Philosophy in English...different books...

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 3 Jun - 9:15

Hi everyone!I’ve been busy this week and I’m little tired. I read a lot of books and I dream a lot each night. I’m generally happy in my home. In my philosophy book for the week,I’m hoping it will be kept alive in this world with so much moral problems actually. Islam is a big problem in my point of view and the politically correctness is killing the critical thinking and the real history of this cult. It’s a danger for the future of our country and I hope you’re conscious of it. It’s a threat than you should be aware of. In philosophy now…
If the reader will keep this practical object constantly in view,unsuspected applications of well known truths will become apparent before he finishes the volume.
If one is to pass beyond mere self-analysis of the usual sort it’s clear,however,that one must be willing to entertain the thought of a fundamental system of realities. To end in a large world one must begin with broad premises. If man’s life is environed by a larger life, he cannot understand himself alone. In deepest truth there’s no “alone”,our own experimental observation proves that,first of all. It seems impossible even to outline one’s method of investigation without admitting the the presence of an environning life is th most striking consideration. What that life shall be called is of course another question.
But for one’s self the frank admission must be made at the outset that it’s the presence of the divine Father,without whom the most elementary fact seems unintelligible. If the reader names it otherwise,well and good. As a possible aid to inquiry,the present discussion is confessedly a chapter from life,an appeal to life. The aim is to convey the living reality itself, so far as possible,instead of merely talking about it. Hence the appeal is to the profoundest experience of the reader,recognized,confessed as what it most genuinely reveals itself to be. The appeal is to reason,too. But reason must start with facts,with actual life;it doesn’t create its own objects. How else can one hope to unite philosophy and life than by this frank union of experience and thought,one’s deepest life made explicit?

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 10 Jun - 10:03

For this week it will be the continuity of last week again in comparison or reference of the muslim faith so far. It has been a good week for me again,my life is restful and I like it,it has been so many years agitated then I love my loneliness where I find peace of mind and I read a lot of books. My nights are full of dreams because of them I think because I don’t see another reason for so many dreams,every night it’s a different one and I think it’s because of all the books I read.
It’s obviously wiser to be true to all aspects of life as it appears from the angle of one’s own temperament and experience than to force all facts into a certain system. The deepest facts are usually slighted,if not excluded,by the latter process. No formula seems large enough to cover all we know and feel. There’s an element of experience that usually eludes description. Some experiences can never be told. They are intimately a part of us. They are sacred,one hesitates to speak of them. Yet one can suggest them, or at least let it be known that in these rarest moments of existence one seemed most truly to live. Only in this way does the soul,that part of us which is most truly individual,find expression. Only in this way does the unfettered soul show its freedom from prejudice and dogma. Allegiance to a person or theory limits one to the particular view of life represented by that person or theory. To claim finality for one’s system would be equivalent to affirming that progress shall end with the particular discussion in question. Our theories serve us well while we remember that life itself is larger.
Life,then,is large, let us say once for all,and demands a broad way of thinking about it. Ordinarily ,we have no sense of what our total self means. We suffer,and we seek relief. We are absorbed in the present,in its needs and woes,unaware that our whole past lives, our inheritance,and our temperament,may affect this bit of suffering nature which for the moment limits our thought. We live as though time were soon to cease,and prudence would not permit us an hour for quiet reflection.
Yet,a new phase,and to some the happiest phase,of life begins when they stop hurried thought,and try quietly to realize what life means as an advancing whole.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 17 Jun - 9:58

Hi everyone! For this week,again my warning about islam and the danger they bring here… In this case,I’m asking to myself if religion is really a good thing,in so many faces not...But I believe in spirituality which is very different,when we die it’s not to be with 72 virgins in heaven,I find it so ridiculous coming from muslims because sex cannot exists where body doesn’t exists. But I believe in a shifting of dimension… This week again I’ll discuss about the philosophy of od in the power of silence. I like silence in my life now, I don’t want of any stress which is just everywhere in this world.
And I don’t feel myself to be a part in the economy of whatever they want everyone to be in. I like my life now just as living in itself. My point of view on time is very different then the majority. I don’t want of any dogma.Dogma is what killing the critical thinking of our society and transforming this one in a kind of robot. It’s killing freedom of thinking and in this way evolution itself. Think about it when you look at muslims in Europe and in Canada now with Trudeau…
If life is in some sense one system,can any other interpretation be rational,will the parts ever assume their true relationship in our minds except when viewed in the light of the whole? Possibly our suffering is largely unnecessary. Possibly it has come about because we have failed to adjust our thought to the wholeness of things. At any rate,to take time,as last,to isolate one’s self from the rushing tide of daily life and to raise the great questions here proposed,is to begin in earnest to experiment.
From the first,one stands in need of all sorts of conclusions which seem to belong rather to the end. It’s one thing to talk about “the power of silence” and another to be able to pause long enough to enjoy it. One is eager to know what that power is. Yet one must first have a basis to stand upon. The fact that a relatively obscure element besets all our thinking about the inner life is no excuse for vagueness. To fall back upon feeling or faith alone will no longer suffice. We are in quest of the whole,and reason is surely a part of life’s whole. There’s both the hurrying flux of our tantalizing consciousness,the part of life which refuses to be still; and there’s the persistent conviction that life has a deeper reality which it’s the office of calmer thinking discover. Clearly, we must take life as we find it,I and move forward,faithful alike to feeling and to thought.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 24 Jun - 10:42

