"All intelligent discussions of political philosophy are ultimately about property."

[gusl]

"All intelligent discussions of political philosophy are ultimately about property."

Discuss.

Comments

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I think all political questions deal in some way with distribution, use, and control of resources... so yes. Although some of those resources are people themselves... who aren't normally considered property. I think every political question either deals with right to life or right to property. (and within "right to life" I include any civil rights like choosing how to live your life, or having the govt choose it, etc.)

Of course that's because I think in terms of rights-based political philosophy. Which libertarians tend to do. There are other types of political philosophy which revolve more around class struggles.

[kvschwartz.livejournal.com]

Intelligent discussions ... as opposed to stupid discussions, which are not about property?

Anyway, I don't agree. Plenty of rights -- and laws -- have nothing inherent concering property or economics, unless one considers one's own rights over oneself to be property rights ... in which case, any discussion of the real world will be about "property".

[ex-thehat388.livejournal.com]

That's absurd. The manner in which a political point is made is an entire field of study completely orthogonal to whether property rights are involved in the message.

[ex-cubetoo915.livejournal.com]

Many discussion of political philosophy are about property. If they aren't about rights.

Re:

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Please explain.
"The manner in which a political point is made" sounds like the art of rhetoric, not philosophy.

[thepublicguy.livejournal.com]

All intelligent discussion of philosophy are ultimately about the properties......of words.

Re:

[ex-thehat388.livejournal.com]

I would say that rhetorical analysis and linguistics are philosophical subjects insofar as they entail a search for connections and meaning.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

and I agree. But I thought you were going to argue against the position I presented, which concerns real arguments used in philosophy.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Is this some sort of Wittgensteinian point?
I disagree. I believe there are interesting questions in metaphysics and epistemology which are independent of language.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Discussions about physics or engineering or epistemology are not about "property", even if your own self is considered your property.

By political philosophy, I mean philosophical foundations / justifications of how things should be, as far as political systems go. It's not about specific legal systems, or even about the predominating laws around the world today.

[kvschwartz.livejournal.com]

I know what political philosophy means. My point was that not all political philosophy is about economics.

[kvschwartz.livejournal.com]

You still need language to discuss them, so they have to have an intersection. But you knew that, so I'm not sure why I said it.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I think some philosophical truths can be understood without language, and still others may ultimately be impossible to understand through language.

You need language to discuss them with others, but that's just because you need language to "discuss" anything with others. There are other forms of commincation though, such as art... which don't require language or discussion, unless you use the term language very loosely.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

our minds also need a language to reason at all.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

catching up on old entries?

Anyway, I could go either way on that one... it depends what you take to be reason. If reason is strictly formal logic then yeah... you need some type of language. But I do believe you can follow a rational train of thought forming a conclusion from a premise or an observation without ever thinking it in words. For instance, you see someone running out of a store with a gun and a mask holding a bag. You automatically deduce that they must have just robbed the place and there is probably money in the bag. You don't have to say that to yourself in any particular language to think it.

By the way... can you think in both english and portugese? I remember being very facinated the first time I realized I didn't have to think in my native language.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I decided to organize my writings using the memories feature. So I'm going back to tag everything.

You automatically deduce that they must have just robbed the place and there is probably money in the bag. You don't have to say that to yourself in any particular language to think it.

Right. This language of thought is unconscious and pretty much inaccessible. It's like a neural-network optimized hardware implementation sort of thing, and you can't retrace your steps. Perhaps you noticed that the previous inference was itself done "by association", not formalized, etc. I used a shortcut instead of a real argument.

By the way... can you think in both english and portugese? I remember being very facinated the first time I realized I didn't have to think in my native language.

Sure. Hell, I can think in Dutch, but it's harder. If we're talking about the kind of reasoning that happens in a specific "spoken" language, I'm not sure if it's linguistic reasoning in my personal Interlingua that gets translated to other languages or if it's non-linguistic reasoning that becomes embodied in a specific language. Meaning, I don't know if I have a language of thought which is "linguistic", but maybe I can find a way to find out.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

Right. This language of thought is unconscious and pretty much inaccessible. It's like a neural-network optimized hardware implementation sort of thing, and you can't retrace your steps.

Oh... so that's what you're calling language? I wouldn't consider a neural network to be a language. A language is a system of labelling things so that you can describe them. You can use a language to talk about a neural network. But I think that's different than it being a language.

There are some things that are kind of halfway in between such as DNA. It partially qualifies as a language, but in the end I think it's more our system of letters (TCGA) that we use for understanding it that should count as the language. Tough call on that one.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Oh... so that's what you're calling language?
No. I should have been clearer, but as I said, I took shortcuts by trying to put approximate images in your head.

The core of my message was "This language of thought is unconscious and pretty much inaccessible." Like a reflex, or like a code that you can't execute again because you don't have explicit knowledge of how to do it. Logical thought tends to use very explicit rules, while language use can be very implicit. If you're talking to someone and they ask you "can you repeat this last couple of sentences word for word?", you probably can't do it, since language use is mostly unconscious, i.e. implicit.

There are many "languages of thought". Logical thought is sometimes embodied in a "linguistic" language, i.e. a language like English, but
sometimes it is embodied in physical reasoning (Lakoff mentions the analogy "sets as containers"). He (along with many others) has a very interesting theory that human language evolved as a modification of physical reasoning modules, and this can be seen by the analogies that people use in everyday language: Argument is War, Virtue is Up, Ideas are Food, etc. (these were taken from Pinker)

Do you understand? Agree?

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

No. I should have been clearer, but as I said, I took shortcuts by trying to put approximate images in your head.

I agree, taking shortcuts is good. I guess in this case they just didn't put the right images in my head :(

The core of my message was "This language of thought is unconscious and pretty much inaccessible."

That's certainly an interesting idea... I've never heard people call that language before though. Is this your idea or have you heard others use this terminology to talk about thought?

Logical thought tends to use very explicit rules, while language use can be very implicit. If you're talking to someone and they ask you "can you repeat this last couple of sentences word for word?", you probably can't do it, since language use is mostly unconscious, i.e. implicit.

agreed

There are many "languages of thought". Logical thought is sometimes embodied in a "linguistic" language, i.e. a language like English

okay, you lost me here. I thought linguistic meant "pertaining to language" so wouldn't any language be a linguistic language? or do you just mean "spoken language"?

but sometimes it is embodied in physical reasoning (Lakoff mentions the analogy "sets as containers"). He (along with many others) has a very interesting theory that human language evolved as a modification of physical reasoning modules, and this can be seen by the analogies that people use in everyday language: Argument is War, Virtue is Up, Ideas are Food, etc. (these were taken from Pinker)

I'm not sure what you mean by "embodied in physical reasoning". But I agree that it's very plausible that our spoken language grew naturally out of reasoning modules in the brain.

I guess the thing is, I think of language as a thing used for communicating meaning (whether it be from human to human or human to machine). While there are similarities between the way we communicate and the way we think I'm not entirely convinced you can call all of the thinking that goes on inside the head "language".

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

The core of my message was "This language of thought is unconscious and pretty much inaccessible."

That's certainly an interesting idea... I've never heard people call that language before though. Is this your idea or have you heard others use this terminology to talk about thought?


I know that philosophers talk about "the language of thought". David Chalmers, for instance. I don't remember if I had the idea independently.


There are many "languages of thought". Logical thought is sometimes embodied in a "linguistic" language, i.e. a language like English

okay, you lost me here. I thought linguistic meant "pertaining to language" so wouldn't any language be a linguistic language? or do you just mean "spoken language"?

Bad terminology on my part again. By "linguistic" I meant "something resembling natural language". I guess I could have called it "spoken language" too: sometimes, the language of thought resembles a spoken language (especially, when you "hear" yourself thinking).


While there are similarities between the way we communicate and the way we think I'm not entirely convinced you can call all of the thinking that goes on inside the head "language".

I don't like to argue semantics, but I use the word "language" for lack of a better alternative, and also because it's more or less standard. What would you call a system of meaningful symbols which you can use to reason? In a way, this "language" is used for communicating with oneself: you can ask yourself questions, try to figure them out, etc.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I don't like to argue semantics, but I use the word "language" for lack of a better alternative, and also because it's more or less standard. What would you call a system of meaningful symbols which you can use to reason? In a way, this "language" is used for communicating with oneself: you can ask yourself questions, try to figure them out, etc.

sigh... it seems that almost all good discussions I have degrade into semantics if they continue on long enough. I'm not sure how to avoid this. I think semantics is probably the most important factor in causing the myriad of different viewpoints there are out there in the world.

Anyway... if that is a standard usage for the word "language" I was unaware of it. But that's probably because you've explored this area more than I have (cognition from the standpoint of cs and ai). I've really never studied it formally so I should probably just shut up. :)

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I think semantics is probably the most important factor in causing the myriad of different viewpoints there are out there in the world.
Interesting hypothesis. But we shouldn't discount over-confidence (the root of all evil!), and ideological dogmas.

I've really never studied it formally so I should probably just shut up. :)
I haven't studied anything "formally" either, but I'm more or less accustomed to the term "language" in the logic/AI world, and I've seen "language of the mind" in philosophy papers. But I enjoy these discussions, so you're welcome to share your thoughts anyway.