It would surprise me if you're right, but then I'm a little out of touch.

Would poor voter turn out help Trump or Biden?

Sometimes when someone tells me that I apologize. (A serious joke.) — Fooloso4

:up:

I don't know what might stand as an orthodox reading today but, to quote Marx:

Whatever it is I'm against it
(Groucho) — Fooloso4

:razz: I don't know how philosophers are seeing it today either. I think of the orthodox reading as having come from Cambridge in 1927 or something.

What I like about your view is that it makes me think. My own view is like just analyzing the chessboard. Yours is more like actually playing the game. Very different approaches.

Well, something along those lines happens when we say that little Jenny can count. — Banno

:up:

Hmm. What is a pattern, if not some sort of rule-following? OR perhaps, there are two ways of showing that you understand a pattern - by setting it out explicitly in words, and by continuing it.

So here's the problem. Consider "101010..."

Someone says "you are writing a one followed by a zero, and you intend us to understand this as continuing in perpetuity"

Someone else says "The complete pattern is "101010010101", a symmetrical placement of one's and zero's".

A third person says "The series continues as "101010202020303030..." and so on, up to "...909090" and then finishes".

Our evidence, "101010...", is compatible with all of these, and much more besides.

It's not the absence of rules that is puzzling, it's their abundance. — Banno

Right. Kripke isn't saying there's no such thing as rules.

Yes, explicit rules are in a way post hoc. — Banno

I guess the question is whether rule following is something we sort of stamp onto certain kinds of events?

Of course, the sceptic might object to S's reliance on non-demonstrative evidence or on memory beliefs in particular. But this kind of objection will give rise to a sterile form of scepticism, as one of the ground rules for any useful exchange between the sceptic and the non-sceptic is that justifying empirical evidence need not be demonstrative evidence. Insisting on such evidence, if only for the sake of argument, S might challenge the sceptic by asking what he means, or intends, by 'quus'. Further, the present sort of objection certainly will not provide us with a new form of philosophical scepticism; at most it will provide a traditional kind of epistemological scepticism to which recent philosophical literature provides some plausible replies. — Paul Moser and Kevin Flannery, Kripke and Wittgenstein: Intention without Paradox, pp. 311-12

It's not clear from this passage that the authors have ever heard of the private language argument.

Food for thought. Your take is a little unorthodox, but that's fine.

Since my purpose was to focus on normativity, I'd say the take away is this:

Crito says that the foundation of normativity is the well-being of human social groups. So there's an element of selfishness to it, but it's not what I want. It's what we need to survive.

Do you give your life that your city might live? According to Lincoln, yes, you do.

I think the law has it backwards. There would be no human nomos, that is, not simply laws and statutes, but custom or convention or norms, without men. Prior to cities there were families and tribes. If whatever the head or chief ruled was law then the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of men collapses.

Plato recognized the conflicting demands of the family and the city. This is why in the Republic the just city abolishes the family by hiding who one's biological parents and children are.

The distinction between just and unjust laws raises the problem of the source or standard of justice. The speech of the law, however, does not make such a distinction.

The ancient Greeks distinguished between nature (physis) and convention (nomos). If, along with the Stoics, we accept the claim that man is the rational animal, then to live according to nature is to live according to reason not according to conventions or norms. — Fooloso4

We could definitely argue against the speech the Law has given, but it's clear within the context of this dialog that Socrates does accept what the law has said:

So take note, dear friend Crito. These are the words I seem to be hearing, just as the frenzied dancers seem to be hearing the pipes, and the very sound of these words is reverberating within me, and makes me incapable of hearing anything else. Mark my words then. If you say anything contrary to the views I now hold, you will speak in vain. Nevertheless, if you think it will achieve anything, speak.

Crito: No, Socrates, I have nothing to say.

