This is a continuation of a conversation about the topic of unicorns with Hack. Here is the list of the conversation (correct me if I am mistaken, Hack)

Hack: I say, “unicorn” and you know what I am talking about.
103 (me): Yes.
Hack: So, because you and me know what we are talking about they exist.
103: Well, no. There is a concept of “unicorn”.
Hack: But you know what I am talking about, so they exist.

This went to Harry Potter (my example) and imagination to which I said they were both concepts, and do not exist.

Simply speaking: The cutting board that is in front of me and the mouse that is sitting next to me do not become one object no matter how I think about it, no matter how I conceptualize it, even though I am able to come up with some weird concept about how they might be the same or different or whatever. In truth there is the computer mouse there and there is a cutting board there. Two objects. In truth. That’s it that’s it. You either except it or reject it. If you reject it then I have to say that you’re being hypocritical. You’re not being consistent with the philosophical ideas that you play with so far as language games and things like that.

Because we were talking about imaginary things I took the mouse (in the first sentence) to be a live mouse (cutting board … mouse … scavenging for food). But in reality Hack was talking a computer mouse (second usage) in which I proceed to think he is talking about the imaginary usage of language.

In truth he is talking about cutting board and a computer mouse. I am assuming – from context – that he uses a cutting board for a computer mouse pad (lol. correct me if I am wrong, again). This went on for me to be accused of lying (of which I am not). I may be guilty of misunderstanding his meaning (and Hack, guilty of unclear language (who would have thought he uses a cutting board for a mouse pad)) but I am not guilty of lying that I do not believe in unicorns.

The point I was trying to make with “there is a concept of unicorns” is that there is the word “unicorn” and there is a concept of “unicorn” but there isn’t a real material thing that is a unicorn.

This, I think, is a misconception of how symbols, concepts and existent things relate.

That is my approach: I start by stating what I understand to exist, and go on to explain why I think language (symbols and concepts) is the ground on which these mistakes stem.

17 thoughts on “Unicorns

  1. We all have pressures. I wasn’t trying to be obstinate. Seriously.

    Your comment on how I teach – I teach them patiently, because we are all fallible. And I am tolerant of fallibility, including my own.

    I am using this blog (and you as a sounding board) for my ideas. I appreciate you putting up with me. I appreciate the honesty that we seem to have.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m just really irritated today. So you’re being particularly more irritating to me than you would otherwise be. And my capacity today is really short. So I apologize.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Lol. Yes, and you’re right I only said mouse. And you couldn’t have known that I met a computer mouse until I started saying computer mouse. So yes. You are right. Context has a lot to do with things.

    Often when I’m trying to come up with an example I just start using objects that I see around me. For example I was standing at my desk and at the computer mouse right there and a little cutting board that I was eating cheese and crackers off of was right next to it. And my point is over and over again is that when I say cutting board you know what I mean. And when I say mouse, you know what I mean, yes within context, but that’s beside the point. Because given the context you still know what I mean. And when I say context you know what I mean.

    Because there is Nothing outside of discourse. I suppose I am attempting to find out whether if you agree with this statement and it’s entirety. Or if you just say it because it sounds good in the moment, but you really have other ideas about what might exist.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Explain to me please, is the cutting board a cutting board being used as a mousepad? You are confusing me. Did you not use “cutting board and mouse” in the same sentence?

    And have I not ask you for clarification (twice) in the post?


  5. Well, you’re being offensive by writing a post where you obviously are being thoughtless. It’s one thing if you’re you’re trying to teach people that maybe don’t understand language and context and postmodern and saucer and all those linguistic people. It’s another thing to take a colleague and throw him under the bus is if he’s an idiot.

    I’m sorry. Here I am still nine replies later rambling nonsense into the comments. Lol.


  6. …. I mean think about it. Do you really think that I am arguing against language? Against the fact that things arise in context? Because, you’re portraying our argument is if I’m an ignorant fool. It’s one thing if you’re using it as an example to teach other people. But that’s not how you’re portraying it in the post. You’re portraying it is if I have not already agreed with you in that manner. As if we already haven’t had that discussion and already come to common Ground about language in context and sign and signifier and all those things. I don’t know how many times I have to say to you: I agree with you. I agree with you.

    Honestly. Do you think I’m just saying that for some strategic philosophical purpose? Do you think I’m just lying because I’m ignorant?

    It is if we start to have an actual discussion and then you fall back and you go ha ha I’m just in fourth grade and you’re just a stupid grown-up. Or oh my gosh you’re such a child and let me show you how much more intelligent I am.

    I’m sorry. Your post is Offensive. I can’t believe that you would portray me and the light is if I’m stupid. As if I don’t already agree with you.

    Why don’t you start from the assumption that we already have the same basis of understanding. And that we are each developing different theories based upon that core foundation of understanding. Why don’t you give me that kind of respect in that kind of benefit of doubt?

    It’s so arrogant; it’s difficult for me to believe that you actually teach at a university or whatever. It’s fucking unbelievable. What are you teaching them?


  7. That post is offensive. Either you’re being obstinate or you’re being an asshole. Lol. It is if you’re like pretending you’re in first grade. Like you’re a little child playing a game of philosophy or something.


  8. Because obviously you haven’t read my responses because over and over again I’ve said that I agree with you. But this post that you just put makes it appear that I’m arguing with you. That I’m not agreeing with you and that I’m coming up with an alternate position. And that is not the case. So it’s obvious to me that you have not been reading my responses and thinking about them, considering them about what I’m really saying. So again I think it would be better if you just post something around a specific issue about your position. And then I’ll make a post about that same issue in commenting up on your post .


  9. Anyways, please don’t comment on this comment because I don’t want to get sucked down the rabbit hole of a multitude of commenting upon our threats and commenting upon our threads, because we’ve already discovered it doesn’t lead anywhere public. We don’t find any clarity and just going back-and-forth commenting upon our comments. Because for one, neither of us really read and then contemplate with the other person is saying because we’re already formulating a rebuttal to what we assume the other person saying. We don’t really think and consider these back-and-forth comments. So I think it would be better if you think about your particular position. And then make a post about it around a particular issue. And then I’ll read it and I’ll think about it and then I’ll post a post which is really a response to your post. I think that’s better than going back-and-forth on this comment threads.


  10. There are things to work out.

    Don’t keep it formal.

    Let it flow like the conversations we’ve been having.

    The only guidelines are:
    – be civil
    – edit only spelling/grammatical errors (never change meaning)
    – use posts to talk, not comments


  11. I don’t think it’s good to post a post about how you’re seeing how the argument goes. Because I’ve already told you that I agree with all your arguments. So for you to put it in the contacts as if we’re in a debate over that particular issue I think again is a misrepresentation of what’s actually occurring

    Because, for example, the reason why I’m saying unicorns exist is because you know exactly what I mean by unicorns. But then you go on to contextualize what the concept of a unicorn is. Which I don’t doubt; I’m not arguing against your ability to conceptualize things. I am asking into what actually a concept is. And hints whether or not a unicorn exists or doesn’t exist by whether or not we can conceive such a things in various ways is not really the issue that I’m talking about. Because your assumption is is that I’m having concepts. But I’m actually bringing into question what a concept is in itself .


  12. Lol. So much auto correct.

    I guess we’ll figure out how really we’re going to do this. Because it doesn’t make sense to me for you to post a post, and then me to put comments under it, because we’re going to get lost in a multitude of threads again. I think it’s better if you post a post about what you’re saying. And then I’ll post another post which is a comment to that particular post. Because then I can go on with a longer philosophical discussion about what is occurring there. And yet not get wound up in a tangle of comment threads


  13. I don’t think that’s a really good place to start because it’s filled with assumptions. And the only way that I would be able to say anything about it would be be go on some rambling long ass explanation and philosophical argument. Which I don’t really want to do. I would rather stay with the small things. Because your post right here is filled with a multitude of assumptions that don’t really represent what I’m saying.

    Because like I’ve sent you many times: I agree with you.

    So you would have to put that post in the context of saying first that I agree with you and then post your post and then have my comment about what is actually going on.

    Because your post makes it appear as if we’re in a bait about whether unicorns exist. But I’m actually using unicorns and it has an example of what the two routes mean. Not to whether unicorns exist or don’t exist.

    Because my question would be patchouly be back to you: do concepts exist? Does the imagination exist?

    Your post here is filled with me asking whether or not so many things exist.

    So I think this post miss represents our conversation


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s