Everyone is wrong

[FreeThinker]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

Pondering upon my douchebag english professor reading his own poetry during composition II class today, I realized that since poetry uses ambiguous language to evoke emotions about different events to different people ("what does this poem mean to you?"), that must also be true for ALL spoken language, because poems are just words with structure.

SO...

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative. All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Is math capable of expressing the world absolutely? Or is it also ambiguous? Are numbers just more words for things that exist beyond 1 and 2 and 3?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

Pondering upon my douchebag english professor reading his own poetry during composition II class today, I realized that since poetry uses ambiguous language to evoke emotions about different events to different people ("what does this poem mean to you?"), that must also be true for ALL spoken language, because poems are just words with structure.

SO...

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative. All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Is math capable of expressing the world absolutely? Or is it also ambiguous? Are numbers just more words for things that exist beyond 1 and 2 and 3?

Please don't tell me you're becoming a Nihilist or Subjectivist...

 

[1069]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

That is the perspective of someone who believes- fundamentally- that nothing is really wrong with things the way they are.
Or at least not all that wrong.
That society is pretty much a-okay just the way it is, and aside from a little tweaking and fine-tuning, no major changes or reform is really called for.
In other words: you, sir (or ma'am, or whatever), are a centrist. A moderate centrist.
That's why extremists on both sides sound wrong to you.
You don't believe that any extreme measures are called for, because you don't believe that anything really needs to change drastically.

See, I do. And the far right sounds very wrong to me. And the far left sounds compelling, it resonates with me, it sounds very right to me.
Moderates and centrists generally strike me as being complacent and/or apathetic, which also sounds very wrong to me at this juncture.
I don't believe that complacence and apathy are appropriate now, with the world in the state it's in.

But I do understand what you're saying; everyone is different; we're all individuals, coming at this from different perspectives and with unique frames of reference.
Perhaps what sounds like apathy to me might sound like the voice of reason and calm good sense to you.
We're each entitled to our opinion, and to one vote apiece.

 

[Lightdemon]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

Pondering upon my douchebag english professor reading his own poetry during composition II class today, I realized that since poetry uses ambiguous language to evoke emotions about different events to different people ("what does this poem mean to you?"), that must also be true for ALL spoken language, because poems are just words with structure.

SO...

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative. All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Is math capable of expressing the world absolutely? Or is it also ambiguous? Are numbers just more words for things that exist beyond 1 and 2 and 3?

George Orwell, 1984. Double-speak.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.


*****

Even when our language IS precise, it is still ambiguous.

 

[bhkad]

In my experience when people know ENOUGH of the facts they support the War on Terror as the President defines it.

The left aren't as much differing in opinion from the right, they are lacking information.

 

[1069]

In my experience when people know ENOUGH of the facts they support the War on Terror as the President defines it.

The left aren't as much differing in opinion from the right, they are lacking information.

The Right opposes the war now, too.
The Left always did, and now the Right does as well.
Any theories on how that happened?
Did "information" previously possessed by the Right somehow deliquesce and dribble out their ears, or what?

 

[bhkad]

The Right opposes the war now, too.
The Left always did, and now the Right does as well.
Any theories on how that happened?
Did "information" previously possessed by the Right somehow deliquesce and dribble out their ears, or what?

You are mistaken. Why are you mistaken? Refer back to my previous post.

 

[1069]

You are mistaken. Why are you mistaken? Refer back to my previous post.

A thorough perusal of your previous post fails to shed any light whatsoever on why you feel that I am mistaken.

 

[RightinNYC]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

Pondering upon my douchebag english professor reading his own poetry during composition II class today, I realized that since poetry uses ambiguous language to evoke emotions about different events to different people ("what does this poem mean to you?"), that must also be true for ALL spoken language, because poems are just words with structure.

SO...

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative. All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Is math capable of expressing the world absolutely? Or is it also ambiguous? Are numbers just more words for things that exist beyond 1 and 2 and 3?

Did you blaze before you cooked? If so, that can cause the sort of deep thoughts that you're referring to.:lol:

 

[Occam]

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative.

