They form the bedrock of how epistemic language gets off the ground in the first place. — Sam26

And maybe life itself leaps forward with unreasonable confidence.

Lumeria and Atlantis are probably the common denominator. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No doubt. :cool:

What is your favorite? — wonderer1

Another way is to say that we never have infinite resistance. There are always electrons bouncing around the terminals, so the resistance can be really large, practically infinite. But I think the best answer is that infinite resistance is a way of saying that no event is possible. If the resistance is infinite, there is no voltage, or potential.

What I really think is that potential, resistance, and kinetic are the results of pulling an event apart so that we better understand it. The three don't exist separately in the wild.

Perhaps better to think of it as "Ohm's rule of thumb". It is not a fundamental physical law, but more of a useful way of looking at emergent properties in some cases. — wonderer1

That's one way to address the problem. There are others.

How is this to the point re the environment or the physics of subatomic particles as culture or normativity? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, it doesn't help with that point. :grin:

Say you have a 12V battery with infinite resistance across the terminals. What's the current? If you say zero, then Ohms Law (which relates potential to kinetic) will tell you that you've multiplied zero times infinity and ended up with 12.

You could be possessed. You don't know.

Yes, that's a good point. This is why dispensing with final causality in biology is so difficult. But final causality also goes off the rails when we decide that what constitutes "a being" is arbitrary. Then we end up with attempts to explain the telos of rocks, which have no organic unity and are more bundles of external causes (obviously, they do act in the way all mobile being acts, but not in the way animals do). — Count Timothy von Icarus

True. Final cause is built into the meaning of life. I think people who want to look at the whole scene more holistically are experimenting philosophically. As you say, at the borders it starts to become confusing.

I think some of the more successful attempts to explain culture have followed on the doctrine of signs/semiotics, and the distinction between the umwelt and the human species-specific lebenswelt. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Culture is fascinating to me. I came across a book by a structuralist once (can't remember the name now). But he was talking about German religion specialists who discovered that Native Americans have symbolism that echoes what we call gnosticism. So they concluded that the origin of these images must be back more than 10,000 years. The structuralist point was that if you're going to push it that far back, just admit that you don't know where it's coming from, and that it could be arising independently due to structure.

To Josh's point, the eye has evolved independently around 50 times. Maybe a thing that life keeps doing in response to light is somehow structural? By the way, are you German?

I would add that environment-organism isn't a master-slave relationship. Living things have been altering their environments since life started. A successful biosphere bends its surroundings to its needs. What humans have done to the land surface of the planet is a drastic case of something that's pretty typical for living things.

Why do you think I'm mad? — BitconnectCarlos

I can tell.

I'm not angry. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes you are.

In targeting Hamas, civilians may die. Hamas operates from within civilian areas.

Gaza Ministry of Health makes zero distinction between civilians and Hamas. All we have is a number. — BitconnectCarlos

You see, the German government also believed that killing Jews was necessary for their survival. All the long list of governments who targeted Jews thought they had good reasons. I think one day you'll understand this. You're just too angry right now.

It is wrong to intentionally kill civilians. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel has intentionally killed civilians. You know that.

It is estimated 250,000 German children died in the Second World War. What's your excuse for that? How can you stomach that? — BitconnectCarlos

Killing civilians is wrong.

A bullet is a bullet whether it is fired by a 16 year old or a 30 year old. — BitconnectCarlos

Is that supposed to be an excuse for killing 14,000 children?

How many of those are Hamas? — BitconnectCarlos

Is that supposed to be an excuse for killing 14,000 children?

Hamas uses child soldiers — BitconnectCarlos

Is that supposed to be an excuse for killing 14,000 children?

Probably both. It's the Zionist agenda causing this, which is a Jewish thing. — Benkei

It's just that Judaism is this ancient living thing, made up of generations and generations of mothers and fathers who loved their own children, of grandmothers and grandfathers who blessed life. This is a religion that says this about God:

Your love, Lord, reaches to the heavens,
your faithfulness to the skies.
Your righteousness is like the highest mountains,
your justice like the great deep. — Psalms 36:5

It's hard to see how the behavior of Israel expresses the truth about Judaism.

