> And then Bill Said (May7,1:56pm)
> *****
> However, we are able to to speak of such things as beauty and absolute reality
> as if they were objectively definable, this is what is misleading in
> language. You could not of beautiful if everyone had a different
> definition since no one would understand what you meant, but this is
> not to say that the meanings don't change. I refer to Wittengenstein on
> this. It is clear that abstract concepts such such as beauty, truth,
> justice, and reality, are defined socially. This is necessary for any
> discussion of them. They are continually redefined through time, that is
> the nature of language, and thus knowledge and reality.
> *****
>
> I wholeheartedly add my support to the skepticsim raised towards this thing we
> are describing as "Absolute Reality". I identify such things with "Absolute
> Truth" and "God" as terms that are hopelessly vague and therefore not
> incredibly useful in this context.
>
> I agree with David that we infer the existence of something becuase we percieve
> (or observe) it. I don't understand why we continue to have these
> disagreements really, becuase that is my point. If you are going to define
> anything that definition must be based in observation. Otherwise how can you
> distinguish it from fantasy?The problem is that there is no observation, unless you mean actual
usage of the terms in a social context as observation. The real point I
was trying to get across is the social construction of meaning. Terms
such as beauty, justice, reality, evil, etc. have no basis in
observation nor are they fantasy since the play a fundamental role in
our behavior and cognitive maps.
>--
Bill Godby
wgodby@tir.com