Hi everyone! Happy St-Jean to those it means something. I wrote to Philippe Couillard on my situation lately,for Normand it means something if it means something to him because I cited you in my letter. Be prepared because if he does give some attention to what I wrote to him you’ll know. If possible can you intervene for my goodness with him?
Happy birthday to Elly tomorrow.
For this week,I continue with my philosophy book.
One fact,however,is clear:experience is best explained at the outset by reference to its environment. If the problem seems too large for us,at first, it would surely prove more difficult if we tried to leap beyond present experience. It’s only a question of attaining closer and closer acquaintance with the near at hand. If our logic at last compels us to look beyond immediate experience in search of its basis,then that basis must be such as actual life demands. The truth is involved in the very nature of the beings and things by which we are surrounded. It only needs to be evolved or made explicit. All power is immanent,it works through something. Man shouldn’t look beyond his own nature,his temperament,inheritance, education,until he’s compelled to do so in order to find as adequate exploration of his experience. He should have a clear conception of the closely related events out of which his life has proceeded,as the river is enlarged and shaped in its course by its tributaries and the country through which it flows,yet never rises higher than its source. In a word,he must know his origin,both immediate and remote. He must start with personal experience,but shouldn’t stop until he has traced it to the source beyond which thought cannot go.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 1 Jul - 11:22

Hi everyone!This summer is very hot and it’s difficult to breath. I’ll be short for this week because it’s hard to focus on something with this heat. I’m very deceived by our government recently but I’m thinking of doing something more about it. And for Trudeau,ah!what a misery! If he’s reelected next year by some corruption of him we’ll need to go in a civil war.
It may well be that experience as individually made known to us is unable fully to account for itself. Something more than mere description is called for. The question,is what is the nature of experience? Leads directly to idealistic analysis and ultimately to some sort of constructive idealism,that’s, a systematic restatement of the data experience in terms of reason. But we are not here concerned with the ultimate unification of the data of experience. Nor are we concerned with the more theoretical evidences for idealism. To be sure,we must introduce certain arguments, for example,a plea for the immanence of God. But the chief value of these arguments will be found in their practical empirical bearings. That’s,the argument for the divine immanence, or for the idealistic interpretation of experience, or for the idealistic interpretation of experience, will serve as a central line of thought by the pursuit of which the reader may follow the developments of his own experience.
In other words,it’s the value or meaning which the reader attributes to the argument that’s of consequence. The first-hard evidence is of more import than the theoretical description. But once in fuller possession of the empirical evidence,one is in a position to follow the philosophical implications much further than the present arguments carry them.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 8 Jul - 8:24

Hi everyone!I’ began a book about the philosophy of language this week and it’s coherent with my theory about it. It’s very interesting and you’ll read it soon here. I’m very happy these days my life can’t be better. I’d made some purchases on amazon and the next will be my better in a few months.
For this week it’s very simple it’s a combination of facts vs religion…
3 important distinctions are involved in this brief outline,1) First,there’s the question of fact. For example, there is experience of a religious type,an emotional uplift or sense of worship. 2)There’s the particular theory brought forward to account for the fact. If you are a pantheist,you’ll conclude that in the innefable religious moment you are identical with the “Absolute”. But if you are a theist,you will revere God as the father and indulge in no mystical theories of identification. 3) Furthermore there are the practical values which you attach to the facts. If you conclude that God is the Father, your conduct will differ greatly from that of the mystic. In the end,it’s undoubtedly the values which we attribute to experience that influence us most. For values are ideals,and we develop by means of ideals. Ordinarily it’s only the technical philosopher who distinguishes thus sharply between facts,theories,and values. But the distinction is plainly of great importance. Very few people know what a fact is. The majority read their opinions into the given matters of experience and mistake what they want to believe for what is so. But one can make little headway in the so. But one can make little headway in the endeavor to understand experience without constant discrimination between fact and theory. There’s clearly a great difference between that which is and that which may,or ought to be.
The present inquiry will be chiefly based on these distinctions. The reader is already in possession of facts,that is,of experience. He also possesses abundant theories. He also possesses abundant theories. Modern science describes for him the physical world in which he lives. History narrates man’s life in the past. Moral science sets forth the views of men in regard to what ought to be. Christianity is an inculcation of religious principles. Philosophy is the intelligent coordination of all theories. But there’s need of an art of life which shall show man how to live philosophically. This, the most practical of arts,each man may contribute to b giving thought to the problems and laws of his own experience. What he most needs is a working ideal,a principle by which to apply philosophy more successfully.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 15 Jul - 9:12

