Religion and Language

[Montgomery Price]

Ok. Maybe I may be lost... But, I think I've pinpointed the solution:

I think the problem here is that the words "represents" and "is" are not synonymous. I think what you are trying to say is that "courage" is a predisposition. Water is water. Not, a representation. The photo represents water.

So, what is a "predisposition to certain behaviors"?

The answer cannot be "courage", because this is what we are trying to discover. Circular, needless to say.

Describe what a predisposition is, itself. If a predisposition doesn't represent anything, then what is it. Where does it come from, and why? Is it dependent on anything... say... the behaviors someone is predisposed towards?

I say that a predisposition is the tendency towards certain behaviors. I believe that it is most likely that representation, that is, the "predisposition" is rooted in a physical process. The "predisposition" is an abstract idea we put together to represent or describe something (other than the predisposition) that most likely has roots in our physical bodies.

So, to ask "Where is this predisposition?" or "Where is courage?" is making a categorical error. It is an abstract concept that represents a physical process, and is not physical itself.

[Mordecai]

So, what is a "predisposition to certain behaviors"?

The answer cannot be "courage", because this is what we are trying to discover. Circular, needless to say.

No, because the behavior isn't the courage. I've already described what kind of behavior, too.

Describe what a predisposition is, itself. If a predisposition doesn't represent anything, then what is it. Where does it come from, and why? Is it dependent on anything... say... the behaviors someone is predisposed towards?

A predisposition is a characteristic of something to behave in certain ways. A stretched rubber band is predisposed to revert to its original shape and a courageous person is predisposed to act courageously, when circumstances call for it.

I say that a predisposition is the tendency towards certain behaviors. I believe that it is most likely that representation, that is, the "predisposition" is rooted in a physical process. The "predisposition" is an abstract idea we put together to represent or describe something (other than the predisposition) that most likely has roots in our physical bodies.

There is no question that it has physical roots. But then again, that doesn't make it part of one's body anymore than gravity or potential energy are part of the earth or part of a stretched rubber band, respectively.

So, to ask "Where is this predisposition?" or "Where is courage?" is making a categorical error. It is an abstract concept that represents a physical process, and is not physical itself.

I don't think it's an abstract concept anymore than potential energy is an abstract concept. Energy is just as real as anything and potential energy is no less real, just because it doesn't have mass, location nor substance. I say it's just as real as any matter, energy or information.

[Montgomery Price]

No, because the behavior isn't the courage. I've already described what kind of behavior, too.

A predisposition is a characteristic of something to behave in certain ways. A stretched rubber band is predisposed to revert to its original shape and a courageous person is predisposed to act courageously, when circumstances call for it.

There is no question that it has physical roots. But then again, that doesn't make it part of one's body anymore than gravity or potential energy are part of the earth or part of a stretched rubber band, respectively.

I don't think it's an abstract concept anymore than potential energy is an abstract concept. Energy is just as real as anything and potential energy is no less real, just because it doesn't have mass, location nor substance. I say it's just as real as any matter, energy or information.

Ok. I think this is beginning to clear up.

I would suggest that potential energy is the abstract concept we have formulated to represent what physical processes we observe.

Likewise, I suggest that a predisposition is the abstract concept we have formulated to represent what is most likely rooted in a physical process, that we haven't exactly observed yet.

The fact that we haven't observed it, does not discredit the theory. In fact, I believe the evidence supports that courage is rooted in physical process, and you probably do too.

So, to say "Where is the courage?" is a categorical error. No one claims that "courage" is part of the body, it represents, indirectly, what is most likely a physical process. No one claims that the concept of courage is physical.

So, you don't believe it to be an abstract concept that is representational of anything? Why is my explanation of potential energy, or courage inadequate?

Also, define "real" in terms of the physical, abstract, idea, concept, etc.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, I want to be more of a teacher so I will try. This is a summary of the point of view of most modern philosophers today, or most certainly the school in which I am most interested, which is a large one.

Science does not observe "reality", it observes human experience.

There is no reality outside of human experience. There is no "red" out there- there is only light at a certain wavelength being reflected into my retina. My retina takes that light, and turns it into nerve impulses, electro-chemical whatsises and our brain now organizes it into a picture. What I see is not reality, it is a picture my brain has made

All I know, speaking scientifically, is that light is being organized by my brain into pictures. Suppose I could only perceive radio waves instead of light, because I was from another planet or something. How would my "reality" be different? Or perhaps I could hear radio signals, effectively listening to the radio without an electronic instrument.

