2+2=4
we can generalise this to
a+a=2a

Does algebra transcend arithmetic?
Or is it just about arithmetic? — Banno

Not sure. You think algebra reduces to statements about arithmetic?

Doesn't that kind of strict philosophical use (somewhat ironically) occur when, as Wittgenstein puts it, language goes on holiday? He says that the genesis of philosophical problems is to be found in such use. To look at it the other way around; what if philosophical problems are already there (in the sense of being independent of language) but cannot be adequately formulated in terms of common usage? — John

Sorry.. not quite following you. What strict philosophical use?

I take it to be part of the very idea of language games to rule out transcendence in language. There only is one language game or another. Each has rules. As TGW says, professional rigour sometimes tries to partition off ordinary language meanings from meanings in professional practice. — mcdoodle

Do you mean he was looking to rule out contextless meaning?

It seems to me that treated in this way, the notion of meta-philosophy can be seen as a lost cause. — Banno

Possibly. I see now that I shouldn't have responded to Luke's comment because it only served to divert from my question. Lesson learned.

The idea is to draw attention to specific curious characteristics of some of the things we do with words.

When one plays chess, one undertakes to abide by certain rules. So moving the bishop along a diagonal is OK, but moving it along a row is not. If your opponent did so, you would accuses them of nit understanding how to play chess.

Language games are reasonably discreet, making it easier to set out the rules. Of course the rules may be implicit, in which case it might be interesting or useful to make them explicit - think of the rules involved in making a promise.

The rules may even change; as in Chess960. Knowing when and that the rules have changes is important. — Banno

So in what light should we see Wittgenstein?

1. Creator of a language game that includes "language game."
2. Performing in a family of language games called philosophy.
3. Neither, because Witty was analyzing natural language. The language that sets out that analysis doesn't need to conform to the analysis.

Yes. I guess the OP is metaphilosophy, but it's not asking if metaphilosophy is distinct from philosophy.

It's whether we should consider philosophical talk to be distinct from natural language (in its own philosophy room as Chalmers put it).

Interesting perspective. I will note that it's irrelevant to the OP. Luke brought up metaphilosophy.

What does he mean by "second order" there? By the usage I'm familiar with (second order logic), I agree.

Metaphilosophy is distinct from philosophy, though. Isn't it?

Duck rabbit.

Like jargon?

But I take a grain of salt regarding your self reference. There is a portion of yourself that you can't see.

It could be that I just don't understand what's actually implied by "language game." How would you describe it?

A vantage point always requires separatation. Saying something about a particular word doesn't compare to saying something about Language.

But didn't Witt mean to narrow his analysis to natural language?

Causality is a form of analysis. We take the clock apart to understand it.

A sign of this is that conceptually, cause and effect are interdependent just as subject and object are.

Could you give an example of that?

So talking about language games is a language game. It's a game in which we propose to have a transcendent viewpoint on language.

So do we have that transcendence or not?

How did you know that you were looking at a tree in the first place? — Harry Hindu

Good question. It's not because of the content of your visual field which simply contains grey and brown and greens, bright light and darkness.

The sameness of you and of the tree and the style of their narrative is then, for me, in a different language-game from one in which one would talk of 'visual fields', and in those different language-games different standards of 'sameness' apply. So any confusion may be clarified by Great Uncle Ludwig's recourse to grammar in the widest sense. Or so a Wittgenstein-lover like me might argue :) — mcdoodle

I started failing to understand you right along this part. Is talk of language games a particular language game?

I don't know who UI is. Urinary tract infection?

How do we know that 2 is true? — aletheist

The narrative starts with "you move around the tree." 2 is a premise. Would you say we should not be confident that the narrative is possible or knowable?

But yes, I think one of the main questions suggested by the OP is: why do we think it's the same tree? The fact that it's posited in the beginning of the narrative isn't really enough to cover it. That narrative could just be a reflection of a misconception that needs clearing up.

The other questions you asked are also good ones. I'd like to spend more than a few seconds on them, though. So.. later. Thanks!