Hi everyone! In this day very wet and hot,I’ll continue in my book of philosophy… I’d been very immersed in that recently you’ll see later… But it’s necessary with all the leftists around… Our government is from the left and it’s dangerous in my point of view…
Hence the importance of ideals,the realizational aspect of religious teaching,the practical worth of philosophical thinking. Hence,too,the value of silence,of sufficient repose to enable a man to realize the meaning, the spirit of what he believes.
For this inquiry the reader needs no other equipment than he already possesses. Each of us is feeling,acting,living amidst the great stream of events which we call “experience”. Yonder are the fields and the hills. Above is the fair,blue sky. Near at hand are the hand are the houses of friends and neighbors,theaters of fascinating interests. Within the mind there are passing thoughts and varying emotions. Implied in all these transient mental states are the habits by which we have developed,and the convictions which underlie our conduct. The essential is to awaken to consciousness of this surging play of circumstance,discover how we are taking it,and consider how we may become more wisely adjusted. This is to enter more fully into the spirit of the age,to become philosophers of evolution in a yet profounder sense. For it shows not only how experience leads to experience,but even how,thought follows thought. Thus we may enter into the fulness of life as it passes,and by this profounder mastery win the greater repose. And he who can break away from the age sufficiently to meditate upon it in peace is indeed ready to apprehend its finest values,to live in it yet not of it.

It’s usual to begin an inquiry into the nature of experience by analyzing the presentations of consciousness. But as we are in the first place interested to apply the empirical method, it’s desirable to begin with a well-known argument and note the changes with practical empiricism brings about in all our thinking. In no respect has the critical empirical method wrought a greater change than in regard to the argument for the existence of God. Hence it’s understanding of the change thus for what is to follow.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 22 Jul - 10:50

HI everyone!It’s very hot and wet outside again,for my part I’ll enjoy september because too hot isn’t better than too cold. I live peacefully and I’m very happy It’s the better years of my life. Once again I had chosed a part of philosophy with the existence of God and some causes and effects arguments...Soon I’ll talk about the philosophy of language too. Philosophy of language isn’t so far from my theory on languages but expressed in different words.
The chain of causes and effects is in reality endless. Without a cause nothing can happen, nothing could ever have happened; with eternally active causes in the world something must always happen. Every cause,every effect,every event in the history of the universe and in our own physical existence, is inseparably connected with this infinite series, extending far back into the irrevocable past,and potentially related to an ever-drawning future.
Yet,if we ask,what does that endless causal series signify? When did cause and effect begin? It’s clear that the mere possession of such a series is of slight consequence. For there is no point at which thought can stop and declare. This cause is final;before its appearance there was no activity. A merely temporal beginning of events is unintelligible. The utmost that one can allege is that there must be one all-embracing series of causes and effects which has existed eternally, a series of which our world is a part of which all future activity will be an outgrowth. Yet, if the temporal chain of causes and effects must have a ground other than itself, if God couldn’t have been a merely temporal creator, we must look beyond causation altogether to find the true reality of things. In order to test this reasoning,try for a moment to conceive of the universe as an absolute void, then imagine the creation of something or of some being in this mere emptiness. Such an event is utterly inconceivable, since something could not be a product of nothing, and every result must have an efficient and substantial basis. If,then,something can neither be made from nothing, nor something become non-existent,the sum total of substance would seem to be ultimately the same.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 29 Jul - 9:27

Hi everyone! Terrorists are awakening in Canada what a pity… I don’t know why the government seems to protect them what is the reason of that? I don’t know but it’s very worrying for the futures generations to come as far as they’ll come… Because the massive immigration are just one percent of the global problem. For this week…
The cessation of motion,then,like its inception, is unthinkable. If it were not continuous, eternal,it apparently could never have become a fact. Moreover,motion implies not only a continuous,all embracing series of causes and effects,but the existence of the eternally moving substance already postulated. Physical motion also means change from place to place,from one condition to another.
Change in turn implies the experience of rhythm or interval in motion. Change also implies the existence of space,on the extension in 3 directions of that which is moved. Thus an eternally existing substance, uncreated and never-ceasing motion, and infinite space, seem to be inseparably connected. There is cause and effect,duration between them, extension of that which is moved or affected, eternal motion,and an ever-moving something whose activity is thus characterized. That is to say,all that is gained by this kind of reasoning is the mere pursuit of one fact to another,one principle to another. All that we have as a,result is a collection of considerations which give promise of ultimate truth but never lead beyond this elusive pursuit. What we need isn’t a “cause” of all things,not a continuously moving substance, but an eternal ground or reality.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 5 Aug - 13:20

For this week everyone,I’m working on an art project close to me these days… I’ll present it to you when it will be finish… It’s the reason why I’m late today.
Meaning skepticism isn’t simply the view that we cannot find out the facts about meanings. It’s the view that there are no facts to be found out: there’s no fact of the matter about what expressions mean. Clearly,if it were a factual matter then it would also be a factual matter 2 expressions mean the same and hence whether one translates the other. So an argument that it’s not a factual matter whether one expression correctly translates another is an argument for meaning skepticism. Quine’s famous argument for the indeterminacy of translation is such an argument (1960). In fact, he had 2 arguments for indeterminacy, “the argument from below” and “the argument from above” (1970). Alex Miller discusses the 2 arguments and some responses to them. Whatever one makes of the arguments, it’s important to note, as Miller does, that the terms of the debate are Quine’s. Quine has a very restrictive behavioristic view of the sort of facts that could determine meaning. The second argument for meaning skepticism discussed by Miller is one that Saul Kripke (1982) extracts from Wittgenstein. This argument has a much broader view of possible meaning-determining facts, allowing in mental facts. The argument is that no facts determine that a person using an expression is following one rule for its use rather than many others;hence that no facts determine that it means one thing rather than many others. The argument is that the dispositional facts alleged to determine the meaning of a term fail to do so because they don’t tell us how we ought to apply the term. This argument has much exercised commentators.
Think about it about religions!

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 12 Aug - 8:59

Hi!It has been a busy but funny week,the weather is better these days than before… I’d put very good pictures than I took recently around quebec city they’re in my facebook profile but I’ll put some here…
Were we to conceive of the existence of a vast number of causes in place of the supreme reality,these causes would be in some sense related,and we should then have need of an eternal ground of this relationship. If there were other realities would still belong to an ultimate system. There could be but one strictly ultimate,eternal ,omnipresent ,independent or self-existent reality. However, we approach the subject ,we are driven to the same end. Thought must stop somewhere. All our endeavors to conceive of the ultimate nature of things lead in time to the conslusion that there’s a system which includes all particular starting-points, is in some sense superior to time and place, but is no less truly needed everywhere,in all time and by all thought.
To arrive at this conclusion is to cease to be troubled  when one tries to find God by tracing back an infinite series of causes. What’s really meant by the term “infinite” is the vague,the indefinite,that which gives thought its pause. In vain do we look for the Father by putting Him thus far from us. It’s no wonder that we cannot realize what we mean when we thus describe God negatively. On the other hand ,the way of the Father is plain and direct,if we seek him in the living realities of today.








Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 19 Aug - 9:10

I feel lonely today without any specific reason. But generally,I’m happy. I’d never been so happy in my life and I’m not difficult in the context. I’m not an example of success in the same way than others could be. But I succeeded to find a home and be happy. I read a lot which is good for the evolution of my mind. My outside world is always in French and my inside is in English. My life is simple,I take care of the environment around me. The principal goal of my life has been achieved maybe a little too late but it’s achieved. I should have done what I’d done before. But generally,my life isn’t a gain for anyone and no one will never have anything more of me,which is a goal. Not during my life and not after too. In philosophy for this week…I’ll switch to philosophy of religions soon but for now I’m in philosophy of language.
Hence naturalistic theories of reference have focused on mental representations. Causal theories of mental content gain impetus from thought experiments like Putnam’s (1975) about twin-earth,a planet where all the waterish stimuli consist of xyz rather than H2O. Earthling “water” thoughts seem to be about H2O and not xyz, even though (a couple of centuries back, at least) nothing strictly in the mind/brain of Earthlings determines that this is so: no images,associated descriptions,or whatever,determine that we refer to H2O rather than xyz. This suggests that reference is at least partly determined by causal relations to things external to the thinker; it suggests semantic externalism.
These causal relations to particular environmental features make nice naturalistic candidates for reference determination. But a “crude” causal theory faces insurmountable difficulties, many involving a failure to distinguish the “right” causings of mental tokens from the “wrong” ones. Attempts to supplement the causal account to overcome these difficulties include Fodor’s assymmetric dependence theory,in which the wrong depend on the right,but not vice versa;teleosemantic theories,which postulates functions,understood as what items were selected for,as the arbiter of right and wrong causings; and information theories,according to which representations carry information in virtue of the causal regularities they participate in. Even though none of these approaches seems to solve all the difficulties,they present promising ideas for naturalizing reference.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 26 Aug - 9:24

For this week I’m again in philosophy of language. It has been a good week for me generally. I’m busy with an exposition soon which I participate. I would have liked it in english but it has to be in french because of the outside world of me.
The oldest conception of metaphor characterizes it as improper or deviant use of the literal. This idea is undermined by the observation that some metaphors are equally true in the same contexts,whether interpreted literally or metaphorically. A second claim is that a sentence used metaphorically might have a different true-value from what it would have were it interpreted literally. This entails that the same sentence must have a different meaning when used metaphorically than when used literally. However,the meaning of a metaphor often cannot be understood without knowing the literal meaning of its utterance. This metaphorical-literal dependence is best understood by a theory of pragmatics. The literal can be identified as what a sentence is “S is P” means,whereas the metaphorical meaning is what a speaker can use it to mean, say, that S is R. Searle proposes that R is the metaphorical meaning of the predicate P on a particular occasion,and the fact that P conveys R according to some pragmatic principle is the sense in which the metaphorical depends on the literal. Josef Stern argues that although Searle’s account correctly demonstrates that there’s no single “ground” that generates all metaphorical contents,it insufficiently explains why something is or isn’t a metaphorical meaning. Others,like Richard Rorty,claim that “metaphor belongs exclusively to the domain of use.”Similarly,Donald Davidson claims that “a metaphor doesn’t say anything beyond its literal meaning”.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 2 Sep - 13:16

About non-factualism ans Islam… And Trudeau in the same way…
Non-factualism in some particular area of speech is the claim that the sentences in that area don’t function purely representatively,expressing beliefs,but rather express some other mental states that a speaker is voicing. Simon Blackburn lists 3 motivations for this non-factualism.
The metaphysical motivation may be the most important: the apparent queerness of any facts that would be represented.Thus,the apparent queerness of moral facts has led many to non-factualism,or non-cognitivism,about moral discourse. Non-factualism has been proposed in many areas including causation and religion. Peter Geach (1962-65) raised a severe problem for non-factualism.How can it account for “indirect” contexts,ones where a sentence is used,but not asserted or put forward as true.Consider,for example,the role of “lying is wrong” is the statement “If lying is wrong,then getting your little brother to lie is wrong.” That role is surely not the expression of an attitude.This problem leads to another: preserving the validity of an argument from that conditional statement together with “lying is wrong” to the conclusion “Getting your little brother to lie is wrong.” Both Blackburn himself (1984) and Allan Gibbard (1990) have proposed solutions that have been the subject of considerable controversy,as Blackburn brings out.
A debate has arisen about whether non-factualism is compatible with a deflationist view of truth. That view of truth appears to be an example of non-factualism although some think that it takes away the terms in which non-factualism can be formulated. Blackburn’s “quasi-realism”.which attempts to mirror everything a realist wants to say whilst not having any realist commitment is one way of responding to this apparent conflict.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 9 Sep - 9:03

Hi everyone!I’m happy these days also I’m aware of the great difficulties bringing but Trudeau into federal government. It’s very sad to see what he does to this country. I hope he’ll disappear in the next election. For those who ignores the facts about him just see the many videos of him and his failures on youtube. In philosophy of language again this week…
It’s usual,in philosophy of language, to distinguish between properties that are strictly aspects of an expression’s literal linguistic meaning and other properties of the expression or its use that may contribute to the message that’s communicated. The study of literal linguistic meaning is semantics. The study of the use of language to communicate messages, very often,messages that go far beyond the literal meanings of the expressions used,is pragmatics. As a rough guide to the semantics-pragmatics distinction,we can say that semantics is concerned with the properties of expressions that help to determine the conditions under which an utterance would be literally true rather than false. In contrast,pragmatics focuses on the conditions under which an utterance would be helpful,rather than misleading,or more generally appropriate,rather than inappropriate. The semantic properties of the English words coffee and so on,and the way that the words are put together,determine that an utterance of the sentence “coffee keeps me awake” is true under the conditions that coffee keeps the speaker awake,and false otherwise. So if coffee keeps Nigel awake then his utterance is true. But an utterance that is true may be misleading.Late in the evening,with no after-dinner speaker scheduled , Nigel’s utterance may give the impression that he’s declining the offer of coffee,so that his next remark,”I’d like some”,comes as a surprise. The fact that the utterance has the truth conditions that it does is explained by semantics. The fact that the utterance gives the misleading impression that it does is explained by pragmatics.
However,it’s important to recognize that equating semantics with the study of literal linguistic meaning doesn’t quite guarantee that semantics is concerned with truth conditions while pragmatics deals with appropriateness conditions. One kind of example that helps to make this point is provided by pairs of expressions that apply to the same things but differ in literal meaning because one word is a polite or neutral form while the other is an impolite or derogatory form.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sun 16 Sep - 9:41

For this week I’ll make it simple,soon,I will have an article about just islam but in my articles in general, look at what they say and what they do… in the same line than previously said in my french articles. For those who thinks islam is a peaceful religion,just in 2017 islam had made 84 000 people dead and commits genocide everyday. Since the beginning of their history,more than 67 million people are dead by their hands. Trudeau,I don’t know why he loves them so much but he’s dangerous to this country everyday more than the day before. He’s unaware of what’s happening in Europe? No...He just wants it here…
If there is a science of meaning and reference then,presumably, the philosophy of science includes a division that offers philosophical commentary on the key concepts deployed by that science. So philosophy of language can concern itself with meaning and reference just as philosophy of biology concerns itself with species and selection. Now,in fact,there are reasons to hesitate over this assimilation of the philosophy of language to philosophy of science. There’s indeed a science of language,namely linguistics,and philosophy of linguistics is a division of philosophy of science. But we aren’t obliged to hold that philosophy of linguistics is all there is to philosophy of language. For philosophy of language also includes questions that arise from our ordinary,everyday conceptions of language and meaning. (In a similar way, we should not hold that philosophy of mind is exhausted by philosophy of cognitive science). However, we don’t need to embrace a gratuitous scientism in order to respond to the apparent puzzle about how semantics could be of importance to philosophy.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 22 Sep - 13:18

Hi everyone!It has been a good week for me,I’m happy generally,poor but happy.
In philosophy for this week…
This suggestion is in accordance with the mind-first view. There seems to be a reasonable prospect of explaining the notion of communicating (or getting across) a message in terms of propositional attitudes,without having to re-introduce the concept of literal meaning. Certainly,someone can get across a message even though the sounds used have no literal meaning at all. For example, the perpetrator of a sound that has no literal meaning might get across the message that he or she is angry by relying on some resemblance between the sound produced and the sound made by an angry dog.
However, there’s a problem with the suggestion. Suppose that,not just one member,but every member,of the group uses this same kind of sound to get across the message that he or she is angry.
According to the putative analysis,this should be sufficient for the sound to have the literal meaning that the perpretator is angry. But,intuitively,it’s not sufficient. Indeed, the intuition that this is not a case of literal meaning is strong if each person who uses a sound like an angry dog to communicate anger takes himself or herself to be making an innovative use of a resemblance between sounds.
When we have case of literal meaning, in contrast,it seems that the reason why we use a particular sound is just that it does have the appropriate meaning. However,if the aim is to provide an analysis of the concept of literal linguistic meaning in other terms then we cannot appeal directly to this reason why the sound is used. For the resulting analysis would be clearly circular:
Members of G use the sentence S to communicate the message that p and do so because S means p.
This is applicable to the concept of Jihad in Islam,the meaning of it and the message of it meaning the sayings of the prophet.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 29 Sep - 10:10

Another year is nearly finished and it’s been a very good one’s for once. I’m worrying about the future in general here with islam coming around. I don’t understand their morality which is for me nothing about moral. I’m convince than it’s nothing there then the will of a mad man. On that I’ll continue this week with my philosophy book and with one of sociology of culture.
We can do better by appealing to the idea of a convention as a rationally self-perpetuating regularity in the practices of a group of people. In an analysis of the concept of convention there is a clause saying that the fact of past conformity to the regularity provides members of the group with a reason to conform to the regularity in the future.
The clause doesn’t say that the reason why members of the group conform to the regularity is that there is such a convention, for such a clause would make the analysis circular. But,once the analysis has been provided,we can say, harmlessly enough,that members of the group conform to the regularity “as a matter of convention” or “because it’s a convention”. We can combine the concept of convention with the concept of communicating a message to provide an analysis of literal linguistic meaning along the following lines: In the practices of G there’s a regularity of using the sentence S to communicate the message that p and this regularity is a convention.
From:The Blackwell Companion to the sociology of culture/Mark D.Jacobs and Nancy Weiss Hanraham:
In every way, “culture” is the poor relation of “structure”.This manifests itself in how the properties and powers of the 2 have been conceptualized over time. On the one hand,where properties are concerned,there’s no ready fund of analytical units for differentiating components of the cultural realm that corresponds to those delienating parts of the structural domain (roles,organizations,institutions,systems).

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 6 Oct - 11:29

For this week,It will be very simple,I’ll continue with my cultural sociology. If you don’t have see it, check-out for Bill C-75 than Trudeau wants to put in canadian law… I’m beginning to think that this country is really damned with him… He shouldn’t be in this place first of all and more longer he continues more disasters has to come. I’m hoping canadians will remove him in the next election because if not,a civil war may be come out of it.
Instead of different “cultural structures” being analyzed,by reference to the variable relationships between their parts (as different cultural configurations),cultures are still “grasped” as a whole. Consequently, whilst in the structural domain there are well-established concepts such as a hierarchical structure,a centralized structure,an integrated structure and so forth, “ culture” remains a Cinderella in descriptive terms.
On the other hand,in relation to causal powers, consistent attention has been given to how structure exercises an influence vis-à-vis agents and considerable progress has been made away from determinism and towards less hydraulic conceptions of “conditioning”, “instantiation”,or “habitus”. Again, there’s no parallel for the exercise of cultural powers. Instead the causal status of culture within social theory swings wildly from its being considered as the prime mover (credited with engulfing and orchestrating the entire social structure) to the opposite extreme,where it’s reduced to a mere epiphenomenon (charged only with providing an ideational representation of structure).
My first argument is that it’s precisely because cultural properties have been treated in this undifferentiated and holistic manner (they can only be “grasped” as a whole) that cultural powers have never received a rigorous analytical conceptualization (such that hey sometimes have this effect,sometimes that effect and often different effects for different groups).

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 13 Oct - 7:47

One of my friend is dying from a lung cancer, it’s hard for her and very sad for everyone around her. For her and her dog too. I’m happy for the election result, now how it will go in reality,we’ll see. It’s so sad what’s happening in Europe,I can’t imagine canada in the same way… until I die for sure… If you’re unaware of what’s happening I invite you to follow me on facebook. For now…
Specifically,1)because culture(s) have conventionally been regarded as homogeneous,meaning that their internal components are always coherently integrated,then, 2)members of a “culture” are also presumed to share the same ideational homogeneity;a uniformity of beliefs, collective representations,central values, ideology,mythology,form of life and so on. The 2 presumptions are canonical.
However,they are equally compatible with assigning maximal causal influence to culture, as society’s bandmaster (crude functionalism), or zero efficacy to culture,as the mirror of social structure (vulgar Marxism). Something is clearly amiss because both views cannot be (universally) correct.
Generically,what’s wrong is the cannon itself on both count. A priori, there’s no reason why 1) the constituents of culture should be presumed to be coherently integrated, rather than harboring ideational contradictions (as well as autonomous elements,alternative sources of variety,etc) and a priori there’s also no reason to assume 2)that all members share a “common culture”. If both assumptions are suspended,then it’s possible to theorize about variations in cultural integration and their relationship to various in social integration.
In other words,the interplay between culture and agency could be examined in the same way as between structure and agency. The latter relies, as Lockwood (1964) first suggested,upon distinguishing “system integration” (in this case, the orderly or conflictual nature of parts of the (cultural system) from “social-integration” (in this case,the orderly or conflictual nature of socio-cultural interaction between people). Then the 2 levels could be allowed to vary independently of one another,contra the cultural canon, and their different combinations could be hypothesized to generate cultural reproduction or transformation.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 20 Oct - 9:12

Hi everyone!For this week again in my companion of sociology…
The myth of cultural integration:composition and conservation of the canon:
The myth of cultural integration is held here to embody “one of the most deep-seated fallacies in social science… the assumption of a high degree of consistency in the interpretations produced by societal units”. The most proximate and powerful origins of this myth,which bonds the C.S. and the S-C indissolubly together,is the heritage of anthropology. There was substantial concord amongst early anthropologists about the main property of culture, namely its strong and coherent integration. This central notion of culture as an integrated whole, grounded in German historismus,echoes down the decades. Malinowski’s conceptualization of “an individual culture as a coherent whole” reverberates through Ruth Benedict’s “cultural patterns”, Meyer Shapiro’s “cultural style” and Kroebers “ethos of total cultural patterns” to resurface in Mary Douglas’s notion of “one single, symbolically consistent universe”. This generic approach,based upon the intuitive grasp of cultural phenomena, entailed a crucial prejudgment, namely that coherence was there to be found, and a corresponding mental closure against the discovery of cultural inconsistencies. From the beginning, this conventional anthropological approach conflated the 2 distinct level, through eliding
-the notion of cultural coherence (or ideational unity consistency) with
-the notion of uniform practices (or a community smoothly integrated into a common way of life).
Running the 2 together,as “a community of shared meanings”, conflated the “community” (S-C) with the “meanings” (C.S.). By doing so, the myth perpetrated a basic analytical confusion between these 2 elements,which are both logically and sociologically distinct. What were inextricably confounded in the myth and continued to be in the canon were
-logical consistency (the degree of internal compatibility between the components of culture and
-causal consensus (the degree of social uniformity produced by the ideational influence of one set of people on another. Logical consistency is a property of the world of ideas,which requires no knowing subject, whilst causal consensus is a property of people and their interaction. The proposition advanced here is that the 2 are both analytically and empirically distinct; hence they can vary independently of one another.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 27 Oct - 8:39

For this week,I’ll continue in sociology. I hope Canada will understand something about it because the future of this country depends on it. Islam is Islam and you need to know what’s Islam to know about the tendency of which we’re going now.
In this web of belief every strand depends upon every other strand,and Zande cannot get out of its meshes because it is the only world he knows. The web isn’t an external structure in which he is enclosed. It is the texture of his thought and he cannot think that his thought is wrong.”
If this statement is taken as epitomizing the myth,it’s very clear how the resulting canon conflates culture and agency,such that neither is granted distinct properties and powers. Therefore there can be no interplay between the “parts” and the “people”, and thus there’s no source of internal cultural dynamics that could account for change. Consequently it’s no accident that the locus of change was always located externally in cultural contact, clash,conquest,or colonization. However,there’s a special feature to note about the conflation of culture and agency in this early anthropological image of cultural coherence. Once culture had been defined as a community of shared meanings,thus eliding the “community” with the “meanings”, it really didn’t matter whether the assumption about coherence was attached to the consistency of meanings or to the smooth integration of the community, for the other element was incapable of independent variation.

Basically, what 20th century cultural theorists shed was simply the idea of over determination. The notion of a tight bonding between stable and shared practices and consistent and common meanings was a feature of the old and cold past. It ceased to be appropriate given the social differentiation and ideational diversity taken as definitive of modernity from Durkheim onwards.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 3 Nov - 10:15

Time is a notion very relative,I understand that now,another year is almost finished… I’m very good now in my life,stable. I appreciate each minute, I have a home now and I’m happy.
In my sociology companion which I study everyday, I read a lot these days but I’m happy with that. I’m often surprised how ignorance is everywhere in our society in university particularly, where I’d been surprised of how ignorant the people there may be. It’s really surprising. Internet isn’t perfect but I’m learning a lot by it and it’s a happiness of my life. I don’t like stress because I’m anxious easily these days. My life can seem boring for some now,but it’s new for me and I’m so happy with that.

