Jacques Lacan-Language-Buddhism - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dtheriault · 09-24-2003, 02:09 AM

Okay so i was thinking about language and how it shapes humanity. Lacan and others talk about how language is constructed as a way for us to deal with the concept of loss and desire that haunts us and we become actualized.

What seperates us from animals is the complexity of our language/communication and our ability for metaphor and self-reflexive thought.

However, Buddhism, Zen and many other avenues to salvation speak of a constant need to erradicate desire. Hence salvation is not communicable through language.

So are we going about living all wrong?

1. Do we need to refine language until it can describe the undescribeable? (the problem with creating thinking AI.)

or

2. Is language getting in the way of man fulfilling his destiny or achieving true happiness?

Easytiger · 09-30-2003, 07:47 PM

I believe that a lot of the better things in life cannot be put into words, so I go for option 2.
On a related note, current trends in almost every language are not towards greater complexity but to simpler and speedier expression. Therefore there isn't really a trend towards refinement of expression that would support the achievement of goal 1.
In terms of precise language use that would assist in the development of AI, I think the main problem there lies in the attempt to describe mathematically the complex and imprecise nature of most human languages.

Xerxes · 10-04-2003, 02:22 PM

I appreciate that you've read Lacan, I know that's actually quite an accomplishment. But honestly, Lacan is not, nor was he ever-- a philosopher. Language is a construct, this point is undeniable, however what the postmodernists have to say about language is problematic because there is no universal basis to judge or understand these signifiers.
I think your problem could be cleared up in a much more friutful way by reading something actually in philosophy of language. I'd recomend reading things by Frege and/or Russell, Wittgenstien also has some interesting things to say about epistimology and language and language games.

09-24-2003, 02:09 AM	#1 (permalink)
dtheriault Psycho Location: maybe utah	Jacques Lacan-Language-Buddhism Okay so i was thinking about language and how it shapes humanity. Lacan and others talk about how language is constructed as a way for us to deal with the concept of loss and desire that haunts us and we become actualized. What seperates us from animals is the complexity of our language/communication and our ability for metaphor and self-reflexive thought. However, Buddhism, Zen and many other avenues to salvation speak of a constant need to erradicate desire. Hence salvation is not communicable through language. So are we going about living all wrong? 1. Do we need to refine language until it can describe the undescribeable? (the problem with creating thinking AI.) or 2. Is language getting in the way of man fulfilling his destiny or achieving true happiness? __________________ "Remember, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." -Homer Unless you are the freakin Highlander, what is the point in learning how to fight with a sword?

09-30-2003, 07:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	I believe that a lot of the better things in life cannot be put into words, so I go for option 2. On a related note, current trends in almost every language are not towards greater complexity but to simpler and speedier expression. Therefore there isn't really a trend towards refinement of expression that would support the achievement of goal 1. In terms of precise language use that would assist in the development of AI, I think the main problem there lies in the attempt to describe mathematically the complex and imprecise nature of most human languages.

10-04-2003, 02:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
Xerxes Upright Location: Gambier, OH	I appreciate that you've read Lacan, I know that's actually quite an accomplishment. But honestly, Lacan is not, nor was he ever-- a philosopher. Language is a construct, this point is undeniable, however what the postmodernists have to say about language is problematic because there is no universal basis to judge or understand these signifiers. I think your problem could be cleared up in a much more friutful way by reading something actually in philosophy of language. I'd recomend reading things by Frege and/or Russell, Wittgenstien also has some interesting things to say about epistimology and language and language games.