The analytic school of philosophy is the dominant way of doing philosophy, nowadays. — Shawn
When the grid goes down, the crypto-heads will discover the difference between gold and crypto as a store of value. — fishfry
Even if they are low quality, which I don't think they are, a lot of crap is allowed here. — T Clark
Hence, lounge. — fdrake
Beyond that, the forum is full of opiniated fluff and vague assertions. I don't know why Carlo Roosen is being singled out. — T Clark
I did. A cyst is not a person. — Banno
Generally, there are thousands (at least) of cryptocurrencies, and there will be thousands more created in the future. The barrier to creating them is quite low. Given this, are cryptocurrencies truly scarse? — hypericin
Scientific investigations of how we perceive already, to some extent, presuppose the a priori modes by which we intuit and cognize objects, being that we must study the intuited and cognized version of our own representative faculties, and so the Kantian question is still very much alive and puzzling. — Bob Ross
Let's take the words of Albert Einstein as an example — Michael
Heh. I taught my phone "Kimhi" but it ignored me this time. — Srap Tasmaner
(A) "Dogs are nice"
and on the other
(B) "For all x, if x is a dog, then it is nice."
We just need a neutral word for the relation between (A) and (B), and, if you start with (A) and recast it as (B), we need a neutral word to describe what you're doing there. Maybe you believe you are "revealing (A)'s logical form," and maybe you don't. — Srap Tasmaner
This bypasses my question, and doubles down even. It is assumed "virtue building" such as a program that one might enter into as an Aristotlean or Stoic or whatnot, would seem to be a freely chosen philosophy that one is intending to follow. A culture seems to be something one generally falls into, though one can take it on too. — schopenhauer1
What if one is about virtue-building but isn't following any particular program, just their own.. Is that culture? — schopenhauer1
Is the practitioner of a philosophy and an individual acting under the enculturation of a subgroup's culture the same thing? — schopenhauer1
Is there a substantive difference or is it all culture all the way down? — schopenhauer1
But they haven't paid their dues! We've earned this, by banging our heads against Kimchi. Oh sure, they'll join in *now*, for the fun part, but where were they when we were slogging through the mud, I ask you. — Srap Tasmaner
Here again, this may not contribute to a neutral presentation of (2), but I have to treat language as being first for communication and other uses come after. — Srap Tasmaner
All I'm arguing for is slowing down the moment of schematization so that we can see frame-by-frame what's happening, regardless what we say about how before and after are related. — Srap Tasmaner
Worth also pointing out that it is far from clear what "thoughts" are, yet the term is used with gay abandon throughout Martin's paper. — Banno
I didn't follow your reasoning that turned my "not necessarily" into an even bigger "necessarily not". I do hope this was clearer. — Srap Tasmaner
All of this agnosticism about (3) depends on being able to formulate (2) neutrally. — Srap Tasmaner
second, clarity is obviously negotiated between speaker and audience, and thus our practices of making better, clearer arguments arise from the efforts of ordinary speakers — Srap Tasmaner
It's a fantastic invention — Srap Tasmaner
So is culture akin to addiction in that it is a mechanism whereby free will is limited to an extent? — schopenhauer1
But can't certain cultural customs be immoral? — schopenhauer1
For such a person—and they are common—I would ask why we must accept the premise that cultural realities cannot be criticized. — Leontiskos
This is essentially my question :D. [...it] is more of an axiological question — schopenhauer1
Ok, so how do you know which is attributed to which? Should it be condemned if it is cultural, or is culture sacrosanct? To what extent?
...
Let's say that culture was not at all in the picture, and you disapproved of someone's individual habit.. But then you realized that that habit was actually part of their culture. Does the disapproval change? If so, why? — schopenhauer1
But it's also, WHEN can we distill that it is cultural vs. other factors? — schopenhauer1
I mean a classic example here is gang culture in the US. This is tied with so many things- racial oppression, socio-economic oppression, and cultural aspects. One side of the debate regarding gang culture is that it is a cultural problems. A prominent conservative historian, Thomas Sowell, traces it back to Southern white redneck culture, that ultimately gets traced back to England. Nonetheless, he seems to see it as more of a cultural circumstance more than socio-economic. Others would say that it derives from socio-economic circumstances of simply being poor. If you are poor, and discriminated, these are the activities that a subgroup might tend towards.. — schopenhauer1
Not at all. — Srap Tasmaner
And that means what we say about logic is what we say about a certain approach to reasoning and language, a certain way of taking it, but we need not think we are saying anything fundamental about language or reasoning itself. — Srap Tasmaner
(I've started the Martin paper, so I expect we can talk more about that soon.) — Srap Tasmaner
At what point (if any) can we distill cultural factors for why groups act a certain way versus socio-economic or political factors? — schopenhauer1
Can one be a "culturist", meaning can one morally be "against" certain cultures, or should people be tolerant of all cultural aspects, whether you agree with them or not? — schopenhauer1
I rather have it an investigation on when one can reasonably blame a "cultural" trait, if at all for a negative aspect of social living. — schopenhauer1
I don't want to just rush to deny that this is so, but all we have so far is the typical philosopher's gambit: "And by 'assertion' I don't mean assertion in the usual sense, by 'force' I don't mean force in the usual sense, ..." — Srap Tasmaner
is said to express a complete thought, that can be true or false, by fiat, by stipulation — Srap Tasmaner
Is it any wonder that his logic looks more like a branch of mathematics than anything else? — Srap Tasmaner
And that means what we say about logic is what we say about a certain approach to reasoning and language, a certain way of taking it, but we need not think we are saying anything fundamental about language or reasoning itself. — Srap Tasmaner
Oh -- there are dots I didn't connect there. — Srap Tasmaner
But what if that's wrong? What if language never comes anywhere close to expressing a complete thought because that's not what it's for? What if language is all hints and clues and suggestions because the audience shares the burden of communication with the speaker? — Srap Tasmaner
So I don't think it's helpful to think of utterances as having a content that can be "extracted," nor is it helpful to think they have or lack some stereotypical force. — Srap Tasmaner
What pisses me off most about the choice debate is the insincerity of the antagonists. — Banno
Whatever "rational" grounds you might have for believing in naive realism, it is incompatible with physics, biology, neuroscience, and psychology. — Michael
Resist. — Baden
This will not end well. — Banno
plagiarism — bongo fury
1. Can force be separated from content?
Yes. It's the whole point of logic, and until proven otherwise, it is clearly successful at doing so. If Frege didn't think so, he was confused. — Srap Tasmaner
I believe it is perfectly coherent to claim that making this distinction is a strategy employed not only by philosophers, sometimes with the intent to do logical analysis, but by ordinary speakers of a language in the course of their day.
Logic is that strategy deployed wholesale, rather than ad hoc for particular, often exigent, purposes. — Srap Tasmaner
Words and then sentences arrive for children in a world that already includes tone of some kind, though it's not perfectly clear this is the same thing as force, and I assume something similar is true of human history. — Srap Tasmaner
A symbol such as a word or sentence, in contrast, has sense -- we can contemplate it for its meaning alone, think about it, play with it. It's not telling us to do any one thing in particular. So you might say that the possibility of separating force from content is essential to having a true language of symbols. — J
I also didn't come right out and say that the way logic handles language and the way we do when teaching children has a sort of family resemblance, and that's the other reason I was thinking about it. Not sure where that leads, if anywhere. — Srap Tasmaner
Aaronow: We're just "talking" about it. — Srap Tasmaner
Thinking and Being is hard to quote from in a self contained manner — fdrake
It's like someone forked the repository of philosophical knowledge just after the publication of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, then merged in secondary literature in that heritage up to 2019. — fdrake
To portray the foreclosed future the abandonment of that problematic left. — fdrake
What is common to these three views is that their critical engagement with the force-content distinction is undertaken from a broadly Wittgensteinian perspective, while rejecting the speech-act theoretic approach to the topic of force and content. . . [5]
[5] Cf. Rödl 2018: 33, Bronzo 2019: 26–31, Kimhi 2018: 39. – There is another group of contemporary philosophers who, from vantage points rooted in speech-act theory, reject the Fregean conception of force as external to content and seek to replace it by an alternative picture, cf. Barker 2004: 89, Recanati 2013, Hanks 2015: 12–20, Hanks 2016, Recanati 2016. These positions deserve separate treatment, cf. Martin 2020: appendix. — Martin, On Redrawing the Force-Content Distinction, 180-1
Yet, God could have not liked evil for He is an all good being. — Shawn
This is starting to get hair-splitty, but yes, I would still say that an "assertoric force not limited to assertions" is either incoherent or, in some sense or manifestation, also non-assertoric. — J
Which is a bit odd when you think about it, since you're supposed to be dealing with things that have no forces... but there they are in the logic. — fdrake
I don't think the notion of assertoric force is clear enough to be understood, if it is something different from denotation or illocutionary force. — Banno
4.063 An illustration to explain the concept of truth. A black spot on white paper; the form of the spot can be described by saying of each point of the plane whether it is white or black. To the fact that a point is black corresponds a positive fact; to the fact that a point is white (not black), a negative fact. If I indicate [andeuten] a point of the plane (a truth-value in Frege’s terminology), this corresponds to the assumption [Annahme] proposed for judgement, etc. etc.
But to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know under what conditions a point is called white or black; in order to be able to say ‘p’ is true (or false) I must have determined under what conditions I call ‘p’ true, and thereby I determine the meaning [Sinnw] of the sentence.
The point at which the simile breaks down is this: we can indicate [zeigen] a point on the paper, without knowing what white and black are; but to a sentence without a meaning corresponds nothing at all, for it signifies [bezeichnet] no thing (truth-value) whose properties are called “false” or “true”; the verb of the sentence is not “is true” or “is false” - as Frege thought - but that which “is true” must already contain the verb.
4.064 Every sentence must already have a meaning [Sinnw]; the affirmation [Bejahung] cannot give it a meaning, for what it affirms is the meaning itself. And the same holds of denial, etc. — Rombout quoting Wittgenstein, 60
So what is the force in assertoric force? Is what you are claiming that the assertoric force is how "The cat" denotes the cat? Than it's about denotation, and fine. But that's not ↪Leontiskos's "some kind of latent or dormant assertoric force which is inseparable from the sentence itself." It's picking stuff out. — Banno
Could that be becasue the question is muddled? — Banno
But you can imagine learning English without anyone ever having resorted to veridical descriptions of the situation shown in a picture or plainly visible to you? — Srap Tasmaner
So it is making an assertion. Attaching an illocutionary force. Doing something with the proposition. — Banno