Clayton, Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege would disagree with you. But, I'm sure you'll say that they aren't worth reading. Or that I'm name dropping. =P Have fun in your "adult thread" about nothing of value to anyone.
Isn't that what you described your Blavatsky thread as?
No. Entertaining an unlikely hypothesis for an extended period of time is not mental masturbation. It's just grown-up thinking.
Trying make other people feel too small to think by themselves, trying to inculcate needless self-doubt in others, pretending to be working to solve provably unsolvable problems (such as discovering The Perfect Language)... these are mental masturbation and they are some of the primary occupations of modern philosophy. Philosophy has always been liable to angels-on-pinhead debates. Contemporary philosophy leaves all prior philosophy in the dust on this count.
Clayton -
Malachi,
Glad your expressing an interest. Without further ado:
Godel proved that a rich enough system will contain true but unprovable theorems.
He certainly never claimed that every system may have hidden contradictions lurking inside it.
There are published proofs that the axioms of set theory including the axiom of choice and the continuum hypotheses, about as rich a system as you can get, are consistent. You can work on them for all time and never ever find a contradiction in them.
As for mathematicians aplenty being around, do you live on Gilligan's Island? Or is there a college or university within driving distance? Where I live which is pretty much in the sticks, there are several major unis in the area.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Not the Godel's Theorems they taught me.
Oh boy. Here we go with the Godel crap again. Please specify what, in my post, you think is incorrect. I will note ahead of time that there is one (intentional) omission for the sake of brevity: that my statements are only true of formal systems capable of describing the natural numbers and the elementary arithmetic operations. But for some reason, I don't think that's your hangup.
I have just one question for you: Is it possible or is it not possible for a given consistent formal system (definitions and axioms) to prove that it is, itself, consistent? Can consistent F prove "F is consistent" for any given formal system F? Yes or no?
I'm sure you'll say that they aren't worth reading.
So, I was right? Russell, Frege; worthless?
Mathematics is as close to a universal language as we can get (and we don't even have it all figured out yet! - not that it would matter because you actively encourage people to stop looking while claiming that you "love philosophy"). Oh yeah, tell me again that "purposive action presupposes causality" because it does not. You won't respond anyway...
...for God's sake scientists use binary on gold plates on satellites in hopes that if aliens find it they can deduce what our communications to them will/would be...but no you keep telling people to look for Babel as the 'universal language' since formalization is "impossible."
But no matter how carefully you choose words and grammar - even if you choose as carefully as mathematicians choose them - the problem of confusion (as evidenced by the possibility of deriving a contradiction) is ever-present.
Duh! No one is disagreeing with this. The point, if you'd have even glanced at ANY of the links I've provided (especially the Davidson essay on Logical Form) is to disassociate words from syntax. This requires constructing symbolic language which involves "logic" and will present "truths."
Contemporary philosophy leaves all prior philosophy in the dust on this count.
So, what? You and Mises, then? Leaving poor Russell in the dust? No wonder there are so many books published investigating your threads on the MIses forums...
trying to inculcate needless self-doubt in others
You should doubt yourself.
By not reading or even engaging in the thought process of the "better' minds out there, while criticising them, you want man to live in a state of perpetual ignorance. Well, of course, unless it is your atrocious "a priori deductions" involving the mindset of people you don't know and will never meet (yes, your asinine geopolitics/conspiracy ramblings. Well, and David Icke).
I think there are a lot of dumb people on this forum that you have fooled into thinking you are some profound thinker. No one can prove you wrong either because the claims you make don't have any foundations. Seriously, if you run with some of the BS you drone on about when it comes to conspiracies (which we partly agree on) you'll never know if what you think about particular situation is right or wrong, but you'll continue to make more and more claims with no evidence for or against it...then you call Russell and Frege sophists? People who use "logic" to the best of their ability? I mean, what world do you live in?
they are some of the primary occupations of modern philosophy.
You have no apparent familiarty with modern philosophy - which, by the way, includes Descartes who discovered the link between algebra and geometry and Kant who provides the foundation for Misesian methodology (ahem, a priori categories). But yeah, they were always just jacking off inside their minds...
Also, I'm not even sure you know what "modern" and "contemporary" philosphy is...Russell is a contemporary philospher, and Frege pioneered analytic philosphy...
Now, where is my book searching for the language of Babel...oh, here it is...those damn Sumerians...
