The Off Topic Topic

[Barrister]

Meowtf?

[Josquius]

Sums up quitlings well.

[Jacob]

Meowtf?

In Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein famously said that "if a lion could speak, we could not understand him". This seems contradictory, because of course if he is speaking, it seems like we would understand him. But for Wittgenstein, the words themselves don't so much convey meaning, but express intent that is confined within a particular situation that takes place within our shared culture and experience. So, for example, if a surgeon is performing surgery and said "nurse, scalpel", it isn't simple the two words together that convey the meaning of the surgeon wanting the nurse to hand him a scalpel, it is their shared knowledge of what a surgery is, and what is expected under those circumstances. If, for example, the nurse and surgeon are later at a company dinner, and the surgeon says "nurse, salt", in the same cadence, this will be understood to be a joke, parodying the former circumstance. Nothing about the words themselves really conveys this, but only the shared world that both the nurse and surgeon occupy. This shared world is necessary for any language to function, and learning a language is not only learning the words, but the world in which we are expected to use the worlds.

On the hand, if a lion could suddenly speak English, it wouldn't matter much, because the world that the lion exists in is so divorced from ours, that his expressions, desires, and intents could still never be communicated. The lion doesn't know what a surgery is, or a dinner party, or a joke for that matter. Likewise, we don't know what sort world the lion occupies, so words would be useless. This phenomenon isn't as outlandish as it might sound at first, and even occurs frequently among humans. For example, I had two coworkers who played World of Warcraft constantly, and would talk about it at lunch. They could speak to each other for ten minutes, in English, and I wouldn't be able to decipher a single sentence. It isn't because I didn't understand the meaning of the worlds, but because I had no ability to relate the words to a situation or world that I knew, so the meaning was lost on me. If I can't understand a conversation about a video game I haven't played, even when I've played similar games, how can I be expected to understand a conversation between lions?

http://existentialcomics.com/

[Malthus]

Meowtf?

In Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein famously said that "if a lion could speak, we could not understand him". This seems contradictory, because of course if he is speaking, it seems like we would understand him. But for Wittgenstein, the words themselves don't so much convey meaning, but express intent that is confined within a particular situation that takes place within our shared culture and experience. So, for example, if a surgeon is performing surgery and said "nurse, scalpel", it isn't simple the two words together that convey the meaning of the surgeon wanting the nurse to hand him a scalpel, it is their shared knowledge of what a surgery is, and what is expected under those circumstances. If, for example, the nurse and surgeon are later at a company dinner, and the surgeon says "nurse, salt", in the same cadence, this will be understood to be a joke, parodying the former circumstance. Nothing about the words themselves really conveys this, but only the shared world that both the nurse and surgeon occupy. This shared world is necessary for any language to function, and learning a language is not only learning the words, but the world in which we are expected to use the worlds.

On the hand, if a lion could suddenly speak English, it wouldn't matter much, because the world that the lion exists in is so divorced from ours, that his expressions, desires, and intents could still never be communicated. The lion doesn't know what a surgery is, or a dinner party, or a joke for that matter. Likewise, we don't know what sort world the lion occupies, so words would be useless. This phenomenon isn't as outlandish as it might sound at first, and even occurs frequently among humans. For example, I had two coworkers who played World of Warcraft constantly, and would talk about it at lunch. They could speak to each other for ten minutes, in English, and I wouldn't be able to decipher a single sentence. It isn't because I didn't understand the meaning of the worlds, but because I had no ability to relate the words to a situation or world that I knew, so the meaning was lost on me. If I can't understand a conversation about a video game I haven't played, even when I've played similar games, how can I be expected to understand a conversation between lions?

http://existentialcomics.com/

Seems counter-intuitive, given that pet owners can usually understand their pets reasonably well - even though they can't speak English.

The reason: that most of the things pets want are reasonably understandable by people (food, attention, go for a walk outside, etc.).

Of course, in human societies, there are areas of jargon that are inaccessible to outsiders, and conversations that others, lacking context, would not understand. But the vast majority of conversations deal with things humans world over are all too familiar with.

My guess is that what lions would want to talk about would not really be all that foreign to humans - 'let me the fuck out of this cage', for starters.     

[Jacob]

Good point Malthus. What about this one?

Simone de Beauvoir was an existential philosopher and feminist, perhaps best known today for her highly influential work, The Second Sex, sometimes said to be the start point for Second-wave Feminism. The Marquis de Sade was an 18th century revolutionary and philosopher, perhaps best known for his erotic work and scandalous sexual exploits.

Gottfried Leibniz was a German polymath, having major contributions to mathematics, philosophy and science. He also wore super huge wigs all the time. Seriously, look him up on Google images. He didn't mess around with the wigs. Spinoza was a contemporary of Leibniz, and apparently they even met. Spinoza did not wear nearly as huge of wigs, however.

Hilary Putnam and Donald Davidson are both 20th century American Analytic philosophers. They both worked on a wide variety of areas, but the comic references two of their thought experiments concerning philosophy of mind. The Brain in a Vat and the Swampman.

Socrates was really annoying, and tried to get people to define the nature of justice at pretty much every party he went to, even though everyone else just wanted to drink and have a good time.

[Eddie Teach]

De Beauvoir is clearly dressed as Lara Croft.

[Razgovory]

So who is the guy that Socrates is annoying?  I thought it might be Camus.

[Admiral Yi]

I guessed Rouseau, but that doesn't look anything like his portrait.

[Razgovory]

I guessed Rouseau, but that doesn't look anything like his portrait.

Well, I decided to look it up.  https://existentialcomics.com/comic/104

It doesn't say but the comic does say that Camus was in it so, I'm guessing that was him.

[Syt]

Yep, should be Albert "Life is Absurd" Camus.

[Jacob]

I wasted way too much time at work looking at those comics today.

... but I thought two was a reasonable maximum to post on languish.

[derspiess]

I posted about 6 Poll Cats.  You're good.

[Josquius]

Communist propaganda from imperial Japan.
Quite a cool mix of worlds
https://medium.com/@propagandopolis/japanese-workers-propaganda-ffc75a55a9b

[Eddie Teach]

I posted about 6 Poll Cats.  You're good.

"Better than Poll Cats" is a pretty weak defense.

[The Brain]

Dinosaur comics is where it's at.