of deep anguish with [seemingly] no cause, a kind of melancholy by yearning or longing--nostalgia, love-sickness, or even boredom. This explanation of the word still isn't a translation of the concept, since (again) it's not really translatable.

A word is helpful, it allows us to label a concept; but not all concepts are labeled, we don't have words for everything, and as we can see there are words in other languages for concepts which English lacks--and the reverse is true.

Many languages don't have a word for "blue", but they do have a word for "green" and what we perceive as the distinct color blue is simply "green" to them. At one point we (English speakers) lacked a word to describe the color orange, what we today call orange was simply described as a kind of yellow-red. With the introduction of the naranga tree (originally from India) and its fruit into Europe, the word for the tree passed through Persian, then Arabic, and into French as auranja and later orenge, and finally in English orange. The fruit of the tree giving its name also to the color of its fruit, orange.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON
________________________________________

This thread has had a clean-up

If your post is gone, it was either in violation or responding to a quoted post that was.

Please stay on topic to the original topic, and not goad each other.

Thank you.

________________________________________
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Neochristian]

That's not what I mean. Not having a word for a concept is not the same as not being able to have a word for a concept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quatona]

That's not what I mean. Not having a word for a concept is not the same as not being able to have a word for a concept.

I guess it´s fortunate that at no point in the discussion I made a statement regarding the latter.
Here´s my position again: "Thinking (and even conceptual thinking) doesn´t require words."

 

[KCfromNC]

No, they are not. Unless you are referring to the symbols for the numbers. I'm referring to what the symbols symbolize.

The symbols might symbolize anything - sometimes the refer to things which exist, other times they're convenient fictions. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Neochristian]

I guess it´s fortunate that at no point in the discussion I made a statement regarding the latter.
Here´s my position again: "Thinking (and even conceptual thinking) doesn´t require words."

That's philosophically boring.

 

[Neochristian]

The symbols might symbolize anything - sometimes the refer to things which exist, other times they're convenient fictions. What does that have to do with anything?

What the f are you talking about? I'm referring to quantities and values.

 

[KCfromNC]

What the f are you talking about? I'm referring to quantities and values.

That's nice. What does the fact that some things exist have to do with the question of whether math is man made or not?

 

[quatona]

That's philosophically boring.

Well, philosophy isn´t always a thriller.

 

[ScottA]

I was thinking this morning -yes, it does happen sometimes-, and realized that I was certain of the metaphysical dimension of Man, thanks to the language. I explain myself:
As the only being gifted by the language, Man as an incredibly ability: to make things "exist" in his mind -the conceptual thinking. Well in fact I would prefer "in-sist" (while this word is not a correct word, I know) rather than "exist": to make things appear inside the mind and not outside. The ability of creating, in a mind, an object which is not there. Yes, of course, an object that he already knew. However, he can do that above the physical dimension. So, to me, this is clear that man is metaphysical. I was even considering that the metaphysical mind could be more real than the physical body: "I think so I am". I speak, so I am. I could consider everything physical as an illusion. I could consider the human body as an illusion, while I could not for the human brain and conceptual thinking.
It adds a spiritual (not necessary religious) dimension of Man, dimension that still can be contested.
As this explanation surely has a lot of defects and weaknesses, I wanted you to criticize and discuss the question. Are you convinced that Man is the only metaphysical being, and are you even convinced that a metaphysical dimension exists (or in-sists? Sorry, I truly do not like to match exist with the metaphysic)

It is a strange idea to philosophically view such a topic from our perspective - that is, from the image in the mirror.

If one believes in God, that we and the physical universe are His creation, and that it is all a "view in the glass dimly" as the scriptures say...then we have no choice but to consider that it is God who is metaphysical, and that it is we who are not only created in His image - but rather created in His imagination, in His mind.

Certainly, if there is a God, of which I can confirm and am a witness...the matter does not revolve around us, but rather around Him.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not a biblical teaching. It came from a misunderstanding of Rene Descartes.

It would seem hard to uphold your conclusion given the fact that the concept of an immaterial soul existed long before Descartes' birth in 1596.

 

[Chriliman]

What the f are you talking about? I'm referring to quantities and values.

Are you implying information existed before humans were able to comprehend information? If so, I'd agree. Where does information come from, if not from humans?

 

[Neochristian]

I'm not sure I'd call it information. But yeah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk