LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  January 2004, Week 2

CONLANG January 2004, Week 2

Subject:

Re: OT: Reality (was: Re: Atlantean)

From:

Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:18:44 +0100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

En réponse à Andreas Johansson :


>But denying the assumptions still doesn't affect the objection!

Your objection is not objecting to anything, since it's nothing but an
assumption. You can object to any proposition by taking as preliminary a
hypothesis that *by definition* objects to this proposition.


>Because, near as I can tell, you're not actually attacking my original point
>at all, yet you present your arguments as an attack thereon.

Not an attack, rather a comment.


>Either our definitions of "belief" differ, or one of us is insane. If I cannot
>doubt something, I by necessity believe in it.

I think our definitions of "belief" do indeed differ, and it strikes me
that your definition is rather uncommon. Your sentence seems to indicate
that for you "believe" is synonymous to "not doubt" (and that doubting and
disbelieving are synonymous). That's *not* the usual meaning of "believe".
Believing is a very active behaviour, what you describe is purely passive.
And disbelieving and doubting are very much two different things!
Disbelieving is believing something does *not* exist. Doubting is merely
being unsure, and seeing no compelling evidence to believe. The discussion
about the different kinds of opposites is right on the mark here. The
absence of belief is *not* the contrary of believing. And doubting is
merely the absence of belief, not the contrary of belief. You seem to see
things only in black and white, forgetting all the grey in between.


> > And once again, believing in it or not wouldn't change
> > the way I *have* to behave in response to my perceptions anyway, so why
> > bother? :))
>
>This is a whole other kettle of fish, but what justification to you have for
>thinking you behaviour needs to have any relation to your perceptions? Near as
>I can tell, I'm a being of tolerably free will, able to ignore experience,
>common sense and my immediate perceptions to a high degree.

But actively ignoring experience is by definition reacting to it! Your
behaviour is still influenced by your perceptions, actively ignoring a
perception means you're aware of it, and making sure you don't react to it
is just another way to react to it.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options