Soc: 54E Well then, Crito, let it be, and let’s act accordingly, since this is the way god leads us. — Horan translation

If there was a contract then what was the obligation on the side of the law? For his whole adult life Socrates practiced what he is now forbidden to do. Did the city break the contract? When the Thirty briefly came to power was there a contract agreed to or did the new law simply impose its power? — Fooloso4

In modern times we tend to think of the social contract as between citizens. We don't personify the Law the way Socrates has. As the IEP explains in its essay on the social contract, the binding elements of the contract show up in Crito in that the citizen stayed when they could have left:

In the early Platonic dialogue, Crito, Socrates makes a compelling argument as to why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city. He personifies the Laws of Athens, and, speaking in their voice, explains that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the Laws because they have made his entire way of life, and even the fact of his very existence, possible. They made it possible for his mother and father to marry, and therefore to have legitimate children, including himself. Having been born, the city of Athens, through its laws, then required that his father care for and educate him. Socrates’ life and the way in which that life has flourished in Athens are each dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however, this relationship between citizens and the Laws of the city are not coerced. Citizens, once they have grown up, and have seen how the city conducts itself, can choose whether to leave, taking their property with them, or stay. Staying implies an agreement to abide by the Laws and accept the punishments that they mete out. And, having made an agreement that is itself just, Socrates asserts that he must keep to this agreement that he has made and obey the Laws, in this case, by staying and accepting the death penalty. Importantly, the contract described by Socrates is an implicit one: it is implied by his choice to stay in Athens, even though he is free to leave. — IEP

Unless we are by nature slaves to the state and not free, then there must be limits to the demands of the state. If there is to be a social contract then one side cannot hold all the power. — Fooloso4

True.

Justice (dike) is more important than law nomos). Law is in the service of justice, but they can be in conflict. Consider, for example, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens. There can be unjust laws and unjust administration of the law. The speech of the law glosses over this problem. — Fooloso4

Absolutely. But the speech Law has been giving (through Socrates) puts Law as the source of both Athens and Socrates himself. Since there can be no justice without an Athens or citizens, Law trumps justice in this case. The Law says that even if it is unjust, the citizens should still bow to it. It says the citizens had a chance to influence the law, and now they must submit to it for the sake of the city.

It's hard not to see this as proto-social-contract theory. Society is the foundation of your existence, so you owe it obedience. And this is linked in some ways to the Stoic view that normativity is built into nature itself. The tree that grows toward the light thrives. The citizen who supports the Law (in a democracy) will thrive. It should be in your nature to support that which gives you life.

But does the law overstate its case? — Fooloso4

I'm not really interested in sorting out who's right or wrong here. It's just opposing views orbiting the idea of normativity.

I just saw a hawk fly up and land. A crow began sounding an alarm. I've been seeing that since childhood. It's meaningful to me, not because anyone involved is consciously following rules, but because it's following a well worn pattern, and I have an innate need to make sense of events.

Could it be that this is the same thing that's happening with language use? Events transpire, people make noises, and I need to make sense of it. So you don't have to know what rule you were following when you spoke. There doesn't have to have been any rule at all. Your speech took place, and now we both receive it and go to work fitting it in with the rest of what we know. And then this becomes cyclical, so there's an expectation that when you speak, someone will try to make sense of it.

It's like a whirlpool.

I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol:

You said it brother, there is no greater feeling of freedom than doing your duty out in the wilderness. — Merkwurdichliebe

no doubt

Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control. — Merkwurdichliebe

They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time.

Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly.

There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating. — Merkwurdichliebe

Me too. When I'm in the woods something unwinds inside me that I didn't even know was up tight.

Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city? — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists? I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness.

Definitely when it comes to invountary confinement. I know I wouldn’t thrive in a prison cell. — Merkwurdichliebe

Or a nuclear sub probably. They go out for six months straight sometimes.

But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia.

Never, and if mandated by PTB, I would resist to the death. Underground cities are a bad omen for humanity. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea.

Well, after you put it that way, I suppose not. But I would like to. — Merkwurdichliebe

Would you move to an underground city to reduce energy expenditure?

In 54 the Law refers to the weight of posterity as a reason to put justice above all else:

Socrates, heed us, we who reared you, and do not reckon children or life or anything else to be more important than justice, so that when you arrive in Hades, you will be able to say all this in your own defence to those who rule there. For even here, if you do this, it will not prove better, more just, or more holy, either for you or any of those who belong to you, nor will it be better when you arrive there. Rather, as matters stand, if you depart this world you depart 54C unjustly treated by your fellow men, and not by us, the laws. But if you escape, having returned injustice for injustice and evil for evil in such a disgraceful manner, contravening your own agreements and contracts with ourselves, and inflicting harm upon those whom you should harm least – yourself, your friends, your homeland and us — Horan translation

Thus, should the sceptic challenge that '(x)', for instance, might mean '(x<h)', S can readily reply, 'But that's not how I intended it'. — Paul Moser and Kevin Flannery, Kripke and Wittgenstein: Intention without Paradox

The issue is that S has a private language problem. Did the authors discuss that?

