is squeak really object oriented ?
Christian.Hofer at gmx.de
Fri May 23 10:05:43 UTC 2003
> the point: you and i both know that there is something which cannot be
> expressed by text (e.g. pictures) - so i have proved that there exists
> something which cannot be named by writing it in textual form.
if you just read the first chapters of Hegel, Phaenomenologie des Geistes...
(I don't know the English title.)
Or read: G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society
Or: Ch. S. Peirce, J. Piaget, J. F. Searle, C. Levi-Strauss etc.
The questions you ask have been answered a long time ago by philosophers.
You are victim of positivist thinking: there is no such thing as a physical
reality of objects. Objects are the abstractions we make to get a grasp of
physical reality. The medium of making abstractions is language - this is why we
can make abstractions while animals don't.
The "objective reality" (can one say it like that in English?) is the
reality of action. You experience the world by acting in it. You learn the rules of
the world by that: the physical as well as the social rules. This is the
task every child has to do: learn that it is rules which constrain us, but which
on the other hand are the medium to express ourselves (i.e. the real world
is what you get when you abstract from the immediate sensual experience).
If we communicate about pictures, about feelings etc. we use language. This
is the only way to express ourselves, this is the only way to get a grasp of
the immediate experience of reality (which has - in terms of Hegel - no
reality by itself).
There is a huge difference between "sense" as meaning and "sense" as sensual
experience. The first is abstract, the second is concrete. It is the first
that constitutes social reality (and one of its abstractions: physical
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
More information about the Squeak-dev