However,what proved extraordinary resilient was the conflation of culture and agency itself. Instead,the new features of modernity,later of high modernity, and later of high modernity,were accomodated in diverse schools of thought by the development of different versions of conflationary theorizing. Conjointly,they elaborated the fallacy of conflation. Fundamentally,what’s wrong with conflationary theorizing is that it prevents the interplay between the “parts” and the “people” from making any contribution to cultural reproduction or transformation. This is because in every version of the fallacy,the conflation of the C.S. and the S-C withholds any autonomy or independence from one of them,if not from both,which precludes a 2-way interaction between culture and agency.
Fallacies and conflation: Conflation of the 2 levels of analysis always takes place in a particular direction and there are only 3 directions possible. The first pair make either the “parts” or the “people” an epiphenomenon of the other. They differ about which is held to be epiphenomenal but not about the legitimacy of conflation itself. Thus either version renders the dependent element inert, be it the C.S. on the S-C. Consequently, proponents of epiphenomenalism advance rather crude unilateral accounts when explaining cultural stability or change. In downwards conflation,some cultural code or central value system imposes its choreography on culture life and agents are reduced to bearers of its properties,usually through (over) socialization. In upwards conflation,cultural properties are simply formed and transformed by some untrammeled dominant group,which successfully universalizes an ideological conspectus to advance its material interests.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 10 Nov - 8:11

Hi everyone!For this week,it’s again very simple in sociology matter’s. It’s my first time with my operation system update with my Linux. I prefer this one because it’s more secure and easy to play with but it’s an adaptation each time to the new version... It’s better than windows but like it, meaning than a have a new version every 4 or 5 years. I’m very happy in my home it has been a very good year for me. I’m very happy of where I am and all the commodities associated.
In my sociology companion’s for this week...
However,the fallacy of conflation doesn’t depend upon epiphenomelalism, or on rendering one aspect of cultural reality inert. This is shown by the remaining possibility,namely “central” conflation, where elision occurs in the “middle”. Instead,what happens is that autonomy is withheld from both “parts”,which has precisely the same effect of precluding examination of their interplay.Here the properties of C.S. and the properties of S-C are conflated because they presented as being mutually constitutive. However,this is unlike everyday terms that involve mutual constitution,such as “singing”. There, the song and the singer have separate properties, some of which are irrelevant to the practice,such as the circumstances of the song’s composition or the marital circumstances of the singer, and some of whose interplay is vital to the practice,the song’s difficulty and the singer’s virtuosity. Instead,in central conflation the intimacy of their reciprocal constitution amounts to an actual elision of the 2 components,which cannot be united,and thus their influences upon one another cannot be unraveled.Once again, the net effect of conflation is that the possibility of gaining explanatory leverage upon cultural dynamics from the interplay between culture and agency is relinquished from the outset.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Admin on Sat 17 Nov - 8:29

Hi!The winter is there!It’s soon this year comparatively to the last ones... I’m fine and happy,it’s the first time in my life where I have a real home for me,an only for me. I have all what I need and live happy... Sometimes I think about my past and it’s a deliverance not to be there anymore,I realize how toxic it was for me. I’m poor but it’s a far less burden on my shoulders than before. I’m not 100% noraml but much more closer too... My life is peaceful and I try to keep it that way. I don’t work,for most people they don’t understand...But I’m conscious of my conditions and my past and it would be difficult for me... I like to read I read a lot of books every months,my philosophy books yes,but thrillers too 1 each week,sometimes more... I’m very solitary but it’s a grace for me after so many years with so many people, I prefer to live alone it’s a pleasure for me.
In my companion of sociology again for this week...
The transfer of the anthropological myth of cultural coherence to the middle ages was painstakingly crafted by Sorokin,who thus extended it beyond the confines of primitive society, a move that normative functionalists generalized to all viable social systems and that linguistic structuralists universalized. There are 2 common themes uniting these otherwise divergent forms of social theory. On the one hand the preservation of the myth of cultural integration (C.S.); on the other,the introduction of the “downwards” inflection,through which the C.S. molded the S-C by shaping homologous mentalities. Sorokin’s crucial contribution was his insistence on the internal “Logico-Meaningful Integration of Culture” (C.S.),which was apprehended by sweeping up a welter of cultural fragments to demonstrate its inner coherence.This entailed detecting the “major premise of each system”, the key unlocking its governing architectonic principle. The presumption was that a key existed to be found,which is predicated on the assumption that cultural systems are coherently ordered. Civilizational exemplars were shown to be “supremely integrated” because all the parts together form,as it were,a seamless garment”. This was his first bequest to functionalism.In turn,systemic (C.S.) consistency generated socio-cultural uniformity,because “the dominant type of culture moulds the type of mentality of human beings who are born and live in it.

Admin
Admin

Messages : 790
Date d'inscription : 2009-01-10
Age : 36

View user profile http://verseau-quinny23.forumactif.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Philosophy in English...different books...

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum