All Talking Languages Are Ugly
I learned about this ugliness when I was studying the 15th century work of Nicholas of Cusa. His work warns us about the uncertainties of the symbols that fills our talking languages with junk. To overcome these uncertainties, he shifted to the certainty of mathematics when he wanted to express a certainty.
However, it took more than 500 years for the Western world to learn about the true nature of our talking languages. Not until 1941 will we learn that a major discovery was made independently by a number of linguists. Susanne Langer tells us about this discovery in "Philosophy in a New Key." On p. 21, she tells us that ‘our sense data are primarily symbolic.’ But, in his book on the "Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Friedrich Hegel discovered that sense certainty cannot be reached by languages.
With these two discoveries, how can one accept the "Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path" proposed by Rudolf Steiner? How can one accept the free flow of logic into our talk language? How can one expect to build true sciences based on sensual data alone and without metaphysics? How can one progress in science without Popper’s falsifiability criterion that pushes man into the future and its unknowns? And how can one age and only hope to die so they can go to a heaven that does not exist?
Hopefully, others wake up as I did.
14 Comments:
At 5:39 AM, Anonymous said…
1. You wrote: "Although I speak about the ugly English language often, I speak about the ugly English language because I live in the USA and want to improve the language I use. The truth is that the talking language in every nation is ugly. All talking languages are ugly because man develops them."
However, as one of my students pointed out to me, on December 21, 2007 you wrote:
"I argue that the English language is ugly because it develops the human mind improperly. On the other hand, I say that the German language can develop the human mind properly. These two languages are as different as night and day because the English language is based on Aristotle�s method of defining concepts with logic whereas the German language is based on Plato�s higher ideas.. (�)One cannot see God at all with logic and the English language. But one can see God clearly with dialectical thinking and the German language."
If the German language can develop the human mind properly and make us see God clearly, how can you call it ugly? And why don't you use it in your writings? And why did you read Hegel in the ugly English version?
2. You also wrote that Nicholas of Cusa "shifted to the certainty of mathematics when he wanted to express a certainty". Why don't you shift to the certainty of mathematics instead of using the ugly English language?
3. I fail to see why you think it is offensive to be called an amateur. An amateur is simply someone who engages in an activity that is not his or her profession. Doesn't that description apply to you? I am sure there are many retired people like you who have taken up a similar hobby. In my honest opinion, that is nothing to be ashamed of.
Patty Mortimer
At 7:08 AM, Anonymous said…
Just one thing, Mister Shollenberger: don't be offended by people calling you an amateur, because there is nothing wrong with that. My grandfather took up gardening after he retired, which over time he got rather good. Not as good as professional gardeners of course, but the main thing was that he had found an enjoyable pastime.
You should try to muster the same sense of selfworth. Of course your writings don't reach the level of professional philosophers and logicians, but who cares? What really counts is the fact that you like your hobby and don't sit all day on your couch doing absolutely nothing.
Best wishes,
Rachel Finkelstein
At 10:26 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Patty Mortimor,
I made those statements about the German language because I believe that the German language is a more perfect language than the English language. It is more perfect because is is being filled with Plato's ideas. The English language is being filled with Aristotle's ideas.
To reveal the power of the German language, I have introduced a considerable amount of information on the powerful thoughts of Nicholas of Cusa in my book and the powerful thoughts of Friedrich Hegel in this website. I understand that the translation of Hegel's work into English was not a simple task and is not perfect.
I expressed my disagreement about today's mathematics on my website and in my comments to the Good Math/Bad Math website. I also stress the importance of geometry in my book.
I do not believe that Aristotle's development of categories was a big error. The use of categories to describe human life has problems. For instance, categories created racism, the rich/poor class, titles, awards, etc. The categories impede the development of brotherly love among humans.
Further, I say that God crated things-in-themselves. These things are natural and true categories.
George
At 10:47 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Rachel Finkelstein
I am not offended by people calling me an amateur. I am offended only if no one calls me on payday.