I'm not sure how that relates [that meaning is not internal] — Antony Nickles

Sorry, I just noticed this. I wouldn't make a case for meaning being internal because I don't really know what it means for meaning to have a location or be rooted in a specific place or realm. It's just an aspect of communication. The concept is two-sided: meaning, and meaningless. Maybe a third side would be Wittgenstein's "nonsense"?

Ok. I'm not sure how that relates [that meaning is not internal], but it all sounds good
— frank

Well, one point is we do not need intention; that it is only an issue when something is unexpected — Antony Nickles

Like when AI gives you a kick ass essay on the relationship between Kierkegaard and Regine? It was so good I saved it. That was slightly unexpected, I must say.

Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests. — Merkwurdichliebe

I just want to thank you for this comment. What with the beef industry giving out grants to California universities, the global oil and gas interests paying for US congressmen, and Monsanto funding the campaigns of local water quality checkers (this is a real thing, btw), it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever.

And also thank god for climate change click bait that makes me more aware of the price of that bubble couch I googled one time.

Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective. — Agree-to-Disagree

Spoken like a true conservative (in the best sense of the word). But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. ..

Ok. I'm not sure how that relates, but it all sounds good.

Well, what I am saying is not an “answer”, nor is it one of any, say, foundations, or however “form of life” is thought to play a part. — Antony Nickles

I agree. We were talking about meaning as it relates to normativity. We noted that communication requires more than just using words and sentences correctly. We need intention.

Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.

But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk. — Mikie

To answer the point that sometimes we make things worse when we're trying to make improvements, all you have to say is: "Yes, we should really be cognizant of that. Good point."

No personal attacks necessary. :grin: :up:

We have the practices of obligation, asking a favor, duty, betrayal, insincerity, etc. which come into play between triggering a response and making a request; the differentiation between them is, we could say, part of the difference between an animal and a human. — Antony Nickles

So just form of life. That's as good an answer as any.

. But it is not a request; not because of the lack of something (magic, intention), but just that birds can’t meet the requirement of asking something of another (though the concept stretches when we look at some of their dances) because they cannot acknowledge (or ignore) the debt of it. — Antony Nickles

What do humans have that birds don't have, which allows them to "acknowledge the debt of it."?

Beware the homunculus problem, which is like sweeping something under a rug.

:up:

Show me a parrot that runs a peanut farm. Parrots do not participate in what Witti called the "form of life" in the way that farmers do. That is, there is more to the use of "peanut" than saying things - there is participating in growing, trading and selling, for a start.

Language games are not restricted only to language use. We are embedded in them in all our day-to-day activities. — Banno

I get that. That seems to suggest that there's a certain potential associated with humans, the potential to live out a form of life that involves meaning. That way a baby can know the meaning of "peanut" pretty much the same way a peanut farmer does. The farmer's associations with the word are vast and visceral compared to the baby's, but there is some common ground, as you say, arising from what we are. Do you agree with that? That the baby and farmer mean the same thing by "peanut"?

Yep. — Banno

So a computer or parrot always uses the word correctly without knowing what the word means. I guess that makes me wonder what the special human magic is that renders them knowing. Hmm.

Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them. — Janus

I don't know. The article said last summer's heat revealed the weakness of the grid. I guess you do need air-conditioning to manufacture the computer chips that the US won't export anymore. Assholes.

The point was: two coal burning power plants per week. Holy crap.

If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means." — Banno

On what grounds would you say they do know what it means? I mean, there's a possible world where a parrot uses "peanut" correctly every time. Does it know what "peanut" means? I'd say no.

In other words, the expectation that your fellow humans have linguistic capability is part of the assessment. That's part of the grounds.

I agree. But what do you think of the case Socrates' Law has made in Crito? Are you convinced or not?

I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.

None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.

I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us. — ChatteringMonkey

Well said. It's becoming the mainstream approach to think in terms of adaptation. It's just common sense at this point.

From 50 on into 52 the Law continues to speak and offers something along the lines of social contract theory.

I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic. — Agree-to-Disagree

I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she?

Who do you include in this description? — Paine

The description is of a revolutionary ideology, so people like Bolsheviks, Chinese and American communists, etc., and of course anyone who sympathizes with that crowd.

Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy? — Agree-to-Disagree

I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy.