Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

H1 Group 4 Vagueness


Group Members: Evan L., Erin P., Keaton D., Larissa W., Yusra M.
Author: Larissa W.

We first started looking at vagueness as logical puzzles: when does a heap of sand become a heap, and when is it not a heap? The vagueness could stem from the sand, or the heap. When Michelle floated, she mentioned an idea that we carried throughout our entire discussion. She said that language is not part of the natural world, but rather it is something that humans invented. Therefore, we cannot expect language to describe the world. The definition of a word can only go so far. Yusra mentioned that in different languages different words exist for certain things: there are words describing things in one language that do not exist in another.
From here we thought that vagueness comes from the individual and not the word. For instance, whether a heap of sand is considered a heap depends on your definition of the word, on your experiences, and your perspective.
Are we using these words to determine an absolute truth, or are there varying degrees of truth? We were a little undecided on this topic. Different countries and cultures may have different truths. Truths may vary between time periods. During the lecture, something along the lines of, “different generations have different definitions of the world” was said. People used to know a lot of information about one subject. Now, people know little information about multiple subjects. However, we feel that with more knowledge, vagueness increases.
            While you can be vague, you can also be too specific. Being too specific can be irritating, but so is being too vague. We determined that you need to find an even ground between vagueness and specificity.


DQ: Why is it that with more knowledge vagueness increases?

 
FQ: From which 1740s Frenchmen do we get our modern concept of art?
A: Abbé Batteaux

5 comments:

  1. Great post Larissa! Unfortunately I was not in this group today because I floated to the other groups in class. I definitely agree with Michelle. The language that we use to describe things can only go so far. Wittgenstein says the same about language that philosophers tend to get caught up in the language that is used to describe some philosophical idea rather than the heart of the matter.

    I also agree that things that are being described or stated depends on the person's idea of those things about whether or not it is vague. Those things could be vague to someone, but not to the other people.

    I personally think that being too specific is better than being too vague. I would rather have someone tell me how to do something every single step rather than leave me with hardly anything to go by. For example, let's take origami. If someone was too vague for me when they were trying to teach me how to do origami, then I would be left with a crushed wad of paper from being frustrated because I would not know what in the world I was doing. When someone is too specific, I would still be able to master origami even if the person's specificity is driving me bonkers. However, in the end I believe that we do have to find a middle ground between being too vague and too specific.

    DQ: Does everything that everyone draws, makes, and etc. considered art? Or does it have to be done in a certain way or by someone specific?

    FQ: According to Matravers, Batteaux said that __________ is the imitation of nature.

    A: Art

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3rEb9NHzu4

    This is a funny video that describes vagueness in real life. Mostly, this is a video of how a young man is driven crazy over people being vague. (It is pretty funny too!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Erin Paul11:53 PM CDT

    Good summary, Larissa! I agree with what Dr. Oliver said in class about this topic - I just don't have a big interest in the matter. I really liked what Michelle mentioned about a man made language and a non man made world. It's hard for those two to match up. I do think our language is the problem with vagueness. We were discussing the heap example in our discussion so I decided to look up the definition of heap. It is defined as "a great quantity or number." But what's a great quantity? We can see by the definitions that our words are not specific. They are different to every individual. For example, "tall" may be 5'7'' to a child while "tall" to a 6 foot man may be 6'4". Or to dictionary.com, "having a relatively great height." I think vagueness is something we are just going to have to accept, there's really no way out.

    DQ: What is your personal definition of art?

    FQ: What two philosophers claimed that works of art were objects that were linked to a particular social practice?
    Arthur Danto and George Dickie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought those examples were a bit goofy. Who in the world cares if there is a heap or a pile of sand? It's sand. However, I can kind of see how a man could be sensitive to someone describing him as "bald" but still, in the long run, we are all gonna lose our hair at one point; some as early as their teens, others as late as a couple decades after they are buried.

      I do think that it's good to be vague sometimes and specific sometimes. I agree with Evan that I'd get irritated if someone were too vague or too specific. I'd be on the safe side with Evan in being more specific than vague.

      Delete
  3. I agree that different cultures and generations have what they perceive as "different truths." However, it is impossible for every single one of them to be true. I don't think there are varying degrees of truth. There is an absolute truth; some people just go with what they perceive that absolute truth to be and call it their "truth," no matter how far from the real truth it may be.

    Someone brought up the example of someone in America being innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent if they are in another country; they said that those truths are different in each country. But, that doesn't change the fact he is either actually innocent or he is actually guilty no matter what country he happens to be in.

    So I think there is an absolute truth both in this world and beyond. Our language cannot fully express it, nor can we fully understand everything about it. However, I do believe we can understand it enough to hold onto it, appreciate it, and honor it.

    Here's a cartoon that shows what happens when the "one objective truth" is removed from the equation.

    http://www.sidewalkbubblegum.com/images/150.gif

    FQ: Who thinks that the reasons behind art should "convince people to spend time engaging with them and get some kind of rich experience out of them."
    FA: Derek Matravers

    DQ: Would you prefer to study a urinal with a deep story behind it or just gaze at a beautiful Rembrandt painting?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey y'all!
    I think this is the first time I have ever been the last to comment!
    well here it is:
    My first thought was- Huh, for a guy talking about vagueness he sure is pretty specific! (Since this is one of the longest sections we've read thus far in Philo Bites.)
    My second thought agreed with Keaton--
    What exactly IS the PURPOSE of being able to point and say WOOP! There we go!! He's lost another hair!! He's baaaaaaaaaaald!!
    (sorry silly example, but I think its equally as silly to the way Williamson presented his own silly examples!)

    BUT perhaps there IS an underlying meaning to this discussion on vagueness, a point you'd might say to pondering over this, something that we have faced many times in philosophy:
    Drawing a line.
    Just like we draw a line between good and evil or bravery and stupidity, or morality. We are trying to define a point where we can say YES this is a harmful act or YES this is a heap.
    I just think that it was not presented in the right way, sorry Williamson!

    DQ: Do you see any similarities between bald and drawing a line of "absolute truth"

    FQ: Williamson admits that there is a grey area when trying to classify things True or False?
    True (schmald)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.