When you see a chair, you are not seeing a chair, you are seeing light from "something" out there which you cannot know or describe. Perhaps it is emitting all kinds of radiation you are not perceiving, so you don't or can't know "what it really is".

Sure, you can put some kind of meter on it which translates whatever it is radiating into something you can perceive, but that is still your perception THROUGH a machine which turns the input into what you can perceive. You can watch the dial move, or measure the wave on an osilloscope or whatever, but you are still not seeing "what is"; you are seeing signals which have been "translated" by a machine into something you can perceive.

Radio telescopes are an excellent example.

OK so now you have stuff in your brain which has come from your perceptions. Again only from your perceptions- your perceptions ARE reality.

The only reality you can know is what your brain interprets and organizes for you-- brainstates cannot be escaped.

So now you express that reality to others. How do you do that? Through language.

Language is all you have to express anything.

Language does not represent reality- it is communication of ideas which are in specific contexts.

Language is self-referential. When you look up a word in a dictionary, it gives you other words. And it gives you, often several meanings of the same word, which depend on context. Words don't represent, they have no meaning outside of context.

Language and communication is always within context. Language and communication is never outside of a communication context.

If I say to you "brick" and wait a few seconds and say "beam", then wait a few seconds and say "trowel", it makes no sense whatsoever.

But if we are working together building something, and you understand that "brick" means "Hand me a brick", we have a shared context and those random words suddenly have meaning. We are communicating.

[Mordecai]

Ok. I think this is beginning to clear up.

I would suggest that potential energy is the abstract concept we have formulated to represent what physical processes we observe.

I don't see it as an abstraction at all. Energy=matter. It's just in a different form. When we talk about potential energy, the potential energy exists in a way that is as real as anything else.

Likewise, I suggest that a predisposition is the abstract concept we have formulated to represent what is most likely rooted in a physical process, that we haven't exactly observed yet.

It's probably impossible to know something in itself, so if you're going to call the idea of a predisposition abstract, you must also call practically everything abstract.

The fact that we haven't observed it, does not discredit the theory. In fact, I believe the evidence supports that courage is rooted in physical process, and you probably do too.

Everything is rooted in the physical world. Spirits are physical. Intelligence acts upon physical things, so it too exists in and is incorporated into the physical world. There is nothing that is physical that isn't spiritual and vice versa, according to modern prophets.

So, to say "Where is the courage?" is a categorical error. No one claims that "courage" is part of the body, it represents, indirectly, what is most likely a physical process. No one claims that the concept of courage is physical.

I think courage, as I said, is directly comparable to the potential energy in a stretched rubber band. If potential energy is real and not an abstraction, then why would courage be?

Also, define "real" in terms of the physical, abstract, idea, concept, etc.

If matter is real, so is energy. If energy is real, so is potential energy.

[mfbukowski]

The meaning of a word is inseparable from its context in usage.

These are only a few of the possible contexts and meanings of the word "courage".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=kfy&defl=en&q=define:courage&ei=-2UwS9jeJ4jusgP1xLnYAw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

# a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger or pain without showing fear

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Courage is a drama film which was produced by Warner Bros. in 1929 and released early in 1930. The movie is based on a stage play of the same name by Tom Barry which was a hit on Broadway in 1928.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_(1930_film)

# Courage, also known as bravery, will, intrepidity, and fortitude, is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

# The 1992 X-Men animated series debuted on October 31, 1992 on the Fox Network as part of the "Fox Kids" Saturday morning lineup. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_(X-Men_TV_Episode)

# Courage is a British brewery. The company is a branch of Scottish & Newcastle and officially called Scottish Courage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_(brewery)

# "Courage (for Hugh MacLennan)" is a song by The Tragically Hip, and the first track, and first single, from their 1992 album Fully Completely. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_(for_Hugh_MacLennan)

# Courage is Paula Cole's fourth studio album. It marks her return to the music scene after nearly a decade-long hiatus. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage_(Paula_Cole_album)

# The quality of a confident character not to be afraid or intimidated easily but without being incautious or inconsiderate; The ability to do ...

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/courage

# courageous - brave: possessing or displaying courage; able to face and deal with danger or fear without flinching; "Familiarity with danger makes a brave man ...

