Why not start from the idea that talking to ourselves is already talking to an other, that the self does not coincide with itself? This will avoid the Cartesian trap of solipsism. — Joshs

I figured you'd go with: speech happens (somewhere in the motor cortex?) and when we reflect on this, we frame it as a conversation with a speaker and a listener. Posing and opposing things gives things meaning, right?

The only thing that should be done are things which are good. Good things should be done. — Leftist

In the OP you were going by moral nihilism (there are no true moral claims). Now you're defining good as what should be done. @Metaphysician Undercover, isn't that Aristotelian?

Aristotle also spoke of necessary evils, like slavery. You could argue that torture is sometimes a necessary evil (although the CIA disagrees), but that just means it's both good and bad.

Whoever our interlocutor is, just by virtue of being a fellow conversationalist -- well, if we spoke for them, they'd no longer be in the conversation. — Moliere

You're saying that it's built into the concept of communication that our utterances must be distinct.

And yet we can express the same proposition.

As many as theorized, there's a good possibility Russia has reached its strategic goals (land access to Crimea) and if that is the case, they are likely looking to end the conflict sooner rather than later. Giving up Kherson may very well be the price. — Tzeentch

They were obviously trying to take Kiev, and we now know that Putin was trying to stamp out the Ukrainian identity in Kherson. Putin is without a doubt, the scum of the earth. He's a turd on top of a mountain of slimy poop. He's... well, I'm sure you agree. He sucks.

Folk suppose that since there are things that are done rather than said, there must be something that is unsayable. — Banno

It could be that saying is also a thing that is done, as when you point to the gavagai.

Maybe nothing is ever specified. There are no references, so the OP presents a false dilemma.

But then what's the meaning of what I just said? What use is it supposed to have? Nah, we do specify and refer.

I think the bias against the ineffable jives with my theory about what propositions are: that they're what we take as the world's voice, it's what the world answers in response to our questions. Is the world partially mute? If so, why?

Perhaps giving up Kherson, the potential springboard for future offensive operations towards Odessa, was a prerequisite to starting those negotiations. — Tzeentch

You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power.

Giving up ground for free with loud announcement is not a typical military action, regardless of what position these troops found themselves in, which is why it is likely the town was abandoned under loud announcement for other reasons - a deal potentially, which is given some credit due to Zelensky talking about "the end of the war" shortly after the retreat from Kherson, — Tzeentch

It's just far fetched that the Russians would divest themselves of their assets prior to official negotiations.

I hope you'll agree that a complete collapse of the Russian lines is not in the cards any time soon, so why would he be saying this, if there wasn't some deal made? — Tzeentch

I don't know.

cannot imagine that Russia would give up Kherson freely, — Tzeentch

They didn't. They were forced to give it up.

Agreed. I just tried to have him express his opinion clearly. He's too much of a chicken for that, apparently. — Olivier5

None of the Russophiles want to come out and say it. I'm not sure why.

Well, you just lost an excellent occasion to clarify your position. — Olivier5

I think his position is pretty clear. He's saddened that Russia is struggling right now. *shrug*

I say this to make Democrats sad, by telling them that the reason they won the mid-terms is because the Republicans don't care because they didn't matter. They already won something much bigger. — Hanover

Congress still makes the laws, though

What point?

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. Insinuations that it's just a kleptocratic regional power are taken as hostile language.

I think I understand that.

I'm guessing the Taiwan situation plays a role. — jorndoe

I don't know. I think the US and China are more economically integrated than the US and Russia were. There are good reasons on both sides for peaceful negotiations about Taiwan.

Such a statement is meaningless, because Russia isn't seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons yet. If, after further escalation / mobilization by Russia NATO chooses to intervene with boots on the ground, nuclear weapons use will definitely be on the table, and what China thinks of it won't play a role anymore at that point. — Tzeentch

I believe you're misdiagnosing the situation.

But as suggested to Frank, that just means that it is not something to be said, but something to be done. It's not a something that remains unsaid! — Banno

:up:

Russia is escalating this war however much it needs, and will continue to do so up until the point of nuclear war. — Tzeentch

Xi nixed the nuclear option.

But can one put into words how one rides a bike or play guitar? Tacit knowledge is a candidate for the ineffable. — Banno

Even if we could, that wouldn't convey to the naive how to ride or play. Some things you have to learn on your own.

:up:

The one apparently advocated by Wittgenstein was to simply remain silent about the ineffable — Banno

Was it? Or was he warning that language is sometimes misused?

Was there an argument that shows that speech never falls short of expressing what we know?

Those other articles aren't paywalled, you should be able to see them. — Manuel

But weren't they about Poland?

I don't have a wsj subscription. :sad:

There were two articles about Poland?

What I heard was that the US would sends troops along with other NATO member countries to fight inside Ukraine, if Russia proceeds with the expected escalation coming winter — Manuel

Where did you hear this?