My concern about developing meaningless cattegories is teaching them to children whose minds are developing basic ideas that carry them through life.
My writings have reached scientists, philosophers, logicians, and religions. The ones that are institutionlized are bureaucratics and boring because their minds are tightly closed to any new ideas.
I understand what you are saying and thank you for this boost
On categories, which I dislike, see my last response to Patty Mortimor.
George
At 3:10 AM, Anonymous said…
My students wonder why you never specifically reply to my questions. They did a little search on your blog and found that many people have voiced the same complaint. To avoid more confusion I will continue to number my questions. Would you please be so kind as to number your responses likewise?
You wrote: “I made those statements about the German language because I believe that the German language is a more perfect language than the English language. It is more perfect because is is being filled with Plato's ideas. The English language is being filled with Aristotle's ideas.”
1. That still doesn’t explain how you can call the German language ugly when it, in your own words, can develop the human mind properly and make us see God clearly. How can anything that makes us see God be ugly?
2. Why don't you use the German language in your writings?
3. And why did you read Hegel in the ugly English version?
4. You wrote that the German language is being filled with Plato's ideas. Could you please pinpoint some of his ideas in this short segment: “Das Wissen, welches zuerst oder unmittelbar unser Gegenstand ist, kann kein anderes sein als dasjenige, welches selbst unmittelbares Wissen, Wissen des Unmittelbaren oder Seienden ist. Wir haben uns ebenso unmittelbar oder aufnehmend zu verhalten, also nichts an ihm, wie es sich darbietet, zu verändern und von dem Auffassen das Begreifen abzuhalten.”
You wrote: “To reveal the power of the German language, I have introduced a considerable amount of information on the powerful thoughts of Nicholas of Cusa in my book and the powerful thoughts of Friedrich Hegel in this website. I understand that the translation of Hegel's work into English was not a simple task and is not perfect.”
5. Nicholas of Cusa wrote all of his work in Latin, so how does that reveal the power of the German language?
You wrote: “I expressed my disagreement about today's mathematics on my website and in my comments to the Good Math/Bad Math website. I also stress the importance of geometry in my book.”
6. That doesn’t answer my question: Why don't you shift to the certainty of mathematics instead of using the ugly English language? If you don’t like today’s math, you can always resort to the mathematics of Cusa’s time.
You wrote “The use of categories to describe human life has problems. For instance, categories created racism, the rich/poor class, titles, awards, etc. The categories impede the development of brotherly love among humans.”
7. One of my students told me when he read this: “Mister Shollenberger is not thinking clearly. Categories are used to describe reality as it is, they don’t create reality. If we call Mister Shollenberger an amateur as opposed to the learned professionals working in academia we are merely giving a description of his situation, not creating his situation.” Care to comment on that?
Patty Mortimer
At 12:09 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Patty Mortimor,
The subject on this website is God. It took me 25 years of research to get to the point I am now. I thus don't expect people to understand this anount of research immediately. So, as a teacher of my material on this very difficult subject, I must decide how I can respond best to each comment. So, I do not always answer every question because only I know how I must teach My goal is to teach rather than debate.
1. I call all languages ugly because I use symbols that can shock the mind of a person. A shock wave is a nonlinear motion that seeks the attention of a person. Once I have one's attention, I can teach more effectively. With the symbol 'ugly,' I can use Plato's general ideas such as oneness, happiness, ugliness, etc. So, in general, all talking languages must reduce their ugliness. This reduction improves the meanings of the symbols of a talking language. When I say that we can see God more clearly, I am talking about the 'eye of our mind, which is a metaphysical thing. As this thing, our mind reasons and explains the purpose of sensed phenomena.
2. I do bring some German words in my writing. But I am skilled in English and can talk only to English-speaking people.
3. I have confidence in the translators of the German material I am using. But, I can overcome poor translations because I think generally before I think particularly.
4. I do not read or translate German text. I focus on the symbols and relations in my German/English dictionary. For instance, my mind has has focused on the German symbols 'Ding an sich.' These symbols are found in Kant and Hegel's work. In English, I use Ding an sich as 'thing-in-itself.' (I believe that your request to respond to your German words is foolish and inappropriate.)
5. Nicholas of Cusa was a German!
6.You don't seem to understand the general problem I am talking about symbolic languages and the philosophy of symbolism. On mathematics, I suggest that you read Nicholas of Cusa (On Learned Ignorance) and learn how Cusa uses math. Then, you should read my website discussions with the Good Math/Bad Math personnel. Then, you should study Georg Cantor and his transfinite numbers. Then, you should study Leibniz's infinitesimal calculus and his Monadology.
7. The student is saying that logical categories are used to describe reality. This is exactly how today's atheistic logicians describe reality. i say that the human mind, not logical categories, describe realities. So, when one uses the mind to describe reality and uses logic, the mind and logic are creating realities. I say that the mind is a thing-in-itself. It is filled with realities formed by phenomena and reasoning. The mind is not a shadow of the human brain as most atheistic scientists say.
I hope this response is helpful.
George
At 3:47 PM, Anonymous said…
“With the symbol 'ugly,' I can use Plato's general ideas such as oneness, happiness, ugliness, etc. So, in general, all talking languages must reduce their ugliness. This reduction improves the meanings of the symbols of a talking language.”
1. I e-mailed your response to a about dozen fellow PhD’s working at several highly esteemed national universities. They all replied that your writing style is utterly incomprehensible. A few quotes: “What is this man on about, why doesn’t he write more clearly?” “Are you sure he is a native English speaker, because he makes a lot of spelling mistakes and his style is just embarrasingly bad.” “He never gets to the point of your questions. I still have no idea why he uses the word ‘ugly’ all the time.”
Now for your answers:
“When I say that we can see God more clearly, I am talking about the 'eye of our mind, which is a metaphysical thing. As this thing, our mind reasons and explains the purpose of sensed phenomena.”
2. That is not even close to a proper answer to my question: How can you call the German language ugly when it, in your own words, can develop the human mind properly and make us see God clearly. How can anything that makes us see God be ugly?
“I do not read or translate German text.”
3. If you can’t read German, how can you know that the German language is a more perfect language than the English language, and that it is more perfect because is is being filled with Plato's ideas?
“I believe that your request to respond to your German words is foolish and inappropriate.”
4. Why those ugly words? You wrote that the German language is being filled with Plato's ideas. If that is true, if the German language is full of Platonian ideas, then you should be able to signal them, because I didn’t see them in the Hegel text I quoted (which btw you didn’t recognize as such).
5. In answer to my question “Nicholas of Cusa wrote all of his work in Latin, so how does that reveal the power of the German language?” you reply “Nicholas of Cusa was a German!”
Mr. Shollenberger, you earlier referred to the power of the German language, not to the power of the German nationality.
6. “This is exactly how today's atheistic logicians describe reality. i say that the human mind, not logical categories, describe realities. So, when one uses the mind to describe reality and uses logic, the mind and logic are creating realities. I say that the mind is a thing-in-itself. It is filled with realities formed by phenomena and reasoning. The mind is not a shadow of the human brain as most atheistic scientists say.”
Could you please rephrase that in such a way that one can actually understand what you are trying to say? Nearly everybody who leaves a message at your blog complains about your writing style. None of them seem to understand what you mean, not because the subjects treated are too difficult for them, but because you express yourself so very poorly. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for you to leave your blog for a while and take a writing course?
Patty Mortimer
At 3:51 PM, Anonymous said…
A couple of days ago you accused Mr. Wainwright of assassinating your character (which is a horrible accusation) because he called you an amateur. Yesterday you wrote that you are not offended by being called an amateur. Don't you think you owe Mr. Wainwright an apology?