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Courageous is a 12-metre class yacht. It was the third boat to win the America's Cup twice, in 1974 and 1977, after Intrepid in 1967 and 1970, and Columbia in 1899 and 1901. All three of these boats won for the NYYC and thus the USA.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_(yacht)

# Courageous - Change Or Die will be the lead single from the American rock band Papa Roach's new album Metamorphosis. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courageous_(song)

# courageous - Of a person, displaying or possessing courage; Of an action, that requires courage

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Courageous

# Ability to manage danger.

www.cosmicledger.com/glossary/c

# means strength to face danger or take on challenges. The Massachusetts Fifty-fourth Regiment was a courageous group of African-American soldiers ...

www.nga.gov/education/classroom/heroes_and_heroines/glossary.shtm

# a person's ability to function despite fear or anxiety. Since fear and anxiety can be caused by internal and external sources, courage cannot be measured by an external situation alone, and social comparisons can be misleading. ...

anxiety-panic.com/dictionary/en-dictc.htm

So where is courage? It's in a bottle or on TV, or maybe on Broadway, among other places.

If you don't have the context right, you could get the meaning wrong and be speaking jibberish.

Well, maybe some of my friends will come over and drink courage while my kids are watching it on tv.

Notice it nowhere says anything about a chemical reaction in your brain.

And of course these are some English contexts, so we have not even stated to plumb the depths of everything it could mean.

[mfbukowski]

And it gets more complicated.

Note the last link with a "#" on the above post:

Courage - a person's ability to function despite fear or anxiety. Since fear and anxiety can be caused by internal and external sources, courage cannot be measured by an external situation alone, and social comparisons can be misleading. A person's apparent courage may vary greatly from situation to situation. Even the bravest people have limited endurance for tolerating prolonged exposure to fear or anxiety. Also see thrill.

So even the most "scientific" definition is still ambiguous and depends on usage. And note what we call "courage" is probably not definable at all as a single mental state since the mental states would vary according to if they were caused by internal or external sources, situational variation, tolerance, and even thrill seeking.

I have never skied in my life. It takes too much courage. But I have been shot at. That wasn't too bad really. They either hit you or they don't. There's not much you can do but shoot back and hope you get them first.

[mfbukowski]

A word that describes what...

Can you see the problem with even asking that question?

[Brade]

Love your siggie. How far do you take that?

It's even relevant for this thread. The meaning of words is at least partially "how we are".

Hey, mfbukowski, it's been a while. I think this is the first time I've posted here in 3 months (maybe more). Haven't read through the whole thread, but I thought I'd just comment on this post since it relates to something I'm particularly interested in. I just finished sending in applications to philosophy PhD programs, and with my applications I included a writing sample on a problem in philosophy of language. My paper was a response to Hilary Putnam's famous Twin Earth paper. In any event I attempted to sketch out a defense of the view, contrary to Putnam's position, that meaning is determined by psychological states ("how we are"; our intentions and such).

As to the question posed by the OP of this thread, it seems clear (or at least plausible) to me that religious language plays a role in how people think; or don't think, as the case may be. To take a trivial example, in testimony meetings Church wide people often utter "I know the Church is true". That sentence is really quite silly. Noun phrases like "the Church" simply are not the sorts of things that can have a truth value. And yet, the sentence asserts the truth of "the Church". Setting aside for a moment considerations of context, pragmatics, and idiolect; the sentence is about as meaningful as one's utterance of "My hand is true" or "The moon is true". Of course, I don't think people intend to attribute a truth value (true) to a church when they make such an utterance. I take it that the intention behind uses of "the church" have something to do with certain propositions people have in mind; and propositions (or statements, or sentences if you like) are the sorts of things that can be true or false. Still, though, even being charitable about what one might mean by "the church" doesn't really help anyone understand what a person actually means. Unless the utterer tells us what is meant by their use of "the church" the best we can do is assume they mean something other than an object; our charity won't help us know exactly what propositions they intend to assert truth of. In short, even if something meaningful is meant, it's just a poor way of communicating, and sadly it's all too common in Mormon discourse.

I started by saying that it's a trivial example, but I now think it might be less trivial than I originally thought. Here's a stab at why that might be the case. By saying "the Church is true" instead of getting very specific about exactly what propositions one thinks are true and why, one can avoid putting much thought into what propositions one thinks are true and why. "Oh, yeah, I just believe all that stuff. What stuff? You know, that stuff". It seems plausible to me that lumping important religious beliefs into a nearly meaningless utterance can stifle real critical thought, and I think people ought to always try to remain thoughtful, and to a certain extent critical, of what they believe; particularly religious beliefs. I think a lot of sloppy Mormon language and wrote utterances do the utterers and the community a disservice by diluting and obfuscating what ought not be diluted and obfuscated.

[Montgomery Price]

mfbukowski,

Again, back to my 2 interpretations:

Courage is just a word.

You can have two interpretations of this sentence. One is true, but trivial. The other is blatantly false, and would be earth-shattering if true.

(1) Courage is just a word. It is a set of letters, combined to convey a message. This interpretation is true, but trivial. It doesn't matter.

(2) Courage is not just a word. This claim is obviously false. Courage could be a certain set of emotions. It could be a chemical process in your brain. It could be something that makes all of life worthwhile. It could just be an illusion... but we know for sure, that the concept of "courage" is not a word.

Now, I am not using the first interpretation version of courage. I am using the second version of courage. I believe that this second version of courage is not just a word. I agree with most of what you said about reality, but this doesn't have much to do with what I am talking about. Yes, we use language... But, we also have consensus. We have communion, and fidelity when it comes to language. Yes, our brains are are only "model-makers" for what we can perceive as reality, but we can also make public models with language, that is most efficient at explaining and functioning with our observations. A public model that is applicable, and open to reasonable modification. Yes, we can't know what the objective and "true reality" is, or even if there is an objective and true reality. But, we can create some very effective public models that can function very efficiently, be modified when needed, and are applicable in a countless number of situations. This is obviously why we can label something "objective", but not "true reality". I think you use the word reality too loosely. This doesn't diminish any functioning ability of our models. It doesn't matter if our concept of an electron is actually true or not, it just matters that this model functions better than any other. This is all good stuff... But.

I am not using the word "courage" as if I am just speaking of the word. I am speaking of the courage that is definitely not just a meaningless word. Not just a quip of communication, but a consensus of our communication. We've all agreed that there is some "courage" out there (either in our own subjective model, or in the public model), and that is definitely not just a word and nothing more. It is something that is independent of any label we choose to give it. The object of our discussion, is what the word "courage" was created to represent.

Language is a code with no inherent meaning. As you said, there's nothing inherently interesting about a string of comments, random and disjointed. But, we've agreed that certain sets of characters, in context, represent different consensus. The word "apple" represents what our "public model" perceives to be an apple. Likewise, the word "courage" represents what our public model perceives to be some form of courage in a given context.

We can have the "predisposition to act with certain behaviors", and we can recognize this without putting a word on it. The word came after the experience, not before. The concept or idea of courage is not dependent on it's linguistic label.

Now, what courage is, or what it represents is up for debate. I claim that the concept of courage, not the word, was created to represent our collective perception, or public model, of what is most likely a physical process. It's an abstract/nonphysical idea that we use, mentally in context, to represent an unconscious physical process.

----------------

Let me try to explain my position on this very clearly. (1) and (2) represent the two different interpretations. This is a very simple image, so bear with it I guess.

Now, if my interpretation is correct... Then we don't expect to "find" courage⁽²⁾ the mental state in our unconscious, physical brains. It is representative of the physical, it is not the physical itself. To ask "where is courage in my brain?" is a misleading error of categorization.

The question is "Where can I find the physical process that most likely creates my mental perception which we call courage?"

[Brade]

mfbukowski,

Again, back to my 2 interpretations:

Courage is just a word.

You can have two interpretations of this sentence. One is true, but trivial. The other is blatantly false, and would be earth-shattering if true.

(1) Courage is just a word. It is a set of letters, combined to convey a message. This interpretation is true, but trivial. It doesn't matter.

(2) Courage is not just a word. This claim is obviously false. Courage could be a certain set of emotions. It could be a chemical process in your brain. It could be something that makes all of life worthwhile. It could just be an illusion... but we know for sure, that the concept of "courage" is not a word.

Hmmm, perhaps the fact that I haven't read the entire thread is contributing to my confusion here, but in addition to a use mention problem the claims you make here don't seem to be consistent. I apologize if I'm missing something obvious. As to the consistency problem, you claim that you can have two interpretations of a certain sentence--"Courage is just a word"--where one interpretation is true and the other is false. However you provide one interpretation for the sentence "Courage is just a word" and then you provide an interpretation for the sentence "Courage is not just a word". By all accounts, these are different sentences.

Your assessment of "Courage is not just a word" is that that statement is false. But, if that statement is false, then that means that courage is just a word. But, then you go on to say that "we know for sure, that the concept of "courage" is not a word". Have you simply made a mistake here?

Now, as to the first quibble, the use/mention problems, the sentence "courage is just a word" is false; not true as you claim at the beginning of your post. The reason for this is simply that courage is not a word. Rather, "courage" is a word. The use/mention distinction is very helpful in language discussions. Consider the following sentence:

Obama is a man.

In the above sentence every word is being used. No words are being mentioned. The sentence asserts a property (man-ness) about a thing (Obama). The sentence doesn't say anything about words at all. Rather, it attempts to say something about a thing. The sentence is, of course, true. Now consider this sentence:

"Obama" is a man.