If that is true, it means that the truth or falsity of the statement "Right and wrong are relative" is also relative, correct?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative.

It's quite obvious that language itself isn't an absolute and develops differently in different parts of the world through different cultures and even through different groups of people or individuals. Words are defined through context; without context words are meaningless.

However, I think you're looking at this backwards. Right and wrong aren't relative because people define them differently; the words are defined differently because people have different conceptions of right and wrong. There is no point in looking at the word itself without looking at what it represents, and the words "right" and "wrong" are defined differently because people have different ideas on the concept of what is right and what is wrong.

All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

I don't think this is true. There certainly are words that are defined the same by different people; the majority of the words in this sentence, for example. I think you're making the same mistake I addressed above, and you're looking at the words themselves instead of the concepts behind the words.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Knowledge isn't based on language; it is merely communicated through it. Right and wrong are completely subjective and cannot be "precise" nor can it be "imprecise".

 

[1069]

Knowledge isn't based on language; it is merely communicated through it.

I think the poster is mistaking rhetoric and propaganda for "knowledge".
When people believe that if only they had the right words, they could make others change their fundamental beliefs, they are not really thinking in terms of "educating" people or of supplying them with "information".
It doesn't take any special linguistic ability to convey information.
Special linguistic ability is required, however, to wage propaganda campaigns and brainwash the masses.
So I assume that's what the poster is lamenting; the fact that his "communication" skills fall short of being sufficient to this task.

 

[jkille]

Whilst standing in my kitchen heating a can of chicken soup, it occurred to me that people on the far right AND the far left always seem to be wrong at some level.

Pondering upon my douchebag english professor reading his own poetry during composition II class today, I realized that since poetry uses ambiguous language to evoke emotions about different events to different people ("what does this poem mean to you?"), that must also be true for ALL spoken language, because poems are just words with structure.

SO...

Right and wrong are relative because the english language is relative. All words have different meanings to different people, therefor nothing can be absolutely true to all people.

Our language is imprecise, and so our sense of truth as well as right and wrong are imprecise.

Is math capable of expressing the world absolutely? Or is it also ambiguous? Are numbers just more words for things that exist beyond 1 and 2 and 3?

I share this same sentiment with you about language in general. It is all relative, especially abstract words. Even minor differences in the way people define words can have a big impact on the "message" they're attempting to communicate. So with somewhere around 90,000 words in the English language, it's no wonder we argue so much. And sadly, we rarely recognize when the root of the argument is simply a differing perceptions of words.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you want to find the "message" in communication, realize it is not necessarily "what" people say, it is "why" they said it!

 

[1069]

If you want to find the "message" in communication, realize it is not necessarily "what" people say, it is "why" they said it!

Good point.

 

[jkille]

If you want to find the "message" in communication, realize it is not necessarily "what" people say, it is "why" they said it!

How they say it can be telling, too, if you're not sure of a person's motivation.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jkille
How they say it can be telling, too, if you're not sure of a person's motivation.

You need to be careful here. "How" someone says something could be pre-planned to elicit a specific reaction, which might be the opposite of why they said it. My friends always tell me, whenever they want to get me to do something, they just say, "I can't do it". Then I go into my old brain I'll show you mode.

 

[jkille]

You need to be careful here. "How" someone says something could be pre-planned to elicit a specific reaction, which might be the opposite of why they said it. My friends always tell me, whenever they want to get me to do something, they just say, "I can't do it". Then I go into my old brain I'll show you mode.

That's true, and many times you can tell that a person is purposefully adjusting their tone to fit an certain attitude or persona. I just thought it was easier than trying to predict the psychological reasons for what people say.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jkille
That's true, and many times you can tell that a person is purposefully adjusting their tone to fit an certain attitude or persona. I just thought it was easier than trying to predict the psychological reasons for what people say.

I think you had the right idea. "How" someone says something, is the first clue I look at when evaluating what someone just said to me. I wish I would have known this earlier in relationships. But those are a crap-shoot anyway. One of my ex's favorite lines was, "Whata ya mean by that?" Those words would just vomit out of her mouth on just about anything I would say. Or so it seems.