I'm familiar with both. Make your specific points in plain English, or is that too much to ask? If there is a particular quote from either that you would like me to answer, please cut and paste it. If it's an extended argument, then surely, you must be able to summarize it in your own words, assuming you yourself actually understand whatever the hell argument you're trying to challenge me with.
I cannot read every PDF you link me to. I have a day job and it is not babysitting you.
Mathematics is as close to a universal language
It is no such thing. Mathematics is a wholly human language and is no better or worse than any other domain of human language.
WTF?
No one is disagreeing with this.
SD is.
symbolic language.
Oh boy.
Why? Because there are people out there who get paid to claim they sit around and read, think and write all day who are telling me I should doubt myself?
By not reading or even engaging in the thought process of the "better' minds out there,
Says who? I read very eclectically.
while criticising them, you want man to live in a state of perpetual ignorance.
You have reversed the case in fact. I am not the one exhorting people to doubt themselves. That's you.
Don't doubt yourself. Have some fortitude. Go forth and conquer everything you desire to conquer with the utter confidence that the entire Universe is your playground. Do not succumb to timidity and fear based on the verbal intimidation of people who want you to believe they are smarter than you are. Anyone who reads philosophy from a position of self-doubt is not actually discovering anything in what he reads, he's simply trying to allay his insecurity with the comforting words of disembodied father figures that he perceives to have a greater grasp on reality than he himself has.
Well, of course, unless it is your atrocious "a priori deductions" involving the mindset of people you don't know and will never meet (yes, your asinine geopolitics/conspiracy ramblings. Well, and David Icke).
You mean like the a priori deduction that the Queen of England is a baby-eating succubus? I stand by that claim!
I think there are a lot of dumb people on this forum that you have fooled into thinking you are some profound thinker.
I have no interest in getting anyone to think of me one way or another. Whatever conclusions people reach are their own. I simply write down what I think. I swore off trying to "persuade" people a long time back because it's a hindrance to genuine truth-seeking.
you call Russell and Frege sophists?
LOL, no. I said you were engaging in sophistry.
You have no apparent familiarty with modern philosophy - which, by the way, includes Descartes
I misspoke with the word "modern" - I meant contemporary (this is the usual meaning of "modern"... only in philosophy does it mean a bygone era... *sigh).
I figured that is where your mistake lies. You see, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You may try using F to prove itself consistent, or you may try something else. Godel proved that a rich enough system may not be able to prove itself consistent, but that does not slam the door on every possible proof there is.
The modern understanding is that we are human beings. We think using common sense, as sharpened by millenia of geniuses such as Aristotle at al. We then study a system F. We are certainly not inside the system F. We are people, not symbols on a page. We can then prove that, although F cannot prove itself consistent, we can prove F is consistent using our common sense, if we are clever enough.
An example is Paul Cohen, who proved that the axioms of set theory, the axiom of choice, and the continuum hypothesis, all of them together, are consistent. You will never find that they contradict each other. Again, they cannot prove themselves consistent [meaning the set of all valid conclusions of those axioms does not contain the statement that they are consistent], but Paul Cohen can, and did.
Now one might think that he would be considered a laughing stock by the mathematical community for saying something wild like that. But no, he won a Fields Medal and a national Medal of Sciences for that result.
Smiling Dave: I have just one question for you: Is it possible or is it not possible for a given consistent formal system (definitions and axioms) to prove that it is, itself, consistent? Can consistent F prove "F is consistent" for any given formal system F? Yes or no? I figured that is where your mistake lies. You see, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You may try using F to prove itself consistent, or you may try something else. Godel proved that a rich enough system may not be able to prove itself consistent, but that does not slam the door on every possible proof there is. The modern understanding is that we are human beings. We think using common sense, as sharpened by millenia of geniuses such as Aristotle at al. We then study a system F. We are certainly not inside the system F. We are people, not symbols on a page. We can then prove that, although F cannot prove itself consistent, we can prove F is consistent using our common sense, if we are clever enough. An example is Paul Cohen, who proved that the axioms of set theory, the axiom of choice, and the continuum hypothesis, all of them together, are consistent. You will never find that they contradict each other. Again, they cannot prove themselves consistent [meaning the set of all valid conclusions of those axioms does not contain the statement that they are consistent], but Paul Cohen can, and did. Now one might think that he would be considered a laughing stock by the mathematical community for saying something wild like that. But no, he won a Fields Medal and a national Medal of Sciences for that result.
So you would strip Paul Cohen of his Fields Medal and National Medal of Sciences, because he did not prove anything according to you. He just had no respect for anyone, and somehow caught them all in an elementary fallacy, totally pulling the wool over their eyes. And he did it around 1965, so he has been pulling the wool over everyone but Malachi's eyes for 50 solid years. After all, he proved that a system F, [= the axioms of set theory and the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis] is consistent, but little did he know that Malachi would catch him red handed making a newbie mistake. Uh huh.
I respect everyone here to the extent that I discuss things with them as if they will not be fooled by sophistry.
Tell you what, Malachi, and everyone else who has doubts, get on the bus and ask your local mathematician. Make a field trip of it. Report back on your researches.
I HAVE.
You choose to respond to other things that I say...
I'm not about to "sum up" Frege's arguments in the two papers because of the amount of information there is to condense. You just insist on denying the usefulness of symbolic logic without actually reading the reasoning behind it...one needs to do away with the ambiguity of natural langage and formalizing it with symbols is a difficult but necessary way to do just that (this is Russell's point, summed up).
But, I did sum up Russell and Davidson (AND i put links in there...) and you responded to neither.
Bullshit. Expression of mathematics vary, but the conclusions (truths) of those expressions are universal. You're familiar with geometric proof, yes? You say you know Frege, but if you did you'd know his proofs...or at least the one in Sinn und Bedeutung.
That is about the response I'd expect. You're a a liar.
symbolic language. Oh boy.
Exactly. You aren't familiar with Frege OR Russell. You can' t be bothered to even consider something that is against your "a priori "truth" seeking worldview" (which is just ridiculous to even type out...) You're familiar with F.A. Hayek, right? geez...
See, B. Russell and/or G. Frege and/or D. Davidson and/or L. Wittgenstien...they will inform you to a world that you unreasonably deny.
Your "thinking" seems to me to be stubborness and your inability to respond to the actual points that I am making seems to indicate that you are lying about much of what you say.
I am not the one exhorting people to doubt themselves. That's you.
Well, I'm telling them to start with some kind of footing. YOU are the one who should doubt yourself. You're like a fat girl brimming with confidence...why? You know you're beautiful...no matter what they say...
Anyone who reads philosophy from a position of self-doubt is not actually discovering anything in what he reads, he's simply trying to allay his insecurity with the comforting words of disembodied father figures that he perceives to have a greater grasp on reality than he himself has.
Riiight. Like I said one needs to have footing to start running.
I bet you do. Actually, I was referring to your imbecilic ramblings that you didn't respond to in the other thread about geopolitics. (India will support the US vs. Iran?!?! - where'd you learn that? I mean when did you 'a priori deduce' it? Seriously, what grounds does your deduction have other than the superficial notion that hey are a US ally??!?!?)
But, you insinuate that I am merely following the lead of the people I read? So...I don't know how trying to get people to read things that they aren't familiar with is sophistry. Sophistry lies in pretending that you know the geopolitical strategies of countries that you have never been to without reading a lick of information about it...then not responding when people call you out on it.
No, you seem to percieve a difference here...
these are mental masturbation and they are some of the primary occupations of modern philosophy. Philosophy has always been liable to angels-on-pinhead debates. Contemporary philosophy leaves all prior philosophy in the dust on this count..
So, now I think you are lying. Straight lying.
And you call me a sophist...
I would say that you have combined assumption begging, strawman, and non sequitur into one sentence, surely this is intentional. Youre not actually arguing in good faith now, are you?
Oh dear. You are diverting attention from the ideas being discussed by engaging in personal attacks. Let's stick to the topic. Just as I ask the mad bicoiners, I ask you here: Summarize my position and show me where exactly I am wrong.
I'll help you take the first step. I am engaging in reductio ad absurdum, and pointing out that you are not disagreeing with me, but with Paul Cohen and the whole mathematical community. Tell me why your objection does not invalidate every consistency proof ever offered in the literature. In particular, why does it not invalidate his proof, which is universally honored and accepted.
In what way is the human cognitive process not analogous to a "rich enough system"?
1. Your question is a red herring, irrlevant to the topic at hand. Answer the objection to your argument. Why does it not invalidate every consistency proof?
There are several interesting mistakes hidden in your quoted question, but this is not the place to explore them. Let's put the red herring to bed, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.
Smiling Dave: Malachi, So you would strip Paul Cohen of his Fields Medal and National Medal of Sciences, because he did not prove anything according to you. He just had no respect for anyone, and somehow caught them all in an elementary fallacy, totally pulling the wool over their eyes. And he did it around 1965, so he has been pulling the wool over everyone but Malachi's eyes for 50 solid years. After all, he proved that a system F, [= the axioms of set theory and the axiom of choice and the continuum hypothesis] is consistent, but little did he know that Malachi would catch him red handed making a newbie mistake. Uh huh. I respect everyone here to the extent that I discuss things with them as if they will not be fooled by sophistry. Tell you what, Malachi, and everyone else who has doubts, get on the bus and ask your local mathematician. Make a field trip of it. Report back on your researches.
Smiling Dave: In what way is the human cognitive process not analogous to a "rich enough system"? 1. Your question is a red herring, irrlevant to the topic at hand. Answer the objection to your argument. Why does it not invalidate every consistency proof? There are several interesting mistakes hidden in your quoted question, but this is not the place to explore them. Let's put the red herring to bed, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.
Dont think I would want to waste a real mathematician's time with your sophistry, since Its easily debunkable here.
Oh, I know you personally will never go to someone who might teach you something. My intention was to hint to other readers that if they want to know the truth, they have an easy way to find out.
Consistent with Godel, Cohen went outside of the system F by introducing a new technique, ramified forcing .That still doesnt violate Godel's theorems...
Thank you for admitting I am right. You have just stated very clearly that one can prove a system consistent.
...which is probably why you felt the need to go back and embellish your post with more nonsense.
Yes, I understand that my posts are at times incomprehensible to you, to the point of seeming nonsensical. i can live with that.
Are you the only person who thinks that Cohen disproved Godel...
You need a scorecard to remind you who the players are. Clayton is the one who claimed all systems might contain hidden contradictions that we will never know about. This is false, and reveals a deep ignorance fo mathematics. In particular, Paul Cohen's theorem is an instance, one of many , of mathematicians proving a certain system F contains no hidden contradictions.
So I was asserting, correctly, that Cohen disproves Clayton.
You, on the other hand, claimed that Malachi disproves Paul Cohen. You did not grasp that you are saying that, so I pointed it out to you. You are welcome.
Your argument is that I am wrong because cohen disproved godel.
No. That Cohen disproved Clayton.
My move is to point you here: http://mises.org/community/forums/p/31831/495702.aspx#495702
Smiling Dave: Dont think I would want to waste a real mathematician's time with your sophistry, since Its easily debunkable here. Oh, I know you personally will never go to someone who might teach you something. My intention was to hint to other readers that if they want to know the truth, they have an easy way to find out. Consistent with Godel, Cohen went outside of the system F by introducing a new technique, ramified forcing .That still doesnt violate Godel's theorems... Thank you for admitting I am right. You have just stated very clearly that one can prove a system consistent. ...which is probably why you felt the need to go back and embellish your post with more nonsense. Yes, I understand that my posts are at times incomprehensible to you, to the point of seeming nonsensical. i can live with that. Are you the only person who thinks that Cohen disproved Godel... You need a scorecard to remind you who the players are. Clayton is the one who claimed all systems might contain hidden contradictions that we will never know about. This is false, and reveals a deep ignorance fo mathematics. In particular, Paul Cohen's theorem is an instance, one of many , of mathematicians proving a certain system F contains no hidden contradictions. So I was asserting, correctly, that Cohen disproves Clayton. You, on the other hand, claimed that Malachi disproves Paul Cohen. You did not grasp that you are saying that, so I pointed it out to you. You are welcome.
Paul Cohen's theorem is an instance, one of many , of mathematicians proving a certain system F contains no hidden contradictions.
Smiling Dave: Your argument is that I am wrong because cohen disproved godel. No. That Cohen disproved Clayton. My move is to point you here: http://mises.org/community/forums/p/31831/495702.aspx#495702
I figured that is where your mistake lies.
What mistake??
You see, there is more than one way to skin a cat. You may try using F to prove itself consistent, or you may try something else. Godel proved that a rich enough system may not be able to prove itself consistent, but that does not slam the door on every possible proof there is.