Whereas in the first sentence the expression "Obama" was used, in this sentence the expression "Obama" is mentioned and not used. The other words ("is", "a", and "man"), however, are used. This sentence makes a claim about a word; "Obama". It doesn't make a claim about a thing (or person, in this case). The claim it makes is false, because words are not the sorts of things that can be men or women. Just to drive the point home, consider the following sentences for which I'll report a correct truth-value assessment:

Obama is man. True

"Obama" is a man. False

Obama is a word with five letters. False

"Obama" is a word with five letters. True

I know I'm being nitpicky here, but use/mention problems can cause a lot of trouble in language discussions. By convention, quotation marks are used to indicate that an expression is being mentioned and not used; although, there's nothing really special about that method. The idea is that if your intention is to mention a word, then something must be done to make that clear (italics, single quotes, brackets, etc).

Extending this analysis to your second sentence, "Courage is not just a word", most language philosophers would probably say that that is true (so long as you don't actually mean "'Courage' is not just a word"). Some other distinctions would probably be helpful in the context of this discussion (object language/meta language and the type/token distinction), but I'll hold off on offering those distinctions. Maybe you've just made a simple mistake; in which case I apologize for appearing to jump on your case about it.

Please don't take any of this personally. Overall, your post is interesting and it appears to take some pretty big bites out of problems in philosophy of language and philosophy of mind.

[Brade]

Now, if my interpretation is correct... Then we don't expect to "find" courage(2) the mental state in our unconscious, physical brains. It is representative of the physical, it is not the physical itself. To ask "where is courage in my brain?" is a misleading error of categorization.

The question is "Where can I find the physical process that most likely creates my mental perception which we call courage?"

As to your claim, as I understand it, I'm inclined to agree with you here. It seems obvious to me that courage is more than a mental state. One need not even be a dualist to believe this, I think. Just consider that to correctly identify a state of affairs as being an example of courage one needs to know more than just the mental state of some potential courageous subject. Put simply, while courageous persons might be in the mental-state-courage when they act courageously, their actual behavior also makes an important contribution to whether the state of affairs exemplified by what they are doing counts as an instance of courage.

I think we could imagine a case where a person's mind might be induced into mental-state-courage but where the subject is, say, strapped into a chair in a laboratory, and just made to be in that state by some scientist. I don't think we'd want to say of that person that they are being courageous or that we've got an instance of courage on our hands just because they happen to be in mental-state-courage. On the other hand, we can imagine a subject accidentally saving a person's life by behaving in a way that appears courageous, but if we were able to examine their mental states would find that they were not in mental-state-courage. I think if examples such as these were fleshed out we would see that the intentional content (i.e. mental states) and the outward behavior of a subject must both be a certain way to correctly say that somebody is being courageous or that we've got a case of courage on our hands. As you say, "we don't expect to "find" courage(2)...in our...physical brains".

More trivially, as I think you intended to put it, it's seems obviously true that courage is more than just a word in the same way that my hand is more than two words ("my" and "hand").

Edit: My comments are predicated on the assumption that when you're talking about courage you're talking about more than just what it feels like to be courageous. Certainly it could very well be true that the feeling of courage is nothing more than a mental state. That can be true even if, I think, we were to say that courage is more than a mental state.

[mfbukowski]

Hey ba81

Good to see you! Glad you are well and it sounds like you are doing just fine.

I started by saying that it's a trivial example, but I now think it might be less trivial than I originally thought. Here's a stab at why that might be the case. By saying "the Church is true" instead of getting very specific about exactly what propositions one thinks are true and why, one can avoid putting much thought into what propositions one thinks are true and why. "Oh, yeah, I just believe all that stuff. What stuff? You know, that stuff". It seems plausible to me that lumping important religious beliefs into a nearly meaningless utterance can stifle real critical thought, and I think people ought to always try to remain thoughtful, and to a certain extent critical, of what they believe; particularly religious beliefs. I think a lot of sloppy Mormon language and wrote utterances do the utterers and the community a disservice by diluting and obfuscating what ought not be diluted and obfuscated.

Well I guess you have not yet gotten into Wittgenstein.

I think his view on contextual language games is really the way to make sense out of the utterance "I know the church is true"; one must recognize the purpose of the utterance and see it in the context of purpose in order to understand that it has meaning. Utterances have purpose and that purpose is found in the context of the situation.

A cry of "Help!" is designed to bring action, it is not a proposition, and doesn't really have truth value, but it does what it is designed to do.

The real meaning, within say, a fast and testimony meeting, of the sentence "I know the church is true" is really something more like "The church has changed my life for the good forever." which does indeed have a truth value.

If you are not looking in the context, utterances have no meaning. So I think your post strips away the intended context of the usual use of the utterance and puts it into another context- that of a philosophy student analyzing the truth value of an utterance which was never intended to have its truth value analyzed.

Read my last several posts before this one in which I kind of summarize my view and a brief overview of the later Wittgenstein's analysis.

And this link may help some too.

But really good to see you here!

[mfbukowski]

I am not using the word "courage" as if I am just speaking of the word. I am speaking of the courage that is definitely not just a meaningless word. Not just a quip of communication, but a consensus of our communication. We've all agreed that there is some "courage" out there (either in our own subjective model, or in the public model), and that is definitely not just a word and nothing more. It is something that is independent of any label we choose to give it. The object of our discussion, is what the word "courage" was created to represent.

Oh, you mean the beer?

Oh and I would be curious about who created it?

You're still not getting it. It doesn't represent anything by itself. It is not "independent of any label." It only makes sense in context.

IT DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING BY ITSELF.

That's about the 8th time I have said it, and as usual, you are not reading. Someone else mentioned your reading comprehension problem. You really should have that checked.

You are so stuck in your own way of thinking you can't see it any other way.

[Brade]

Hey ba81

Good to see you! Glad you are well and it sounds like you are doing just fine.

Well I guess you have not yet gotten into Wittgenstein.

I think his view on contextual language games is really the way to make sense out of the utterance "I know the church is true"; one must recognize the purpose of the utterance and see it in the context of purpose in order to understand that it has meaning. Utterances have purpose and that purpose is found in the context of the situation.

A cry of "Help!" is designed to bring action, it is not a proposition, and doesn't really have truth value, but it does what it is designed to do.

The real meaning, within say, a fast and testimony meeting, of the sentence "I know the church is true" is really something more like "The church has changed my life for the good forever." which does indeed have a truth value.

If you are not looking in the context, utterances have no meaning. So I think your post strips away the intended context of the usual use of the utterance and puts it into another context- that of a philosophy student analyzing the truth value of an utterance which was never intended to have its truth value analyzed.

Read my last several posts before this one in which I kind of summarize my view and a brief overview of the later Wittgenstein's analysis.

And this link may help some too.

But really good to see you here!

Oh, I think context is important. And, I'm willing to concede that something meaningful is intended by "I know the Church is true". I'm really just saying that whatever is intended isn't communicated well by "I know the Church is true". Sure, a person might mean "The Church has changed my life". Or, they might mean that some set of propositions is true. Often, however, context, in the very case I'm describing, doesn't help carve out the specific meaning, and lacking contextual clues all we're left with is a statement that seemingly attributes truth to a thing; or, if we're being charitable, a statement that either truly asserts that the utterer's life has been change, or a statement that's intended to attribute truth to some proposition or set of propositions that the utterer has named "the Church". Most of the people I've spoken with don't really have a good idea as to what they mean when they say "the Church is true"; they just think it means something and whatever it means they want to assert it too; but, when asked they just really don't know what they mean by it. That, it seems to me, is a problem.

A cry of "Help!" is designed to bring action, it is not a proposition, and doesn't really have truth value, but it does what it is designed to do.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the view that non-truth apt utterances are meaningless. Certainly "Ahhhhhh!" or "Help!" or "Open the window, please" have meaning, despite the fact that those utterances are not truth-apt. I'm simply saying that utterances that predicate a truth-value to a object (something represented by a noun-phrase) either (1) fail to do what the utterer thinks they do, or (2) mean something other than the meaning of the bits of language being used. Additionally, I'm saying that if (2) is the case, just knowing the circumstances of the utterance won't help get at the precise meaning.

[Montgomery Price]

It doesn't represent anything by itself?

Are you talking about the seven letters in the word "courage"⁽¹⁾, or the mental state of courage⁽²⁾?

In my picture I already indicated that each "courage" requires a context. You need to make sure we agree on which interpretation we are using. This is really frustrating. You've said "Courage is just a word", and I evaluated this sentence... and you haven't addressed my evaluation at all.

When I say "label", I mean a word that we assign to something that is independent of language.

There are many languages that have different ways of saying "courage" in any sort of context. We could come to a certain agreement for each definition or context of courage, and it doesn't matter which language or letters we label it with. It can have a different label, but still mean the same thing. "Courage", the word, and "predisposition to certain behaviors", a set of words, both can refer to our subject, but are different words that are constructed into a different label for the same thing. It doesn't matter what we label it. We could have the feeling labeled "gdsgdg" or "sgdshhhh", it doesn't change the feeling. It only changes how we label it. In this case, courage⁽²⁾ is independent of any label we put on it.

