Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Do atheists understand abstract language?

Page 3 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Do you understand abstract language?
Yes and I'm an atheist and God strike me dead if I'm lying 38%  38%  [ 13 ]
Not very well and I'm an atheist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
I don't know what abstract language is and I'm an atheist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
I love abstract language!! ! and I'm an atheist 29%  29%  [ 10 ]
People should say what they mean and mean what they say. I'm an atheist. 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
I'm a Deist or Theist and I don't understand abstract language (please note if you are a fundamentalist) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm a Deist or Theist and I love abstract language!! ! 18%  18%  [ 6 ]
I'm a Deist or Theist and I sort of get abstract language. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 34

ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 11:56 am

Sand wrote:
I laid out several of my poems for your examination which were replete with abstract language. To claim I don't know how the language worked does not stand up to examination.

Would you agree that knowing how to create super graphics with a computer does not mean that you know how a computer works?
.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 12:02 pm

ouinon wrote:
Sand wrote:
I laid out several of my poems for your examination which were replete with abstract language. To claim I don't know how the language worked does not stand up to examination.

Would you agree that knowing how to create super graphics with a computer does not mean that you know how a computer works?
.


Would you agree that being able to write a sentence doesn't mean you know how to think?



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

25 May 2009, 12:05 pm

Poetry isn't always abstract. You can rhyme words and tell a story but if it doesn't have layers of meaning then it's pretty cut and dry. Using symbols if done deliberately shows that you understand abstract language. Most of the time, it's an unconscious understanding that is processed by feeling the expressions.

Archetypes are symbolic and that is why they are considered to be abstract. If you study them then you can process their meaning in a logical way.

Shelly, Byron, and Voltaire were atheists because they despised religion. They were not the types of atheists like the ones Dawkins appeals to. They all were open to the idea of undiscovered science and alchemy. Also, ancient Greek Philosophy was steeped in spiritual ideas. They believed in a soul. Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, all of them believed in a soul.

Here is a breakdown of one of Shelly's poems:

Quote:
"Hymn to Intellectual Beauty" 1694

* Intellectual = beyond the ability of the senses to perceive.
* Platonic influence, "shadows of unseen power." For Plato, the things we see around us are the lowest level of reality. The beautiful chair should lead us to contemplate the IDEA of the beautiful chair, which should lead us to contemplate the idea of Beauty itself.
* Truth comes to us from above but is evident in images/shadows of reality that we observe.
* Contemplation of beauty in physical things leads to higher progression of contemplation of ideal beauty. Emanates outward because beauty is within.
* Stanza 3 – Gnostic Doctrine: must have secret knowledge to get to heaven; levels you must pass through. In some Gnostic systems, the spirit was imprisoned by body by the evil Old Testament God Jehovah. The good God Jesus frees us..
* Stanza 4 – wishes beauty would stay firm within our loves so that we could be Gods. Beauty comes and goes however. Searches for transcendence in beauty so he can be immortal.
* Stanza 5 – He sought beauty & satisfaction in the physical world. The spirit awoke him to beauty. Spirit is spring. The cave could be an oblique reference to Plato's parable of the cave, where Plato describes the movement from sense perception to spiritual perception.
* Stanza 6 – dedicated himself to creating beauty through poetry in a tribute to the ultimate beauty.
* Line 78 – nature descended on his passive youth on mountain, Mt. Blanc.
* Beauty is imminent in everything.



So, he spoke of Gnostic teachings and spiritual ideas. I'd hardly put him in a typical atheist category.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 12:16 pm

Magnus wrote:
Poetry isn't always abstract. You can rhyme words and tell a story but if it doesn't have layers of meaning then it's pretty cut and dry. Using symbols if done deliberately shows that you understand abstract language. Most of the time, it's an unconscious understanding that is processed by feeling the expressions.

Archetypes are symbolic and that is why they are considered to be abstract. If you study them then you can process their meaning in a logical way.

Shelly, Byron, and Voltaire were atheists because they despised religion. They were not the types of atheists like the ones Dawkins appeals to. They all were open to the idea of undiscovered science and alchemy. Also, ancient Greek Philosophy was steeped in spiritual ideas. They believed in a soul. Socrates, Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, all of them believed in a soul.

Here is a breakdown of one of Shelly's poems:
Quote:
"Hymn to Intellectual Beauty" 1694

* Intellectual = beyond the ability of the senses to perceive.
* Platonic influence, "shadows of unseen power." For Plato, the things we see around us are the lowest level of reality. The beautiful chair should lead us to contemplate the IDEA of the beautiful chair, which should lead us to contemplate the idea of Beauty itself.
* Truth comes to us from above but is evident in images/shadows of reality that we observe.
* Contemplation of beauty in physical things leads to higher progression of contemplation of ideal beauty. Emanates outward because beauty is within.
* Stanza 3 – Gnostic Doctrine: must have secret knowledge to get to heaven; levels you must pass through. In some Gnostic systems, the spirit was imprisoned by body by the evil Old Testament God Jehovah. The good God Jesus frees us..
* Stanza 4 – wishes beauty would stay firm within our loves so that we could be Gods. Beauty comes and goes however. Searches for transcendence in beauty so he can be immortal.
* Stanza 5 – He sought beauty & satisfaction in the physical world. The spirit awoke him to beauty. Spirit is spring. The cave could be an oblique reference to Plato's parable of the cave, where Plato describes the movement from sense perception to spiritual perception.
* Stanza 6 – dedicated himself to creating beauty through poetry in a tribute to the ultimate beauty.
* Line 78 – nature descended on his passive youth on mountain, Mt. Blanc.
* Beauty is imminent in everything.