 

[jkille]

I think you had the right idea. "How" someone says something, is the first clue I look at when evaluating what someone just said to me. I wish I would have known this earlier in relationships. But those are a crap-shoot anyway. One of my ex's favorite lines was, "Whata ya mean by that?" Those words would just vomit out of her mouth on just about anything I would say. Or so it seems.

:rofl Thanks for the unforgettable visual!

My girlfriend has mastered how NOT to say something. Her face, body language and especially her eyes, even when there's no eye contact, can say more than her mouth ever could. And I am not a very good eye conversationalist.

 

[FreeThinker]

That is the perspective of someone who believes- fundamentally- that nothing is really wrong with things the way they are.
Or at least not all that wrong.
That society is pretty much a-okay just the way it is, and aside from a little tweaking and fine-tuning, no major changes or reform is really called for.
In other words: you, sir (or ma'am, or whatever), are a centrist. A moderate centrist.
That's why extremists on both sides sound wrong to you.
You don't believe that any extreme measures are called for, because you don't believe that anything really needs to change drastically.

See, I do. And the far right sounds very wrong to me. And the far left sounds compelling, it resonates with me, it sounds very right to me.
Moderates and centrists generally strike me as being complacent and/or apathetic, which also sounds very wrong to me at this juncture.
I don't believe that complacence and apathy are appropriate now, with the world in the state it's in.

But I do understand what you're saying; everyone is different; we're all individuals, coming at this from different perspectives and with unique frames of reference.
Perhaps what sounds like apathy to me might sound like the voice of reason and calm good sense to you.
We're each entitled to our opinion, and to one vote apiece.

That wasn't really it.

I wasn't saying that right and wrong don't exist, because I believe in having a set of personal ethics to live by.

What I'm saying is that even though right and wrong exist, we lack a specific enough definition for them.

I'm saying people need an extremely specific and well defined set of morals that they can communicate to other people.

Spoken language is a crappy medium for communicating beliefs in my opinion. Ambiguous language leaves loopholes for extreme interpretations of legal and religious documents.

The irony of typing this in english has not escaped me by the way.

 

[FreeThinker]

I think the poster is mistaking rhetoric and propaganda for "knowledge".
When people believe that if only they had the right words, they could make others change their fundamental beliefs, they are not really thinking in terms of "educating" people or of supplying them with "information".
It doesn't take any special linguistic ability to convey information.
Special linguistic ability is required, however, to wage propaganda campaigns and brainwash the masses.
So I assume that's what the poster is lamenting; the fact that his "communication" skills fall short of being sufficient to this task.

You turned a philosophical discussion into a statement that I'm angry about not being able to generate good propaganda. Nice.

Anyway... let me put it this way:

A professor of philosophy writes a thesis about the universe in english. Some of his fellow academics agree, some disagree. No one can be proven right because he wrote it in english, and every sentence he wrote is debatable.

A professor of mathematics writes a thesis saying the same thing, but instead of trying to define it with philosophy terms, he uses mathematical proofs to make his point. There is nothing to debate, since either his calculations add up or they don't.

I'm saying that being ambiguous about something causes problems, and asking if someday maybe we can use math instead of english in debates.

 

[FreeThinker]

You need to be careful here. "How" someone says something could be pre-planned to elicit a specific reaction, which might be the opposite of why they said it. My friends always tell me, whenever they want to get me to do something, they just say, "I can't do it". Then I go into my old brain I'll show you mode.

This is the whole pitfall of ambiguous communication. If your friend proved to you mathematically that what you were trying to do was impossible, there would be little reason to ponder over his facial expression or choice of words.

 

[The silenced majority]

The perception of right/left in this country is so skewed to the left that George W.(oodrow Wilson) Bush is considered to be a conservative.

The far left is represented adequately by Keith Olhberman, Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer etc...

The far right are the people who get their compounds invaded, weapons seized and homes burned to the ground.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Free Thinker:
This is the whole pitfall of ambiguous communication. If your friend proved to you mathematically that what you were trying to do was impossible, there would be little reason to ponder over his facial expression or choice of words.

I don't think this has anything to do with what I was saying.