Of course. I've never once stated otherwise. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems are not woe upon humanity... they are woe upon the project of The Perfect Language - a project that a large number of people still think has a chance of success.
But why are people reliable, I think is the unanswered question. The whole point of formalizing in the first place is because of the reliability problems of natural language. When it turns out that you cannot bootstrap a formal language from itself, then how does it help with the original goal of working around unreliable natural language by resorting back to (presumably unreliable) human common sense? I think that if you are the sort of person who is nervous about using natural language, you are also going to be nervous about relying on common sense.
Yes, because "proof" generally is not restricted to any particular formalism. But even Paul Cohen cannot prove that the axioms of set theory are consistent from those very same axioms. Godel proved that.
I'm not about to "sum up" Frege's arguments
*shrug - OK
Based on scanning the article, I don't think I have any issues with Frege's ideas here except that I think there might be better ways to elucidate the problem nowadays than were available to him when he wrote (namely, it was not known that the brain is a neural-net computing device and so it makes sense to speak of information present or not present in the brain).
It is no such thing. Mathematics is a wholly human language and is no better or worse than any other domain of human language. Bullshit. Expression of mathematics vary, but the conclusions (truths) of those expressions are universal.
Bullshit. Expression of mathematics vary, but the conclusions (truths) of those expressions are universal.
Universal by contrast to what? Do you know what lies beyond the Hubble sphere?
The claims in my sentence were:
1) Mathematics is a wholly human language
2) Mathematics is no better than any other domain of human language (I meant no closer to Absolute truth)
So, if you are claiming 1 to be false, please specify the aspect of mathematics that is not human.
If you are claiming 2 to be false, please specify how mathematics reveals any portion of Absolute truth, even one iota.
they will inform you to a world that you unreasonably deny.
I have no idea what you're even on about... how the hell could I possibly be denying anything?? I scanned the Frege article and I see nothing I disagree with. What next?
You're like a fat girl
You got me, I'm exactly like a fat girl. Everything I've ever written hereby comes crashing to the ground.
*crash*
I was using the words as synonyms. In every other field besides philosophy, modern and contemporary are synonyms.
@Smiling Dave:
I see where the confusion is arising and it is my mistake. I wrote: "no matter how carefully you choose words and grammar - even if you choose as carefully as mathematicians choose them ... the possibility of deriving a contradiction... is ever-present." As stated, this is false. However, I meant this in the context of a regression argument, as Malachi has hinted at. If we formalize the system in which Cohen proved the consistency of the axioms of set theory (call it A), then we have a new formal system A', whose consistency is unproven and, hence, uncertain. Ad nauseum.
Apologies for the confusion.
Universal by contrast to what?
Is logic universal? Is it analytic?
Frege tries to demonstrate that arithmetic is analytic and on par with logic (that they are in essence the same thing). Logical objects (like thoughts) exist in nature and whatever the logical object is it can be known to us simply through our intellects. It is Universal unto itself due to logic (since logic is true in an analytic sense).
The point he makes aboutlanguage is that the Sinn is a logical object. All langauge emanates this. Formalization avoids ambiguity (this stuff is a given for further extrapolations).
Uh, you mean knowledge? "...is no better than any domain of human knowledge"?
The very nature of it. Sure, mathematics (the expression of it) is a human invention, but so is logic...what is being expressed is universal. Is mathematics going to be different past the Hubble zone?
Absolute truth as contrasted to what? Truth is truth. 2+2=4. Truth. I would dare say that that is a portion of truth. It was true 1000 years ago and will be true in another 1000 years. What about geometry? I envoke Frege due to his insistance that geometrical objects are graspable by our intellect and will not change from human perception, time, or place. In Sinn und Bedeutung he demonstrates this.
Which article did you go through? He makes a pretty good case for the formalization of language into logical form. Russell only expounded what Frege dealt with. Didn't you vehemently deny this as a useful avenue of philosophy? The only reference to universal language that you are willing to entertain is Babel (which is a strawman). Your first point about elucidation is a demonstration of the problems of natural language that a logical language can do away with (particularly with geometry).
I'm exactly like a fat girl
I knew it. You can shit and it won't stink. Amazing.
If mathematics isn't universal what would be the point in doing things like this and this? (to which you replied "WTF?")
Universal by contrast to what? Is logic universal?
This is tiring. Universal by contrast to what??
Logic is a category of human knowledge - language, in particular. So, what is "universal" about it?
2) Mathematics is no better than any other domain of human language (I meant no closer to Absolute truth) Uh, you mean knowledge? "...is no better than any domain of human knowledge"?
No, I mean what I said. Mathematics is a language. It originates in the intuitive theory of physics Steven Pinker discusses here. Specifically, mathematics is the intuitive theory sans the physics.
So, if you are claiming 1 to be false, please specify the aspect of mathematics that is not human. The very nature of it.
The very nature of it.
WTF??
Sure, mathematics (the expression of it) is a human invention, but so is logic...what is being expressed is universal. Is mathematics going to be different past the Hubble zone?
Neither mathematics nor logic are human inventions. Both originate in the human brain which is of Nature's devising. Even the specific conventions and notations of logic and mathematics are not of human invention (design), they are merely the byproducts of human action. This is the case for all human language (of which mathematics and logic are but one department).
If you are claiming 2 to be false, please specify how mathematics reveals any portion of Absolute truth, even one iota. Absolute truth as contrasted to what?
Absolute truth as contrasted to what?
As contrasted to relative, uncertain. Absolute truth is truth that is certainly true. Everything else is uncertain. But no human knowledge is certain. Hence, the intersection of human knowledge and Absolute truth is nought.
Which article did you go through? He makes a pretty good case for the formalization of language into logical form. Russell only expounded what Frege dealt with. Didn't you vehemently deny this as a useful avenue of philosophy?
Frege was blind-sided by the Russell paradox. To construct the paradox, Russell used the very form of a diagonal argument which Cantor had earlier used to define powersets. Godel's argument can be understood as an extension of this technique to provability (rather than truth).
It is well-established that human language cannot be formalized. Hilbert had set the vision of formalizing mathematical proof, a project which has succeeded in one sense (general-purpose computers, automated proof-checkers) but failed in its most ambitious sense... to render the mathematician obsolete. We have proved that the mathematician is ineradicable and that human language simply cannot be completely formalized (at least, not by humans). If you want to understand why this is, please read anything by Gregory Chaitin or watch any of his lectures.
The only reference to universal language that you are willing to entertain is Babel (which is a strawman).
What is Babel? When have I ever mentioned Babel? I haven't the first clue what you're talking about.
Because we can see that the laws of physics hold within the local environment where we shot the Pioneer probes into... if there is an intelligent alien species out there, they will have evolved subject to the same laws of physics that we are subject to. How does anything "universal" or "absolute" fall out from that??
To the OP, I'm just going to put these here:
Maynard, if you're going to try to put this thread back on track, so will I:
http://www.youtube.com/user/flame0430/videos?view=0
Flame0430's channel. All of the Bryan Magee interviews. ALL OF THEM.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
Aristophanes:you keep telling people to look for Babel as the 'universal language'
Can you please explain this statement? I've never said anything even remotely like this so I don't understand what prompted you to say this.
"the lanugage of babel"
Genesis 11:5, 6, 7, 8, & 9
"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded." "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." "So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city." "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
"So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city."
"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
Referring to the book that you cited earlier involving the quest of unviersal language. The lanugage of Babel looked to be the myth that they are referring to not that of a philosophical language.
Oh, you mean Umberto Eco's book - Eco comes down squarely against the possibility of any universal language and that is, in fact, the whole point of his book. I haven't read it (where am I supposed to find the time to read all these books!) but it comes highly recommended.
October 18, double AF1 godfather Bruce Kilgore Nike Air Max 90 hailed as the history of the ultra-luxury version of the Nike Air Max Force 1 Lux 07, the selection of 100% natural alligator as a raw material, carefully crafted handmade by Italian craftsmen, the most surprising signage and shoe buckles are 18K gold material. Of course, as the highlight of the 25th anniversary of the pricing reached the Nike Air Max unprecedented 16,000 yuan, also issued the highest price paid for a pair of shoes sold in China.
Japanese fashion brand UNDERCOVER, together with the sports giant Nike to create a joint series of “inverse go” GYAKUSOU, combined with functional jogging apparel, as Air Max 2012 well as a unique sense of fashion design, can tide jogging, 2012 of Fall / Winter this series continues , the essential multifunctional jogging shoes still can see the back, respectively, to create a special version of the Nike Free 3.0 v4, LunarSpeed Lite and other shoes. http://www.nikeairmax90hotsale.com/