One of my philosophy professors recently made an assertion that roughly went:
"Human beings will never be able to define/understand terms like 'good', or 'rationality', or 'meaning' because our brains are able to understand only to the point of what is required to pass language onto the next generation."

So, our brains are not equipped to understand these concepts, only to carry them, only to hold them enough so that the concepts can survive and outlive us.

What do you guys think?

Well, I suppose that's true. The evidence for it is the fact that the definition of these terms are constantly changing. What was good and rational 300 years ago is not what it is today, etc..

"Meaning" has me a little befuddled, though. I'm not sure what's wrong with our definition of "meaning"...but I guess that's the point of his comment, huh? :D

One of my philosophy professors recently made an assertion that roughly went:
"Human beings will never be able to define/understand terms like 'good', or 'rationality', or 'meaning' because our brains are able to understand only to the point of what is required to pass language onto the next generation."

So, our brains are not equipped to understand these concepts, only to carry them, only to hold them enough so that the concepts can survive and outlive us.

What do you guys think?
I think some good questions for him would be 1) how does he know what other brains than his are capable of? 2) the way it is worded it sounds like those words have meanings, but we cannot understand them. Where do these meanings reside? How does he know these meanings exist? 3) How would he counter Wittgenstein's meaning is use idea in relation to these terms that are used regularly AND effectively by many people every day?
4) Is it possible that his conception of meaning is being dominated by a container conception of language - that ideas are 'in' words and sentences - and then these ideas are 'in' brains?

I'd disagree because the word "good" has many concrete examples which can be taught to others and understood by the majority of educated people living in a society. Parents are the first to explain what is "good" to their children then the educational system also reinforces what good represents in that society. As an example what is good to do would be not killing things around you, like animals, for no apparent reason.

I'd disagree because the word "good" has many concrete examples which can be taught to others and understood by the majority of educated people living in a society. Parents are the first to explain what is "good" to their children then the educational system also reinforces what good represents in that society. As an example what is good to do would be not killing things around you, like animals, for no apparent reason.

You're talking from today's point of view, though. Good had a different meaning 100 years ago, and will have a different meaning 100 years from now. It's all based on the situation.

Good is held in actions, not words.

One of my philosophy professors recently made an assertion that roughly went:
"Human beings will never be able to define/understand terms like 'good', or 'rationality', or 'meaning' because our brains are able to understand only to the point of what is required to pass language onto the next generation."

So, our brains are not equipped to understand these concepts, only to carry them, only to hold them enough so that the concepts can survive and outlive us.

What do you guys think?

He's wrong or he's not taught you guys about "flux" yet. All things change and not necessarily at the same rate.

I think some good questions for him would be 1) how does he know what other brains than his are capable of? 2) the way it is worded it sounds like those words have meanings, but we cannot understand them. Where do these meanings reside? How does he know these meanings exist? 3) How would he counter Wittgenstein's meaning is use idea in relation to these terms that are used regularly AND effectively by many people every day?
4) Is it possible that his conception of meaning is being dominated by a container conception of language - that ideas are 'in' words and sentences - and then these ideas are 'in' brains?

I have to say, in using the words "meaning", "good" and "rationality" I was just trying to come up with what I believed were examples of the sort of words he was referring to: high-level words. I think that he would say that these words are used and understood, but only in a rudimentary way.

When someone says that Ms. Ponkdawonk was being rational, I understand it to mean something like, "Ms. Ponkdawonk did whatever she did for a sensible, smart, calculated reason." This is vague, but this is all the understanding I need to pass the word "rational" and my rudimentary understanding of it along to the next sap.

So yeah, he may not have used the word, "meaning" I was just using the word to give you the gist of this argument. See, the gist. What is "the gist"? All the rudimentary understanding you need. Apologies for not answering all of your points directly and individually. I am not familiar with Wittgenstein.

He's wrong or he's not taught you guys about "flux" yet. All things change and not necessarily at the same rate.

What would be changing in this case? Our ability to understand? The abstractness of the words?
I don't mean this inflammatorily, I'm actually just asking.