Dauby Bask
At 7:31 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Patty Mortimer,
I.I am a retired electrical engineer who received a degree at the evening school of JHU. I taught trained electrical engineering PhDs on analysis before I even received a degree from JHU. Don't you understand that science is always expanding. These Phds thanked me for spending my time to teach them.
I am trying to teach todays Phds, etc. in theology and science. Many are not interested. That is their choice. So, don't give me this crap about titles for humans. They are merely stinky ideas aimed at controlling a nation's economy.
Engineers do not fuss over spelling and grammar. We make real things. But, wait until you age and learn the faliing health of seniors. I am diabetic and can hardly see. So, tell you friends that their responses have no meaning to my work for God. In one ear anf out of the other.
But your spelling and grammar was not perfect in this question. So, you became a human.
2. This question must be clarified. It is unclear to me.
3. The English language moves the mind away from God. This is why atheism is growing in the USA. You need to do your own research. I have no time to teach a person who does not want to learn something new. If you read Hegel's work and Cusa's work, you will see how Plato cleared the path to God.
4. The intentions of your comments are clear. So, I refuse to answer this stupid question.
5. You can search my website to find my words on the German language work at the Univ. of Minnesota to answer this question.
6. It is not my style of writing that is confusing. It is the way you developed your mind that is unable to interpret me. Sinse you cannot understand my simple words and sentences, I believe that you and the friends should seek help to correct both minds. In fact, I don't believe that you should be teaching any children or college students.
If you continue to teach, you should try to stay with well proven facts and try to stay away from the futuristic theories of my field of thought.
George
At 7:57 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Darby Bask,
I thought that I would never hear from you again after our dialogue, and your review of my book, on Amazon.com. If you are taking a noble path to help a friend, I respect you. Tell him that I am sorry if I hurt his feelings.
However, Mr. Wainwright's words were similar to the earlier words of those logicians and mathematicians who assassinated by character regularly. SSSOOOOO many different characters they called me. So, I responded to him just as I did to the other logicians.
Tell him that I haven't changed by theory of Popper. I am different in many, many ways. In general, I am a futurist. This is why I interpret Popper the way I do.
George
At 2:41 PM, Anonymous said…
Do you recognize yourself in this description of 'fractal wrongness'? (I do!)
"The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet -- in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums -- your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time."
Molly Jameson
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous said…
Julia, a very bright student of mine who was awarded a scholarship at one of the prestigious MIT departments, sent me this email about your latest response:
"Just like you I am shocked by Mr. Shollenberger's arrogant lies. First he pontificates about the virtues of the German language, but when you expose him as an impostor who doesn't even understand a few simple German sentences he has the nerve to call you stupid.
He makes the impression of a spiteful man whose narcissism greatly exceeds his intellect. Lack of a proper formal education truly is a heavy burden."
Just take a step back and ponder those words for a while. You will be hearing no more from me.
Patty Mortimer
At 3:12 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Molly Jameson,
I would like to look at your thoughts deeper. Do you have a book in mind that I can buy?
I have experienced before what you are saying. In fact I used this kind of dialogue a few times.
With Patty Mortimor, I was seeking as much information as I could on the field of Education because the Department of Education in Washington must be reformed drastically. The USA is in much more trouble than I thought initiallly.
George
At 3:47 PM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Patty Mortimor,
You can tell Julia that I am no longer impressed with the MIT. In fact, I conclude that all colleges and universities are confused and no longer understand the deep purpose of school. Those MIT teachers and students who still believe in God have not gained the new and modern view of God.
I have communicated with many people who teach in colleges and universities. I have also talked to the president of Johns Hopkins. When I am given a chance to explain the US problems, they understand my points. So, Julia did not impress me. She merely adds more logical characters to the list that defins me by atheists. My skin has become thick enough to hear stupid theories and new characteristics.
Your problem is that you want to teach me. How can you teach a teacher when the teachers are teaching different theories?
With your acceptance of logic so freely, your student should be concerned. And if you are a catholic, tell your friends that I disagree with the the Vatican, which says irrationally that evolution theory is true.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home