Thanks for reading.

Note that the link is now down and perhaps the domain needs to be renewed — Leontiskos

Yes, I let the articles site lapse since nobody ever sent in a suitable article; there was only that one by me. Maybe I'll just re-publish it within this site somehow, although I no longer stand by it entirely: I think I may have made a couple of stupid mistakes of argumentation, and it's probably a bit shallow.

(Note that I've edited your post to remove the broken link)

:up:

Do your posts go to the "drafts" even after posting them? — javi2541997

They shouldn't.

I mean, when I post a comment in a discussion, it is also being kept in the drafts. I answered to Tom Storm in a discussion and curiously such reply went to the draft too. Like if I never posted it when I actually did. — javi2541997

In the first sentence here, you imply that this has happened a lot. Is this true, or did it just happen in the one instance you then describe?

Sounds like a glitch, to do with an intermittent and interrupted connection.

I'm enjoying it a lot. It's more New Wave than Golden Age, but it has a lot of the classic SF stuff like FTL travel and galactic empires.

No, it's my first, and I intend to read more of his work. I'll probably avoid Hogg though.

Nova by Samuel R. "Chip" Delany.

Thanks Russ :up:

I was willing to move on, but now that you’re arguing…

Within the text of yours that I quoted—text that is presented as yours and is at least partly or mostly yours—you did embed sentences and fragments of sentences that you copied from a book. That’s plagiarism. But it’s no problem if you make the quotations obvious in future.

:up:

Actually though…

I will be more careful in the future — RussellA

I hope this doesn’t mean you’re just going to plagiarize more skilfully. :wink:

Many philosophers believe that the first task is finding a theory of meaning in language. Given such a theory, they can then turn to the problems of philosophy. However, for Wittgenstein, whose first interest is in philosophy, it is this interest in philosophy that makes him then interested in language, but concludes that there is no theory of meaning in language that will enable the solving of philosophical problems. It is incorrect to say that Wittgenstein is an ordinary language philosopher in the sense that JL Austin is.

Wittgenstein urges throughout his later work that mistaking a grammatical claim for a philosophical one is a common source of philosophical confusion, Wittgenstein says that the philosophical problems that concern him are not empirical problems, but are problems solved by looking into and recognizing the workings of our language.

Wittgenstein often insists that he is not presenting a philosophical argument. In PI 109 he writes "We must do away with all explanation and description alone must take its place", whereby such descriptions get that purpose from philosophical problems.

For Wittgenstein, a standing source of philosophical confusion is the tendency to transpose a remark concerning the grammar of an expression into a substantive claim about the things referred to in the expression. For example, from PI 246 is the sentence “Only I can know that I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it”. This is clearly false, as that on many occasions we can know full well that someone else is in pain, there is no surmising about it. The grammatical difference between the first person "I have a pain" and the third person "he has a pain" wrongly becomes a substantive philosophical problem

For Wittgenstein the first step is to acknowledge the confusion between statements of grammatical fact and the use of them in the search for substantive philosophical meaning. — RussellA

Please make it clear when you are quoting from a book.

Parking lot?

I’m not sure they sound English, even though they were.

So when I said that sometimes I feel that Cardiacs are too English, I meant something quite specific. An aesthetic shared by Cardiacs, XTC, Monty Python, Genesis, the Clash and the Carry On films.

:up:

Simple!

Imagine not being English and someone doesn’t understand you when you say you’re not English, and you’ll understand why people who are not English insist on not being referred to as English.

Scotland, England, and Wales are neighbouring countries, and together with Northern Ireland make up the United Kingdom.

Scotland, England, and Wales are on the island of Great Britain, also known as Britain.

England is the biggest country in Britain but is not synonymous with it, therefore “English” is not the same as “British”. To be English means to be from England, to be Scottish to be from Scotland.

Among Americans, Russians, and much of the rest of the world, English is used casually as a synonym for British, so if there are no Scottish or Welsh people around it’s probably acceptable.

