When that is transposed to the domain of philosophy it is not only ‘scientism’ that results. That is what I think that TLP passage is driving at. — Wayfarer

It's pretty clear he is talking about treating the laws of nature as logical necessities in that section.

So I am not sure that the context supports your interpretation. — Banno

It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.

The experience that we need in order to understand logic is not that something or other is the state of things, but that something is: that, however, is not experience.

To say 'I wonder at such and such being the case' has only sense if I can imagine it not to be the case. In this sense one can wonder at the existence of, say, a house when one sees it and has not visited it for a long time and has imagined that it had been pulled down in the meantime. But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.
...
At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. So people stop short at natural laws as at something unassailable, as did the ancients at God and Fate. And they both are right and wrong.

In a manner of speaking, cognition remains embedded in discourse. But in more complex societies, cognition is lifted out of discourse, allowing the perception of the social structure within which it was constituted. Cognition is disembedded from discourse and reconstituted symbolically, then becoming re-embedded within the constraints of the symbol system by which it functions. Thus, elaborated code is seen as emerging out of restricted code as social structure becomes more complex and lowers the shared level of presuppositionality amongst speakers. This transformation occurs in tandem with societal complexification.

Hegel posits (since concepts and judgments are kinds of “doings”) that language originally acquires meaning and content-fulness in social practices. Only later do we make the judgments implicit in antecedent actions something explicit in language...

The social and pragmatic nature of semantic content is related to Wittgenstein’s argument about the impossibility of a “private language”, as well as the pragmatist notion of “meaning as use” rather than “meaning as reference,” as in the case of a semantic sign/signifer relation, or the idea that “dog” has some correspondence with the external world, eg. “dogness”. Reference theories of meaning tend to lead, due to their implicit Cartesianism, to skepticism about meaning (eg. semiotic deconstruction) or bullet biting about ideas having external reality (eg. Platonism). In the pragmatist interpretation, in contrast, if I say “It is raining outside” that entitles you to say “I shall get my umbrella” in our language game. Those explicit / discursive articulations are only meaningful because there are a set of “doings” behind them with pragmatic force and inferential implications.

The experience that we need in order to understand logic is not that something or other is the state of things, but that something is: that, however, is not experience.

It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.

When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.
The riddle does not exist.

If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.

To say 'I wonder at such and such being the case' has only sense if I can imagine it not to be the case. In this sense one can wonder at the existence of, say, a house when one sees it and has not visited it for a long time and has imagined that it had been pulled down in the meantime. But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.

... what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest.

I am my world. — Witt

The central characteristic of elementary functions is that they are totally and directly determined by stimulation from the environment. For higher functions, the central feature is self-generated stimulation, that is, the creation and use of artificial stimuli which become the immediate causes of behavior
...
The inclusion of a sign in one or other behavioral process ... reforms the whole structure of the psychological operation as the inclusion of a tool reforms the whole structure of a labor operation
...
The origin of all, specifically human, higher psychological processes, therefore, cannot be found in the mind or brain of an individual person but rather should be sought in the social 'extracerebral' sign systems a culture provides.
...
the two results which seem the most interesting to me are, first, the time that Darwin needed to become aware of ideas which were already implicit in his thought, and, second, the mysterious passage from the implicit to the explicit in the creation of new ideas ... One might have believed that this passage concerned only the relationship between thought and action, and that, on the level of thought itself, the passage from 'implicit' schemas ... to their reflective explication would be much more rapid. [But] ... even in a creator of the greatness of Darwin the passage is far from immediate. This delay establishes ... that making things explicit leads to the construction of a structure which is partially new, even though contained virtually in those structures which preceded it
...
It is not planned - it is an unintended consequence of the need for easy or swift movement. This is how a path is originally made - perhaps even by men - and how language and any other institutions which are useful may arise .... In this way, a whole new universe of possibilities or potentialities may arise...
...
...social structure is the ground against which meaningful communication is established. In simple societies, that structure does not itself become a topic of the discourse practices it affords. In a manner of speaking, cognition remains embedded in discourse. But in more complex societies, cognition is lifted out of discourse, allowing the perception of the social structure within which it was constituted. Cognition is disembedded from discourse and reconstituted symbolically, then becoming re-embedded within the constraints of the symbol system by which it functions. Thus, elaborated code is seen as emerging out of restricted code as social structure becomes more complex and lowers the shared level of presuppositionality amongst speakers. This transformation occurs in tandem with societal complexification.

I wasn't meaning to offend you; I thought that was what you were referring to; your multiple personas on this site. I have had only one, but it's true I did change the name of that one from John to Janus.

Why so upset, such as even to refer to me as "bitch"? — Janus

Researchers in enactive cognition like Evan Thomson and Ezekiel DePaulo define a living body as a self-organizing system that can be defined by a certain operational closure or autonomy with respect to its environment. — Joshs

Two would be enough if we could force folk to be have both a self and anti-self. You would have to show a dialectical self-duality by being jasOn and anti-jasOn .... just like the only Superman plot twist that was worth a damn. — apokrisis

we share a biology that would, in my humble opinion, mean that my experiences (inner ones included) are going to be very similar if not identical to another's. So, my pain will feel exactly like your pain or someone else's. — Agent Smith

It's good to be skeptical, but as 180 Proof reminds me, there's gotta be a good reason to be doubtful like that and we have none. — Agent Smith

...we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience... — Ciceronianus

....people learning and enlarging their perspectives...may well be the project of philosophy summarized... — Tom Storm

...peculiar emphasis on self-belonging, assimilative consistency and similarity, pragmatic relevance and thematic continuity... — Joshs

The self is a synthetic achievement, not an a priori. The self can be lost though depersonalization, schizophrenia, etc. — Joshs

Endlessly deferring reference and infinitely plural interpretation may exist in theory...The business in hand for the social organism is surviving and spreading in the real world. — apokrisis

The plurality of possibility is what the relevant optimisation function erases. — apokrisis

“In other words, it is possible to conceive the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies. — Joshs

How do we know they are in our way except when we are ready to replace them? — Joshs

Gadamer also takes issue directly with this view of prejudice and the negative connotations often associated with the notion, arguing that, rather than closing us off, our prejudices are themselves what open us up to what is to be understood.
..
...all interpretation, even of the past, is necessarily ‘prejudgmental’ in the sense that it is always oriented to present concerns and interests, and it is those present concerns and interests that allow us to enter into the dialogue with the matter at issue...
..
The prejudicial character of understanding means that, whenever we understand, we are involved in a dialogue that encompasses both our own self-understanding and our understanding of the matter at issue. In the dialogue of understanding our prejudices come to the fore, both inasmuch as they play a crucial role in opening up what is to be understood, and inasmuch as they themselves become evident in that process. As our prejudices thereby become apparent to us, so they can also become the focus of questioning in their own turn.

The fact that understanding operates by means of such anticipatory structures means that understanding always involves what Gadamer terms the ‘anticipation of completeness’—it always involves the revisable presupposition that what is to be understood constitutes something that is understandable, that is, something that is constituted as a coherent, and therefore meaningful, whole.
...
Hermeneutics concerns our fundamental mode of being in the world and understanding is thus the basic phenomenon in our existence.

Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself. — Nickolasgaspar

what makes a claim wise...in your opinion? — Nickolasgaspar

explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support — Nickolasgaspar

I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar

I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations. — Nickolasgaspar

You can not have wise claims without epistemic support. — Nickolasgaspar

well there you have it, by dismissing valid critique you allow pseudo philosophy in the philosophical realm. — Nickolasgaspar

-You are feeling sour because of the facts I put on the table. — Nickolasgaspar

Do you have any real arguments that could justify epistemically unfounded principles in Philosophy....like Supernaturalistic ones?
how can you tie conclusions based on supernatural assumption to wisdom, knowledge and logic.???? — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophy not only fails to experience the success of science, but it reprocesses old dead end ideas again and again. — Nickolasgaspar

So there can be no consensus on pain? What about analgesics like aspirin, paracetamol, etc.. They seem to have a good track record; why else do they sell? — Agent Smith

Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the images.

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

Mario Bunge critique — Nickolasgaspar

Is philosophy dead? Some philosophers have declared it to be so, and judging by some of the mental acrobatics now fashionable in postmodernist circles a reasonable person might have to agree. Though recognizing the moribund state of current academic philosophy, Mario Bunge feels that this is a crisis from which the discipline can and will recover.

misunderstanding is...a stage one must pass through towards full comprehension, — Agent Smith

... pseudo-philosophy is part and parcel of true/genuine philosophy... — Agent Smith

I am criticizing people's efforts to seek validity by trying to place their superstitions under the umbrella of status called Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". — Nickolasgaspar

To delegitimise the technocratic elite is to legitimate Trumpian rule by meme. — apokrisis

Isn’t it a case of the science answer becoming too complex and sounding much more like nonsense than the “facts” one can make up to justify one’s own theories. — apokrisis