The Natural Linguist

I was watching a video  from the Prager U YouTube channel where Dennis Prager asks the following question: But how do you KNOW that murder is wrong? Prager's idea is that we can think  murder is wrong, or feel inside that murder is wrong, but that this is not enough: according to him, it's vital for us, and for society at large that we KNOW murder to be wrong; and the only way we can KNOW it is that God tells us it is wrong. The problem with the example of murder, is that it's completely relative. Murder is defined  as the illegal killing of human beings. So anytime we want the killing of some being to be considered "wrong", all we have to do is to classify that killing as "murder". And conversely, if we want the de-lifing of some being to be permissible, we classify it as not murder. Some examples of killing that is not murder are these: War . It's perfectly legal to kill someone -- or millions of people -- using war as an excuse. There are many exa...

I'm continually perplexed by the stoic insistence on the notion of Providence.  The cosmos is the way it is because of the fundamental nature of space/time and matter/energy. The cosmos is the way it is because Providence saw fit either to create it that way, or at least to ordain that it be so.  Which is it? Does it matter? Does it matter that we believe one or the other of these? Does it matter that our belief that it is one or the other be correct? For me, the main difference is that one model has a Mind or a Purpose behind it, and the other does not. What benefit is conferred by holding the belief in one's head that there is a purpose or intent behind the existence or nature of the cosmos? What detriment stems from thinking that the cosmos is the way it is because the properties of S/T and E/M simply do not permit it to be otherwise? I think it's vital to make the distinction between the real nature of the cosmos on the one hand, and our BELIEFS about the nature of the ...

People talk about freedom all the time, but do they ever really think about what it means to be free? Let's take a couple of examples to use as thought experiments. No one should be surprised when my first thought turns to language. Here's too much linguistic freedom in action: Gukb fsilmpmer splifffdd ..;;, !!! @ WASKKQS&&&&^^^^ zzzzmzmzmllllz( If we want to take advantage of language, we have to obey some rules -- a whole lot of them, many layers of rules. In situations where your native language is being spoken, your ear is finely tuned to detect unbelievably minute departures from normal language sounds. You can detect a non-native speaker a mile away from a slightly mispronounced vowel, or even just a missing glottal stop where you would normally expect it. And don't even get me started on grammar. For every way to get something right, there are 100 ways to get it wrong. And yet, once we learn to work within the rules of the language, we experience a mu...

From time to time, I've been interested in the notion of free will and discussions about the phenomenon. The notion that we do or do not have "free will" has extremely committed adherents on both sides of the issue. I personally like to keep an open mind about these things. What strikes me about this discussion is that, as far as I can tell, it seems to be conducted on purely binary terms: we either do or do not have "free will" (and sorry for the air quotes, but until we can define the idea in terms that can be generally accepted, it will serve as a weasel word). But since the universe stubbornly refuses to be shoved into the little boxes we create for our convenience, I would like to explore the idea that free will exists on a spectrum where beings can have more or less ability to deviate from innate programming, or instinct, or the prodding of the autonomous nervous system -- however you want to characterize it. I have heard people argue that the Newtonian co...

Well, it's official. We live in interesting times. It's nothing new. Charles Dickens seemed to express similar feelings of ambivalence 160 years ago with his memorable opening line in "A Tale of Two Cities". “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.” I have friends who feel exalted and victorious, and friends who feel horrified, defeated, and enraged. My personal feeling is that we have merely exchanged one form of barbarity for another. Remember, we did not solve a problem -- we have only driven it underground where it will fester and quickly give rise to much more and much worse barbarity. The monied have always had recourse to "vacations" in "Switzerland". Those people will experience little inconvenienc...

 Relativism is reviled as an abrogation of a reliable standard against which to measure "goodness" or "badness". I agree that without a standard, we gradually lose all that is distinct, and devolve into an undifferentiated mush that is powerless to prevent the encroachment of the law of the jungle because it cannot bring itself to condemn evil on the off chance that it may actually be "good". I will say that I dislike and avoid the terms "good" and "bad". But my dislike of those terms is not an acquiescence to rank relativism or malignant multiculturalism. I have no wish to abolish a standard of excellence. I dislike those words because they inhibit digging deeper. They stop thought. They curtail inquiry. They are the parenting equivalent of "because I said so." The questions we often fail to ask are ones like this: Good for whom? Bad in what way? Is this a short-term good at the expense of a long-term bad? Is a "necessar...

 At the time of this writing, it is shortly after the conclusion of the 2020 Presidential election in the US, and the inauguration of a new president. This has been a turbulent time in the history of our nation, but instructive nevertheless. If you were tuned into the events of the world in 2009 and 2010, possibly you recall Harold Camping, a radio personality and Christian evangelist best known for predicting the End of the World on May 21, 2011, 6:00 PM. When the day and time arrived for that great event, his devoted followers were prepared for what they called "the Rapture".  Many had sold all their belongings and said goodbye to friends and loved ones. At 5:58, they breathlessly anticipated the long-awaited fulfillment of the promise that they would be snatched up to Heaven before God laid waste to the world for its wickedness. 5:59 arrived. Then finally the clock ticked off the seconds until 6:00, then 6:05, 6:10, 7:00, 8:00, and so on. Nothing happened. The world rolled...