So, he spoke of Gnostic teachings and spiritual ideas. I'd hardly put him in a typical atheist category.


OK. You found a poet who is not an atheist. What has that got to do with atheists who can think abstractly? Do you claim that my poems contain no abstract elements? I am beginning to doubt you can understand what you read.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 12:37 pm

Sand wrote:
Do you claim that my poems contain no abstract elements?

You are confusing "use of" with "understanding of".

Imagine that I tried to convince lau, for example, that I "understood" computers because I knew how to create lots of pretty pictures, a web-site, etc with one, ( I don't by the way ). Quite obviously it is not the same thing.

Language is a system. You can use a system without understanding how it works, as I do a computer. For instance you probably after all this time know how to eat and walk etc, but that doesn't mean that you understand how your body works. You have just learned how to use it.

People can use things more effectively the more they understand the system underlying the functions; have you had your poems measured for "effectiveness"? ( eg. reviews, publications, etc ) Either way, writing poems with abstract language in is in no way proof that you understand abstract language.

.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

25 May 2009, 12:59 pm

I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

25 May 2009, 1:01 pm

Sand wrote:
mgran wrote:
Hey Sand! I think we have proof that you understand abstract language! I particularly like "encage, engage."

There must be a poetry thread around here somewhere?


I apologize if I overdid it. I just thought the point should be made.

You didn't overdo it... I found it a refreshing turn of events... and a very fine poem. :) Thank you!



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 1:16 pm

claire333 wrote:
I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.

No more absurd than someone who makes beautiful pictures with photoshop or paintbox admitting that they don't understand how a computer works. Or a painter saying they haven't the faintest idea how light waves and neuronal networks and retinal cells create the effect that their pictures have.

An athlete may know how to use their body to achieve phenomenal results, but have little or no idea of how that body actually works. I would not assume that an Olympic swimmer understood the chemical processes involved in her prowess.

.



anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 1:25 pm

right, hmmm....


.....


:scratch:


.....


:chin:



.....



:|



nope, no idea :wink:


_________________
not a bug - a feature.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2009, 1:27 pm

All human language is abstract

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 1:27 pm

ouinon wrote:
claire333 wrote:
I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.

No more absurd than someone who makes beautiful pictures with photoshop or paintbox admitting that they don't understand how a computer works. Or a painter saying they haven't the faintest idea how light waves and neuronal networks and retinal cells create the effect that their pictures have.

An athlete may know how to use their body to achieve phenomenal results, but have little or no idea of how that body actually works. I would not assume that an Olympic swimmer understood the chemical processes involved in her prowess.

.


But what you are claiming is that I do not understand the abstractions I create in my poetry so I can only conclude you do not understand my poetry. That is unfortunate.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

25 May 2009, 1:28 pm

The computer analogy does not compute. :lol: I cannot imagine a painter who fails to take the time to understand how light works...although I have seen some abstract art that makes me wonder. :lol: How does one determine if someone knows how to understand abstract language?



mgran
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,864

25 May 2009, 1:31 pm

I must admit it seems to be a somewhat illogical take on the evidence. :lol: It seems that the only reason to hold such a position would be if someone wanted to believe youd didn't understand abstract language, and therefore will read any evidence to support their prior conclusion.

Obviously you understand your own abstractions, and you communicate them well, which would rather indicate that you know what you're doing when you use abstract language.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

25 May 2009, 1:32 pm

ouinon wrote:
claire333 wrote:
I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.

No more absurd than someone who makes beautiful pictures with photoshop or paintbox admitting that they don't understand how a computer works. Or a painter saying they haven't the faintest idea how light waves and neuronal networks and retinal cells create the effect that their pictures have.

An athlete may know how to use their body to achieve phenomenal results, but have little or no idea of how that body actually works. I would not assume that an Olympic swimmer understood the chemical processes involved in her prowess.

.

How do we know that you understand abstract language?


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 1:32 pm

ouinon wrote:
claire333 wrote:
I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.
An athlete may know how to use their body to achieve phenomenal results, but have little or no idea of how that body actually works. I would not assume that an Olympic swimmer understood the chemical processes involved in her prowess.

Another example; when I paint I don't know how the pigments were created, and I only know how paper is made because I saw it on TV at some point. But my painting is no guarantee that I understand how the medium that I use is produced.

A writer uses words, but that does not mean that they know how they were produced, eg. what has gone into the making of this or that symbol.

.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 1:37 pm

ouinon wrote:
ouinon wrote:
claire333 wrote:
I think telling a poet that they are the ones who do not understand the workings of their own writing is absurd.
An athlete may know how to use their body to achieve phenomenal results, but have little or no idea of how that body actually works. I would not assume that an Olympic swimmer understood the chemical processes involved in her prowess.

Another example; when I paint I don't know how the pigments were created, and I only know how paper is made because I saw it on TV at some point. But my painting is no guarantee that I understand how the medium that I use is produced.

A writer uses words, but that does not mean that they know how they were produced, eg. what has gone into the making of this or that symbol.

.


And I doubt that you know how the letters of the alphabet were invented but does that mean you don't know how to convey your ideas with them. How can you come up with such absolute drivel?