Israel massacred 14000 children. Is this a permanent stain on the soul of Israel? Or Judaism?

Probably Israel.

I think Hume was the first to point out that there are things we're really confident about, but there's no empirical or logical justifications for it. Just sayin. :blush:

:up:

He does say:

7. My life shows that I know or am certain ...

he goes on to say:

8. The difference between the concept of 'knowing' and the concept of 'being certain' isn't of any
great importance at all, except where "I know" is meant to mean: I can't be wrong. — Fooloso4

Yes. But he's just very confident about the chair. There isn't any sort of justification for some metaphysical position.

Right. He's not getting metaphysical. It's along the lines of phenomenology.

Perhaps. What is it about a proposition that I misunderstood? — Fooloso4

They don't have to be uttered. Propositions are the primary truth bearers.

I think what Witt is saying there is that he demonstrates confidence in the existence of a certain chair by his behavior. Isn't that what you see there?

In the end the only thing that justifies it is not a proposition but finding the key on the table. — Fooloso4

The justification is that you found the key on the table. Everything that follows the word "that" is a proposition.

It is not only that propositional justification is not necessary but that a proposition cannot serve as justification. — Fooloso4

This sounds like you're misunderstanding what a proposition is.

We can agree that the statue is beautiful for you while I find it only curious. — Banno

Aesthetics starts with the way the world makes us feel. We're capable of discussing rules of aesthetics because we tend to feel the same about lines of grace and symmetry.

The reason our little notes on perception always center around red is that it's associated with a close to universal feeling: it's hot. Red comes from mind meeting world.

Yes. And you can say the statue is beautiful while knowing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Midgley's idea of differing areas of discourse. — Banno

If you squash them together you get directly opposing truths.

Well, yes. It is true that the sun rises in the East; and we say it is true that the ball is red. What is "really" doing there? Prioritising one narrative over another? — Banno

Yes. We have the common figures of speech and then the narratives that help out in the areas of science and engineering, plus aesthetics: the statue is beautiful, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess so. We say the sun rises in the east when it's really that the earth is spinning. We say the ball is red when redness is really a product of the brain.

Isn't that like: we may talk about the sun rising, but that's a fiction?

But you’re asking how do we tell left from right, in conjunction with an overlooked philosophical problem — Mww

Actually, I was looking for a discussion in which people explored the question for themselves. I first came across the issue in a book about jewelry design of all things. That led me to ponder it on my own. I take it the issue bores you.

The central importance of seeing. — Fooloso4

Seeing as in the visual sense? Or seeing as something the mind does, as in "I see your point."

Connections often obscure differences. When differences are taken into account the problem of what this guy is saying and what it means is compounded by what that guy is saying and what it means. — Fooloso4

Yea, it's a thing to take an issue and have Quine and Heidegger discuss it. You see the things they agree on, what the bone of contention amounts to. But I wasn't talking about that. With regard to this thread: what do you think is being overlooked about Wittgenstein's thoughts? Nothing?

Do you mean by referencing Hume? No, not as it stands. — Fooloso4

No, just in general. Is there something you think is being lost?

Why can't there be other ways of clearing up philosophical confusion other than describing how words are ordinarily use. — Richard B

I think the rudder of OC is that people could walk away from Moore's work thinking that because he used the word know, that his assertion is justifiable when it's not. In other words, he's heading off more mistaken metaphysics?

I agree with this, but as part of the web the work should not get lost. — Fooloso4

Do you think that's happening here? If so, what's getting lost? I'm asking.

Dissimilar orientation: left is over here, right is over there. That’s how I tell one from the other. — Mww

Are you laying something like an x-y axis over your visual field?

I don't worry as much about "interpreting texts" as you do. I'm all up in the web of ideas the work is a part of. Every philosopher pings off others in the vast forum of discussion we call philosophy.

I know it's your thing to put a philosopher's individual words under a microscope, but I wouldn't get anything out of that. And anyway, all I did was recall that Hume said you can't prove what you can't doubt. I think that actually does bear, if obliquely, on this particular work. I'm not overly concerned if you don't see that. :up:

So?