Boa - Reverse Translation

[Chris Smith]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cevante's Don Quixote claimed to be a translation of a buried record. Similarly, Washington Irving's Legend of Sleepy Hallow was not only published under the pseudonym of Geoffrey Crayon, but was also said to have derived from the papers of Dutch "Historian" Diedrich Knickerbocker, who was purported to be missing. Irving even went so far as to paste "missing person" posters around New York--a great publicity stunt, and it worked.

Interesting stuff. I wasn't aware of all that. Not much of a classical literature guy, myself. I generally stick to sci-fi.

[Mortal Man]

Definitely not the FARMS Review.

The Friend?

Ladies Home Journal?

Magicians Quarterly?

[mfbukowski]

I think Boghossian has come up at least twice on this thread even though he hasn't been mentioned- there were at least two instances where arguments were lifted directly out of his book- the Latour reference and I forget another one- in a day or so I will directly address his arguments after I get a chance to review them in some detail.

In the off chance that anyone actually cares about this Boghossian sub-thread, let me say first my opinion, and then post a link to an article which I think very soundly refutes the very premises of Fear of Knowledge

I think the central flaw is clearly that Boghossian does not recognize that facts exist only in language. They are linguistic propositions which depend on the definition of the words in context- and I am sorry to tell all, but without a mind, there is no language, therefore without a mind there can be no "facts".

I know that that is an incredibly simple refutation, but that is all that is required. There is no "truth", there are only true propositions. If you can show me a "true chair", then I might be convinced otherwise, but there are only true statements. Statements are made in language- and we can only speak about things in language. It is impossible to talk about "facts" without language- and there are no languages without minds.

Incredibly, Boghossian never acknowledges this fact.

But there are many other problems here:

Let me now consider, not the cogency of Boghossian’s case, but its rhetorical eec

tiveness.

Boghossian takes the source of relativistic conviction to lie in the cogency of the

arguments that support it. If the source of relativistic conviction lies in the cogency

of the arguments advanced in its favor, then undermining these arguments would

undermine the source of relativistic conviction.

One problem is that Boghossian only considers the arguments of the radical left

of analytic metaphysics. Specically, he only considers the arguments of Goodman,

Putnam, and Rorty. (Foucault is only mentioned briey and dismissively.) Unfor

tunately, the relativistically inclined among our colleagues in the humanities and

all they have taught and inuenced are steeped in a dierent intellectual tradition

with its own arguments that Boghossian fails to consider. Thus for example, there

is a semantic tradition stemming from Saussure that ultimately failed to provide,

as we might put it, a determinate denotational semantics. Instead of rejecting this

semantic framework, some authors embraced this indeterminacy and drew relativis

tic conclusions from it. This intellectual trajectory can be found in diverse writers

such as Lacan and Derrida and interestingly parallels Quine’s own intellectual tra

jectory. Assessing these arguments would directly engage with that tradition and

would be an interesting intellectual exerciseone that Boghossian does not deign

to undertake.

http://markelikalderon.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/EpistemicRelativism.pdf

In other words, the author of this quote, Kalderon, correctly points out, that Boghossians arguments, for a relativist, completely miss the point and do not address the central issues of what is termed "relativism".

In terms we often use around here, he simply asserts his opinion as a strawman while avoiding the actual issues. He himself (Boghossian) later realized the central flaw in his book

Paul Boghossian (2008). Précis of Fear of Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 141 (3):377 - 378.

Fear of Knowledge was in many ways an exercise in foolhardiness. It was to be a short book, accessible to the general reader, that would treat some of the trickiest issues in the foundations theory of knowledge, but that would nevertheless not seriously shortchange the subtleties that they involve. Someone should have warned me.

I think it is abundantly clear that Fear of Knowledge is deeply flawed.

[mfbukowski]

Just curious, are you familiar with this fairly recent work by Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at NYU? Fear of Knowledge

I highly recommend it.

Oh yeah.

I guess it DID come up.

Anyway, like I said before,

I am a linguistic constructivist and believe history is what we create to explain whatever our personal agendas are.

Edited October 25, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

I am a linguistic constructivist and believe history is what we create to explain whatever our personal agendas are.

Hopefully you don't think that's all it is?

[mfbukowski]

Hopefully you don't think that's all it is?

Well that is admittedly an overstatement, but I do believe that it is impossible to look at history without an agenda of some kind. "Objectivity" is an illusion. That is more what I meant by that somewhat over-the-top statement.

Even physics- is there a physicist who does not WANT to go where the grant money is? Or be famous for his discoveries?

[TAO]

Maybe this site?

http://www.thealmigh...Quiz-House.html

But seriously, you are one of my faves hereabouts, but I think you are kind of a mixture of a couple of philosophies. As you get older, and read up on it more, it will become clearer. But we do seem to often agree on a lot of things. I regard myself as a Pragmatist really- I suggest you read some John Dewey and William James- one good book is Reconstruction in Philosophy by Dewey- it's available somewhere as a pdf for free I think.

Another would be Varieties of Religious Experience by James- maybe just the "Conclusions" section- the rest is kind of long, and you can always go back to it after you know where he is going with the ideas.

When I talk about Dewey, somebody always hits me up about his politics. I disagree with his politics, so don't bother making that comment. I also like Rorty a lot, but think he makes a central mistake that I am working on a paper on right now. I don't like his politics either.

For those familiar with Rorty, I will give you a one liner: his central error imo is his idea of an "ironist" and the contingency of the self, which gives rise ultimately to his leftist politics. I think the self is only partially contingent but has a non-contingent universally human "core", which incidentally also, in another linguistic context, the LDS would call the "spirit". But that is for another time.

Sorry about the late reply... I forgot the post was in this thread... as well as forgetting that I posted it altogether =P.

Well, I looked into some Wikipedia Articles on the two men, and I found my philosophies nearly math those of William James and his side of pragmaticism. In fact (if we were to take the issues solely from the article), I only seem to disagree with him on the issues of the existence of chance (I think it does not exist) and his theory of emotion (which curiously, he seemingly contradicts with his belief in innatism). Actually... with the issue concerning chance... I think he is referring to relative arbitrariness, and not true chance... so I might agree with him there.

It is interesting to say none the less =). I will definitely get a chance to read those books you suggested some time.

Hehe... and in terms of the 'ironist' and Rorky... I too would disagree with his POV on it... partly because the sociological point of view taken by a true ironist would be ironic to his philosophy. That is because a true ironist holds no philosophies... so he wouldn't be capable of holding such a POV, wouldn't you say? So it looks like both you and me are more with James on that one. But I do agree with his thoughts about definitions and what they really are for... it really is just symbolic internationalism... which I like already =). Hehe... have you dabbled a bit in microsociology? If you haven't, you should, it is actually quite interesting... and it relates into philosophy rather well =D.

In any case, it's funny this came up... because James's defense of religion is the exact same defense I use for free will XD. That is... believing it exists 'makes it real'. =)

Edited October 26, 2011 by TAO

[Thinking]

It wasn't on the scroll in a literal way. Nibley showed that- everyone knows that.

Well not everyone I guess.

Is it official church doctrine that it wasn't on the scroll in a literal way?

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

[mfbukowski]

Is it official church doctrine that it wasn't on the scroll in a literal way?

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

I would say it is not "official church doctrine", but as we know, that may be open to disagreement.

As I see it those sentences can mean many things.

I take them as part of the title- not a statement about the provenance of the papyri. The substance of the statement is "Abraham wrote this".

Next, clearly, Joseph believed it was a "translation", though it was in no way a literal translation, in my opinion. Joseph was not a dummy, and Egyptian was already being deciphered- so clearly some day the papyri WOULD be translated literally, and he had to have known that. He did not try to destroy the papyri, and after the Anthon affair, if he was a fraudster, the last thing he would have wanted was to have a "real scholar" get hold of those papyri and have the scholar confound his "translation"

The "written by his own hand on papyrus", as part of the title, to me says "Abraham wrote these records on papyrus, and this is their translation", it is NOT saying "Abraham's hand touched and physically wrote on THIS papyrus, personally".

To me, it is saying "the records have "fallen into our hands" ie: the papyri, and here is their translation" (but perhaps not known to Joseph, it was not a literal "translation")

So- to me, these papyri were not necessarily touched by the hand of Abraham, and they are not a literal translation in the conventional sense, and in neither case do those statements contradict that. Those are part of the title. Perhaps Joseph meant it differently, but in that case he was mistaken about their actual provenance.

That's the way I see it.

[mfbukowski]

... it's funny this came up... because James's defense of religion is the exact same defense I use for free will XD. That is... believing it exists 'makes it real'. =)

Yeah, James is great and that point definitely relates to free will. I don't think it is a Jamesian point about free will, but I certainly see it that way; the key is that subjectively no one doubts that they are free to decide to read this forum or do something else.

But I think we are very close on all the points you described.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the central flaw is clearly that Boghossian does not recognize that facts exist only in language. They are linguistic propositions which depend on the definition of the words in context- and I am sorry to tell all, but without a mind, there is no language, therefore without a mind there can be no "facts".

I know that that is an incredibly simple refutation, but that is all that is required. There is no "truth", there are only true propositions. If you can show me a "true chair", then I might be convinced otherwise, but there are only true statements. Statements are made in language- and we can only speak about things in language. It is impossible to talk about "facts" without language- and there are no languages without minds.

Does this mean that, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, then there is no sound? Or does it mean that the tree did not in fact fall?

[Calm]

It at least means that there is no one there to speak of it so no 'fact' is created in regard to its fall.

Is sound the waves of energy or the experience of interacting with those sound waves?

[mfbukowski]

Does this mean that, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, then there is no sound? Or does it mean that the tree did not in fact fall?

It means it is a silly question which is unanswerable; the very question has no utility. It is like asking if Urz of the planet Xyton really fluzzzed or not. After all, either he did or he didn't- right?

[mfbukowski]

It at least means that there is no one there to speak of it so no 'fact' is created in regard to its fall.

Is sound the waves of energy or the experience of interacting with those sound waves?

Dang. You got it right again, better than I did.

The point is, there is no context to give the question meaning. It appears to have context because it seems to have good grammatical structure, but in fact it is discussing literally no-thing.

We don't know if there "was" such a "tree", or if it "fell", or if vibrations in the atmosphere were generated, or whether or not such hypothetical vibrations would constitute what we call "sound".

None of the usual uses of those words apply in this context, so we cannot be sure that they mean what they usually mean. Wittgenstein would call such a question "unspeakable" because we cannot speak about it clearly- it flummoxes language itself and turns communication against it self.

Logically, in my opinion, it commits what is called a "category error", like asking what the color of courage is.

Edited October 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LifeOnaPlate]

mfbuk is awesome

[mfbukowski]

mfbuk is awesome

Hey, you ain't so bad yourself!!

[Robert F. Smith]

It means it is a silly question which is unanswerable; the very question has no utility. It is like asking if Urz of the planet Xyton really fluzzzed or not. After all, either he did or he didn't- right?

I was just trying to be constructive.

[mfbukowski]

I was just trying to be constructive.

And so you were! It is the question every asks, so I was glad to take the opportunity to mention how I look at it! Thanks for your comment!