Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
 Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Class Forums - Spring 2010
 PHIL 300-003 - Language, Truth, and Logic
 Words as a Substitute for Reality		  Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Matt Lefevre
Fledgling

9 Posts
Posted - Apr 09 2010 :  03:52:41 AM  Show Profile
I was watching TV when I heard an interesting remark: "Barack Obama is trying to use words as a substitute for reality." Although I don't really care much for politics, the quotation got me thinking.

How exactly does one substitute words for reality? Is it because Obama is a powerful, charismatic speaker that he can be thought of as doing this? Or is it because "all he does is talk."

[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]

Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin

1374 Posts
Posted - Apr 09 2010 :  09:15:28 AM  Show Profile
I think your second guess is likely to be closer to the mark. Perhaps what was meant was the familiar: "He's all talk and no action." Yet another possibility, I suppose, is that what was meant is that he's trying to obscure reality -- cover it up -- with something like a fog of words. Or even that he's trying to blind us to reality by convincing us of "his" reality which is nothing but a tissue of fine phrases, etc. Of course now we might be getting back to something like your first guess. But you're right: that is a really interesting remark.
Go to Top of Page

Joseph Haag
Moderator

172 Posts
Posted - Apr 09 2010 :  4:36:11 PM  Show Profile
Whoever this was that you were listening to was trying to say that Obama is lying. To substitute a word for reality implies to substitute that which is real for that which is simply a word. It implies that the word be an empty symbol which does not indicate or point to anything in reality. It implies that accordance between matter and logos be not even possible because the word gestures to that which does not exist. In that case, it is a symbol which reflects on itself, which simply indicates itself. In other words, its nonsense! And to be frank, isn't it always the case that politcians are speaking nonsense/telling lies!
Edited by - Joseph Haag on Apr 11 2010 11:43:58 AM
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Philosophy | University of Northern Colorado © 2004 tkt Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.12 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000