You haven't indicated whether or not you're talking about letters and characters, or the idea of courage regardless of the word.

The word did not come before the concept we had in our minds. We created the word to represent the mental state we experience.

So, it's obvious that the mention of "courage"⁽¹⁾is just a word. But, what it refers to, the use of courage⁽²⁾ is not just a word. Otherwise, why would we create a word to identify something that's "just a word"??!? This is so painfully obvious. This is settled as far as I can tell. I hope you're not talking about this.

Now, the mental state, can represent something other than itself. The feeling or perception that we've labeled courage could represent the physical processes that occur in your brain. Why can't it?

You haven't demonstrated, in any way, why the mental state of courage⁽²⁾, in context, can't represent a physical occurrence in your brain, in context. You've only asserted that some version of courage, (1) or (2), can't represent anything by itself.

Yes, the mental state of courage can't represent anything if you take it away from context, or from the physical process. But, why should you?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE:

[Montgomery Price]

If your point is that it only makes sense in context... Then I've already shown that I understand this in the picture. Hence the big red CONTEXT.

What's the problem if you can't have these things without context? What is your point? Is there anything wrong with the picture? Why did you ask for us to "find" courage? What does this have to do with anything?

[Brade]

It doesn't represent anything by itself. It is not "independent of any label." It only makes sense in context.

Certainly courage doesn't represent anything. In one way of thinking, courage just is. "Courage", the word, as it's used in ordinary English discourse, does represent something, and it seems to me that the thing that word represents exists whether or not there's a word for it. But, if I remember right, this is a major point of disagreement between you and I. Just to bring it out, and perhaps this'll be helpful to Montgomery, let's imagine a world with no creatures of any kind; No God, humans, dogs, or bacteria. Hopefully we can all agree that there's no language in such a world. Aside from that difference (which is a big one, I take it), the universe is just as it is. Now in this scenario I still believe it's right to say that there are suns, planets, and galaxies (of course, all without life). But, if I remember right, you want to say that in such a case there are no suns, planets, or galaxies. Is that right?

[mfbukowski]

I'm simply saying that utterances that predicate a truth-value to a object (something represented by a noun-phrase) either (1) fail to do what the utter thinks they do, or (2) mean something other than the meaning of the bits of language being used. Additionally, I'm saying that if (2) is the case, just knowing the circumstances of the utterance won't help get at the precise meaning.

I lost you somehow.

This is for all utterances that predicate a truth-value to an object, or something represented by a noun-phrase?

[mfbukowski]

Certainly courage doesn't represent anything. In one way of thinking, courage just is. "Courage", the word, as it's used in ordinary English discourse, does represent something, and it seems to me that the thing that word represents exists whether or not there's a word for it. But, if I remember right, this is a major point of disagreement between you and I. Just to bring it out, and perhaps this'll be helpful to Montgomery, let's imagine a world with no creatures of any kind; No God, humans, dogs, or bacteria. Hopefully we can all agree that there's no language in such a world. Aside from that difference (which is a big one, I take it), the universe is just as it is. Now in this scenario I still believe it's right to say that there are suns, planets, and galaxies (of course, all without life). But, if I remember right, you want to say that in such a case there are no suns, planets, or galaxies. Is that right?

It is a moot point about whether or not they "exist" in some sense.

If we can't know about them, what does it matter? The Big Bang had no relevance to us until someone saw that it made a difference in their calculations to posulate its existence.

Did they "discover" it or "create" it? Does it matter? For us, the big bang did not "exist" until it did.

It's the same as the polytheism allegations for the LDS. God is the only God we can possibly know or deal with, so he is the only one who is relevant.

I notice most LDS people have no problem with this concept when it relates to God, but when you bring it to science, they think you have lost your marbles.

Science doesn't discover, it creates. It makes form out of the void.

It creates a human context- a meaning- for the unknown.

[mfbukowski]

If your point is that it only makes sense in context... Then I've already shown that I understand this in the picture. Hence the big red CONTEXT.

What's the problem if you can't have these things without context? What is your point? Is there anything wrong with the picture? Why did you ask for us to "find" courage? What does this have to do with anything?

Well I think it illustrates well the importance of language, because frankly all the arrows etc, do not convey meaning to me.

In other words, you are trying to convey propositions by drawing pictures, which doesn't work.

A big red word doesn't really show you understand an idea.

"Courage" the word does not represent any THING in the world. There is no single behavior, mental state, or any THING represented by the word.