I think he was looking for a period of reflection on what he said and then a challenge. His statement implies that these words, created by us, have a meaning beyond us. Does that seem reasonable. Are we now crediting abstract entities of our making as having emergent properties invisible to us. I would call that nonsense - and I know exactly what that means.

Well from that one sentence(did he say anything else? - who were you studing at the time) -- he seems to be stuck in enlightenment thinking regarding absolutes in "born good", or "learning good", rather than 19th century and 20th century thinking that realizes what is good and moral and even how it is defined, can change over time.

Well, I'm not sure what he would say. At the time he was inexplicably lecturing on the biology of language, the evolution of language, in my Philosophy in Literature class. I've heard from others that he considers himself a logician rather than a philosopher, which sounds to me like those (I hope I have this right) logical positivists earlier in the last century.
And, since he isn't here, let's say I was making this assertion [without understanding it(which is ironic)] and that I held that the rudimentary meanings of these words (which I am claiming is all that we have) is dependent on the way that we humans use them and only have the meanings that we confer upon them in group understanding.

I guess it's beyond me. From what I gather, you should probably challenge him with people like Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Martin Luther himself also while your at it, or a host of other passive revolutionaries whom overturned the previous "Good", "Rational", order with a new one that was previously considered "Bad" or destructive.

So perhaps most people are not smart enough or don't have the right kind of brain to define or understand what is good or meaningful at the time, but some can.

I have to say, in using the words "meaning", "good" and "rationality" I was just trying to come up with what I believed were examples of the sort of words he was referring to: high-level words. I think that he would say that these words are used and understood, but only in a rudimentary way.
Still I think asking him how he knows that people do not understand what the words mean is a valid question. How did he determine it? What would a good test be? Does he know what they mean? If yes, can he demonstrate his knowledge of their meaning in a way that other people cannot? (see if you can get a demonstration of one).

Ophiolite, hopefully, is right. I hope he was being provocative, rather than speaking from on high and giving you some, fairly useless, information. If he meant to instigate some chewing over of ideas on your parts, that's great.

What I meant with the container idea is that it is common to think of words as containers for meaning. But some philosophers - and anthropologists and...etc. - see words not as containers but more as tools. If people use a word like 'rational' as in your example and the tool works, the other person begins to orient themselves toward Ms. Ponkdawonk as if she is grounded - in this specific case or in general - then the word has been effective. Good tool use, even if that person would have a hard time defining the word in a way that would satisfy your teacher.

We are so used to thinking meaning is 'inside' words and sentences, that it seems natural to demand definitions, to open up, surgically, the word in question and see what is in there. Or to show

see, you don't know how to open up that word and pull out the meaning.

But that is a limited and actually rather strange way to look at language.

Ofcourse you can explain it with meaning to even minute details and beyond. Good is a subjective term that can be applied subjectively according to the individual perception. What kind of philosophical problem is that?, this is childs play how about a real philosophical question like how existence exists? or what empty space is?. or what consciousness really is?.

Good is sujective and people usualy think things are good if it helps them in some way or effects them in a positive way, like winning the lottery is good when you see the draw, Like breaking an olympic record is good when you cross the finish line. Like surviving another day is good when you get shot 5 times and live without serious harm with good luck.

The mystical philosophy of "good" does not change its a simple word with a simple meaning, the things we see as good change and are subjective to the individual or group of a given era in time. As civilization evolves and advances so do our morals and ethics transform, personaly I think our morals are changing for the better, each century that goes by we are turning more kind and aware of good and evil. Yes people love to complain about how bad things are, but comparing the average modern citizen to an average citizen 4000 years ago, I would say we have a more kind heart now. Some people are still savage but thats life everyone can't be the same.


peace.

The average modern advanced person would not want to kill a 5 year old little girl for no reason because it is bad, (opposite to good). It is almost a sixth sense 'human morality', more responsive and raw than pre-meditated planned out thought process.



peace.

The average modern advanced person would not want to kill a 5 year old little girl for no reason because it is bad,

Today, in the Western World, yeah. But elsewhere? I doubt it. It's nothing like a sixth sense. What if it was the kid of your rival? What if killing her would make a competitor leave the area? Yeah, it would happen.