And I’m not explaining it again.

:chin: — Noble Dust

I thought you were implying that I’m English.

I feel the same, although of course I'm not English — Noble Dust

I’m not English either, although I do have close connections.

I'm sure I've posted Oceansize many times here, but do you know them — Noble Dust

I think that was the band you posted a couple of years ago that seemed a bit too late nineties or early 2000s for my taste. I do like the bits that show the Cardiacs influence, and that Sleeping Dogs one is probably the best track I’ve heard from them, although I’m still not completely into the sound.

Have I posted Cardiacs before? I’ve been trying to like Cardiacs for years, and I’m pretty sure I’ll get there. Right now though, it seems to me they’re too English, too silly, too punk, too Monty Python. But I’m trying. I know there’s much more to them than that, musically, conceptually, lyrically, stylistically.

My way in to Cardiacs was the beautiful guitar solo in the song R.E.S. It happens at about 3 minutes and it’s incredible.

Then I grew to love the whole piece.

The model of pop music:

Nothing to do with King Crimson.

This really is a sermon on Marx. I love it. — Moliere

Good stuff.

This is quite something. Others may be aware of it already since it’s been used in some TV shows recently, but I found it just yesterday after it was mentioned in a video about linguistics.

It’s a song by Adriano Celentano and it’s designed to sound the way that American English sounds to Italians, but it’s actually gibberish. I can make out “baby” and “alright” but otherwise the words are invented, in a phonetic impersonation of English as it sounds in rock n roll. It actually does sound like a real American song.

And unlike many novelty songs, I actually like it.

Or rather, can only be known to apply to phenomena.

Plurality is a category and can only apply to phenomena, so...

I meant to say that isn't he making an assumption that things in themselves, are plural? The fact that he is referring to plurality by speaking of "things" adds individuation, which is an additional attribution to the general idea of the "thing-it-itself". — Manuel

This was one of Schopenhauer's criticisms of Kant.

:up:

In British English it’s only very mildly insulting. You got off lightly :wink:

Don’t be a pillock. I was very clear about what I was responding to. I even bolded the crucial line.

colour perception is not just cultural — RussellA

That seems fairly obvious. I was just correcting your anglocentric assumptions.

On the one hand, a wavelength of 420nm is a different colour to a wavelength of 470nm, but on the other hand, even though we can distinguish them, we perceive them both as the single colour blue. — RussellA

Note that this is cultural. Russians have no word for blue*. Light and dark blue, goluboy and siniy, are seen as different colours, as different as red and orange.

*The word you get if you Google Translate it corresponds only to dark blue, i.e., it is untranslatable into Russian.

we should discuss why this was never put in The Lounge — javi2541997

It’s in the category “Politics and Current Affairs” and it fits perfectly in it.

If you have more complaints about staff decisions, there’s a category for that too, called “Feedback”.

This thread could in theory lead to a discussion about what grammar is. I come from linguistics, and I've often felt confused about how philosophers use the term grammar. It sometimes feels like philosophers think grammar is the structure of thought, when it's just the structure of language.

"Jack-in-the-box" and where the plural goes is actually a pretty good example. People here keep talking about Jacks and Boxes, but the grammatical structure does suggest you tag the -s onto Jack. — Dawnstorm

The discussion here about "jack-in-the-box" is mostly humorous, but it does show that grammar and thought needn't be the same. — Dawnstorm

A valiant attempt, which I appreciate. Perhaps if I’d left this discussion on the main page, your post would have produced an interesting discussion.

Perfectly good word there, fine example of where to put the S — Sir2u

So what?

I was genuinely open to persuasion, but since you characteristically responded obnoxiously, to the Lounge it goes.

Gins and tonic, passersby, etc. This is barely even linguistics, and I'm not sure why it's been put in philosophy of language.

Can anyone tell me why this shouldn't be put in the Lounge?

Who was it who said...

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; tiny minds discuss grammar.