It is synonymous with "bravery" mostly, I think. It is often used as a description of certain indefinite behaviors which manifest the ability to act despite experiencing fear about acting. But those behaviors are all situational and could be actually anything.

Jumping over a wall, thinking a dangerous thought, writing an inflamatory letter, lifting your little finger if you are paralyzed, accepting responsibility for the care of your grandma could all be described as "courageous".

We could even describe a person as "courageous" if that person did not think he did anything courageous- so it is certainly not a brain state of an individual.

Courage is no more a representation of a thing than "5" is.

Can you see any common element there at all?

But I only brought up the idea of "courage" because it represents ONE example of many many abstract words, the meaning of which are in now way observable scientifically and which are important to a fruitful life.

The point is that there are many things which lead to a happy life which are not scientifically observable or "provable" in any way.

Happiness itself is one of those- shall we discuss that one for the next 30 posts, or are you finally starting to get what I am talking about?

The question of "where" courage is was brought up to show you that it is not a locatable brain state. Courage is not a puddle of chemicals.

[Brade]

I lost you somehow.

This is for all utterances that predicate a truth-value to an object, or something represented by a noun-phrase?

Sorry, I am lost now. I'm not sure what to make of the above response.

The question of "where" courage is was brought up to show you that it is not a locatable brain state. Courage is not a puddle of chemicals.

I agree with that. Is that what this was all about?

[wenglund]

Where in my body is "courage"?

And, similarly, where in the body of the text below does MP see courage:

[Montgomery Price]

mf,

That's what's wrong with the picture? You just don't understand it, and you can't put meaning on arrows?

It does not matter whether or not we can agree on which definition of "courage" to use.

"Courage is no more a representation of a thing than "5" is."

This is not true. The word, and the use of courage can be a representation of lots of things, and we can agree that those things are definitely not the number or character "5". You suggested that courage could be a number of things, and does not have to be one thing. This is obvious. Just because it is a number of things, does not mean that we have no use in trying to study it in our brains. This is because with each "mental state" we can attempt to discover it's physical roots.

We can label this mental state with the word "courage", or we could label another mental state "courage". The label does not matter. Each mental state and it's context are independent of any linguistic label. Yes, you may have several mental stages you could reasonably call courage, and there are several that would not qualify. The truth is still that they are all mental states.

And because they are mental states, we have reason to believe that they are most likely rooted in, or representing physical processes in our brains.

"the meaning of which are in now way observable scientifically"

Not true. We can agree on certain contexts, and mental states, and we can study them. This is called neuroscience. Or, you can dream up some abstract concept of some emotion, call it so obscure and mysterious that science can't touch it, say that there's way too many forms of it, and the way we use the word is too diverse and ambiguous, and all the neuroscientists can sit on their hands and listen to you.

No. There are plenty of mind states that we can recognize. Ones that are distinguishable from others. Distinct enough for us to study them physically. Ones that have distinct and recognizable context. We can study certain mind states that one would label courage.

Now, if you want to say that "you can't find courage, because the word "courage" can be applied to too many things." OK! That's your own problem! I can still go out, and find a certain mental state and context, one might call "courage", and I can study it knowing full well that there are other types of courage out there. I could go study those types of courage as well! We don't have to deal with them all at once!

Now, if you want to say that "you can't find courage, because the word "courage" refers to an abstract concept, that can't be located physically", then you are obviously correct!

But, mfbukowski... Did I say that you should expect to find a non-physical, abstract idea inside a physical brain?

No. You are making the same category error again. What we expect to find in our brains, is the physical process, not what we perceive when this physical process occurs. As long as we agree that a certain mental state can be labeled something, say "happiness", and it is distinguishable, in context, from other mental states, such as "sadness"... Then we can study it's physical roots. And, neuroscientists are attempting to do just that.

Yes, there are other contexts available for one arbitrary linguistic label.

Yes, a mental-state requires a context.

Yes, we don't expect to find a non-physical idea inside a physical brain.

We can agree on mental state and it's context to study, and we can discover the physical processes that occur under the same context of the mental state.

We may discover physical processes that are conclusively connected to certain mental states, or we may not. We can find out.

The word "courage" can be physically studied in several ways. As long as we agree on a certain context and mental state.

Yes, science can't explain everything. Yes, people can live without science. Is the physical brain and mental emotions off-limits to science?

Only if you insist on making the subject emotions obscure and indistinguishable... Asking someone to find something abstract and non-physical inside a physical brain... But, people know better. They have more important things to discover than how skewed you can make a subject seem.

[mfbukowski]

accidental post