Okay, so discussion is over then, I guess. — _db

I really don't think there's a point. And randomly, this is why I think progressives are breaking up the Democratic party. They're mirroring the extreme positions of Trump supporters. The will of the people disintegrates.

A phenomenological take on reality: it's a product of limitations, or resistance to potential. Think about what reality would become for you if you won the Powerball jackpot. Or if you were homeless with nothing.

Reality includes what you think of as possible.

The White House has stated that its position on this conflict is that by supplying Ukraine with a seemingly-inexhaustable supply of military aide, it will bring about peace in Ukraine. War is peace. — _db

On the one hand, you recognize that abandoning Ukraine is not the best way to help Ukrainians. On the other, you condemn the White House for supplying aid to Ukraine.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify this because I suspect that you'll just continue waltzing sideways instead of discussing the issue.

What weakening Russia means is less important imo than the consequences of doing so, e.g. thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians. — _db

As if the US is doing this single handedly. Utter bullshit.

Notably, other countries have kept pressing for peace, or at least cease-fires. Why hasn't the US? — _db

And your theory is?

Why? — _db

Because implicit in Isaac's message is that the West should abandon Ukrainians because that would save Ukrainian lives.

I've had it with that idiotic nonsense and thought you knew better.

What a disgusting sentiment. :vomit:

Now consider what makes "Frodo went to Mordor" true, if it is: there is a sentence or sentences in the book written by Tolkien which say or imply that Frodo went to Mordor. Whether those sentences are part of the book determines its truth-value, if it has one, not the sequential locations of any person. — Srap Tasmaner

LOTR is more than sentences. It's a story that's part of the culture. It's an abstract object, like the components of math.

But yes, there's a difference between fictional characters and actual (real) people. Still, to understand what someone means by "real," you have to look at the way they're using the word.

Real" is mostly an honorific according to Chomsky.
— frank

Which is curious given his certainty about truth - right and wrong - in geopolitics. — Tom Storm

He doesn't mean that the world isn't real. He just meant that we usually use the word to render a thing special in some way. Like the "real power behind the throne."

As someone who finds this discussion somewhat lifeless, can you tell me why this matters? What are the practical consequences or implications of 'real' being used in these different ways? — Tom Storm

Since I tend to peddle propositions at every turn, it's about why we can't do without them.

My issue with some of this is we are often not in a position to know what is real about the real. With Washington, for instance, we have that well known 'chopping down of the cherry tree' story, which turns out to be as fictional as Frodo going to Mordor. How far does 'real' get us? — Tom Storm

"Real" is mostly an honorific according to Chomsky. We're focusing more on stuff in the vicinity of Cartesian doubt. Because we're bored and we're trying to distract ourselves from the brilliant autumn light shining through the golden maple leaves.

No, I'm saying that the form of the proposition expressed by "Frodo went to Mordor" is different from the form of the proposition expressed by "George Washington crossed the Delaware." — Srap Tasmaner

Suzie is discussing whether Frodo was a character in a dream that Gandalf had. She says,

"No, he was real."

You know from the context that she's talking about the framework of the story. If Suzie lives in an institution and hallucinates frequently, and says to her doctor of Frodo,

"No, he was real."

We have two different propositions being expressed by different utterances of the same sentence. Again, why we can't use sentences as truthbearers.

You would somehow distinguish between a person who read LOTR as a novel, and someone who thought it was true. What is that distinction and how does it affect the truth-value of statements like "Frodo carried the ring to Mordor"? — Srap Tasmaner

If Bill points to the number "2", written on a dry erase board, and says, "That's a prime number", how do you know he's expressing the proposition that 2 is a prime number?

You have a magic ability to discern what proposition is being expressed in a certain context. Without context, you don't have a proposition. You just have a sentence.

Propositions are the primary truthbearers. Despite all efforts to make sentences do that job, they don't. The problems you're pointing to are the reason we can't use sentences as truthbearers.

so far as I observe, confusing the referent of "Frodo" in the real sense with the referent of "Frodo" in the Ryle sense. — bongo fury

"Frodo went to Mordor"

"George crossed the Delaware."

Both "Frodo" and "George" are expressions. They're both real in their respective frameworks, Frodo being a real Hobbit in LOTR, as opposed to a bad dream Gandalf had.

What makes me mad is that all the governments in the world are taking too late these solutions. — javi2541997

There's a lot of corruption.

I think people with those characteristics are worthy of seeking out and hearing their say on such core matters. Afterall that is leadership quality is it not? — Benj96

I don't know. I'm more interested in health than veganism, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the health of humans or of the world.

In the US, we need a government agency to start reorganizing the way we approach food. What we have is the result of industries that have profits on their minds instead of health.

So you go on my ignore list. :up:

He was just saying that the political entity, Brazil, has no indigenous people. The continent of South America does. No need to get offended.