Nadine

Cher Olivier,

You don't need to apologize, cause you didn't not insult me in any way. You just gave your opinion and way of thinking. Of course, using another language than your own always involves the risk of being misunderstood.Even when talking your own language that may give problems...

Nadine

__________________
In the summer I stretch out on the shore and think of you. Had I told the sea what I felt for you,
It would have left its shores, its shells, its fish, and followed me.Nizar Qabbani.
When I drown my eyes in your eyes, I glimpse the deepest dawning and see the ancient times;
I see what I do not comprehend and feel the universe flowing between your eyes and mine. Adonis.
You're beautiful, you're beautiful... But it's time to face the truth. I will never be with you. James Blunt.

Jean Fred

Olivier,
I wasn't insulting you, that was merely sort of a call to order and, true I could not resist playing on "a go and "ego". Humor, some might think of it.
Anyway...
May I suggest as a final input, that to get the consideration you are demanding, you yourself show some by for instance not sweeping away the suggestion to read Popper and Heisenberg I made in my first post, even more for your benefit since both are scientists and use math demos heavily.
And make no mistake, your english is quite understandable and clear.
Your wording and ideas might deserve some improvement along this line.
And never forget frenzy gets in the way of genuine excitement.
Keep smiling!

Chevaliertuc

Hi
I try keeping smiling... but i didn't swept away your suggestions: i meant i have any time to read it. I really have any time. I should not be chatting O: ) i would have to work maths...
Actually, you found the word that's better not to say to me: pretention...
Anyway, i think, it's a good end. "forget" this.
Now i'll try answer to Gigi.
++
Olivier.

Chevaliertuc

"forget" ===> correction "let's forget"

Chevaliertuc

Gigi, you said:
"The language in general(whichever that is French, English,etc.) for you its just a way to communicate with others. But also any language isn't very strict in the meanings (for example in Greek there are at least five different ways to say the word rock), so many times when we talk different meanings can be "attached" to the frases according for example to the state we are in (happy,angry, blue,etc.). And with this I'm completely with you(I repeated what you said so that you will be able to understand if i understood you or not)." It's exactly what I mean. Just a precision about "when we talk different meanings can be "attached" to the frases according for example to the state we are in" : I would say that the problem wth the words is not that they have several senses, but that they can't have anyone, i.e that we can't definite them precisely, to my opinion.
then:
"Furthermore, you say what can be true for me may not be true for you( that's why the word true cannot be defined strictly, and I find that also correct)." i also agree, even if i hadn't thought to this argument.
And now, it's getting difficult...
"But don't you ,even, take some things for true, don't you believe in some things?For example, the fact that all spoken languages are somewhat superfluous, or the fact that nothing makes sense. The first one it doesn't need much to be proven, the second one I'm trying to understand(because math does make some sense to you)."
You asked The question... i hope i'll be able to explain it...
So, as i was 10, i believed in god. And i asked me those questions (not about truth, but about morality and so on) and my answer was: God knows. And, with my interest for maths, i stopped believing in God. I decided it as i was in my bed (it's true lol): and i was afraid because nothing was sure anymore. I had to create the world. I tried. I began believing in logic. And I understood that was not the good way, which i explained in my other posts. So, I stopped believing in anything. I wasn't afraid anymore of "Chaos". You haven't to be afraid of the absence of sense. I explain my opinion:
I think, if you can't find a God, you can find a sense, stop believing in it. I must be honest: i don't believe, so i assume it. I'm looking for "a sense", but not the words, not with philosophy.
My opinion: You can't use logic in our world. When I say "it's no truth", i don't think it's true. Philosoph want to build system of thinking, as in maths. I just said: your systems don't make sens, there are contradictions in it. On the other hand, I think that the idea of a system MUST (in a mathematical sense) give contradictions. In fact, I think that "there is no truth" is false (!!): I use the words, and I find that there are contradictions. As if I were demonstrating a theorem, and at the end, i find: 0=1. So I have to conclude: It's false. ie: the words have no sense. So, as in maths, I must admit i have to look for something else. You are right when you ask that it's a contradiction in my opinion: I say it's false that there is a true. It's the same that "I'm a lyer".

in a book called " the yellow room", a woman is agressed in her (yellow) room. her father heard a gun and when he got in the room, his daughter is hurted at the head, but not dead, not hurted by the gun. In the room, he doesn't find anybody. There's no possibility, to get out of the room. So, everybody wonder: how the agresser got out of the room. The hero, Rouletabille, said at the end (i had such a strong impression by reading it!!): It's not possible that the murderer got out of the room, and there was no murderer inside when he got in... so the girl wasn't agressed: she made a dream, take a gun by sleeping, let the gun fall, so there was noise with the gun (can't explain another way sorry), and the girl falled on a piece of furniture. And the girl confirmed. He had guessed what the girl didn't want to admit. (it's complex, i just tell you the essential)

ok, i have still a lot to say, but i have to eat...
++
Olivier

Jean Fred

Do we all understand Olivier needs a break ?
So let's grant him one.

Chevaliertuc

re
I was eating moussaka (greek, isn't it?)
so i said: for me, there is no other possibility: it can't be anything.
And so, i don't believe in anything, in the sense of philosophy: my sentences are just disproves, they just have a sense as disproof, in order to make you think another way!
On the other hand, to live, i must "believe": i must think that eating is necessary, that the sun really will come again tomorrow and so on. But i don't need words, and i don't think all that is "true". It's just something that i need to live. And my opinion about the language belongs to the first category, i don't need it to live.
I just say one about Nietzsche. I can be wrong, but the "existence" in Nietzsche's books is these awareness, the fact you can touch, feel, see and so on: you have to feel something, and you are what you want to impose to the world. (i admit it's my personnal interpretation) but it's not a definition! Nietzsche (to my mind) "just" wants to get rid of morality to make men free, and able to create, to have a great life (it's explained a naive way...) he uses the language to destroy an ideology, he's really a poet... and i think, philosophy has to be so. Destruction and poetry. that he ads is "his feeling of the world", and he feels better than the other, because for him, religions and morality are a symbol of degenerescence.
I'm turning around your question :$
There is no sense for me, because the word has no sense, but i still enjoy the life, and i don't need anything other. I don't need to be the "Übermensch" of Nietzsche, i just have my way, i make progress... i look for something...
I don't succeed in saying something more precise, please ask!

"I also got the idea from what you wrote that you are trying to define everything philosophically but under a logical point(math-logical). If that is what you are doing how can that be done? Practically it all ends up with what existence is (how the first form of life appeared, the first star and so on). The definitions given from every sector (philosophy sciences(with its subcategories) ) are completely different, just because they all are different points you see the same thing. How can they be mixed up together?"
If you want to build a system, you always use logic. If you use logic, you bring contradictions... a system needs logic, so he can't be right. I don't know if it cloud be something else... i doubt, i'm not sure. I wait for proposals... but i never found one. Physics, biology can't help define existence, because they are not abstract.
Well: If a policeman is the friend of someone guilty, he can't look for clueds, he can't use logic because he must be friendy with the guy. You undeerstand what i mean? And we can't understand the world, because we are a part of it. "We are not credible enough", you could say...

Ahhhh, i'm desesparated, it's so difficult to explain... PLEASE, ask me other questions if i didn't understand yours!
Or try to build an argument against me, and it would be easier for me to give arguments so...
++
Olivier.