It doesn't make much sense to me to blame guns, and then want to ban guns, when nothing is being done to combat the underlying reasons that have long facilitated the issue of gun violence. — Heister Eggcart

Yep

I'm not a tautology. I'm a little ray of sunshine.

Yep. I think apo is working on a theory of life that involves an unconscious signaler and an unconscious receiver. But maybe he didn't mean that, because that type of thing is pervasive in electronics.

I will think you will find that is BS. Triggering a gland is different from triggering a muscle. Even if "electrical discharge" is involved in neither. — apokrisis

Electrical discharge along axons precedes the release of acetylcholine. I'm not sure why you're denying that. It's a science fact, dude. :)

I believe you're suggesting that only a particular kind of material can be organized as a living thing. And this is somehow related to your understanding that life involves signs in a way that non-life does not. Eh.. I was an electronic engineer for 10 years. I've been a nurse for 10 years. Not exactly an expert in either domain, but I know the basics. As it happens, I worked on telecommunications signaling equipment, so I know something about electronic signs. We call a thing a sign because of what it means to us. The dark clouds are a sign that it might rain.

The clouds are signaling. Are they alive? If not, why not?

I never understood that before. — apokrisis

It's often referred to as the neuro-endocrine system because the two function pretty thoroughly as a team in governing the body.

You mean acetylcholine discharge? — apokrisis

Depolarization down the axon. It's tiny amounts of electricity, but then so is CMOS.

That's a vague claim. — apokrisis

It's not vague. Neurons communicate with muscles, for instance, by electric discharge. Look into it. It's fascinating stuff.

Modern biophysics would agree that electron transport chains are vitally important as "entropic mechanism". But even more definitional would be proton gradients across membranes. It is those which are the more surprising fact at least. — apokrisis

There is passive transport across cell membranes, yes. There's also active transport.

So it is the ability to separate the energy capture from the energy spending - the flow of entropy vs the flow of work - which is the meaningful basis of life. — apokrisis

Obviously mechanisms can store energy... so I'm not sure what you mean.

So again, silicon/electrons is just not that kind of stuff. — apokrisis

Could be, but it's not obvious. Science fiction writers have long imagined silicon-based life forms, silicon and carbon being similar. And as I said, living beings on earth utilize electricity. That's basically what we're looking at when we do an EKG or EEG.

Silicon and electricity are simply the wrong stuff for biophysical reasons. — apokrisis

Electricity is extensively utilized by living things. Brains use it.

(Y)

Would people more-or-less agree that this is most non-religious people's answer to purpose? — schopenhauer1

'I realized that everything is in vain, and I hated life. And this too was in vain.' -paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, which restates the message in a text that is around a thousand years older.

The answer in that older text I mentioned is to do something worthy of creating a stele (carved memorial)... that's kind of like self-actualization, but it's obviously not non-religious.

"Strangers passing in the street
By chance two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can"

Pink Floyd, Echoes. — Punshhh

:)

Indeed. 'I think, therefore I am you.' - Feuerbach

I can't share the experience of seeing blue with a congenitally blind man, but I can convince him that there's something I can't share.

True sharing means we aren't different. If we are different there is only the sharing of that fact.

I learned that my friend has a fairly accurate sense of time by comparing his feeling to a clock. He said 30 minutes is the length of an I Love Lucy episode. In spite of his attempt to share, his experience remains private.

Same thing with my cousin who has perfect pitch. The piano confirms that we're different. The difference indicates privacy.

For many years I was party to a rewarding relationship with green and orange. But that's fallen by the way now.. The only green I abide now is something I call yolive. It's mostly yellow with just a hint of...well it's navy if it's acid dye.

Dark blue...that's my true love now. And another color from my past: I first met it on a box of Japanese incense. I call it pumpkin mushroom. Most recently it showed up again in the fleece of a churro. Together with white and my midnight blue, it creates a feeling of being at sea.

Fawn is another word for it...the mushroom.

I would feel sad for people who lack this rich relationship with color, but I figure they must have something else in place of it. Maybe something I'm clueless about?

You are right -- the title suggests the nonsensical notion that religion, itself, is a party that is running in the game. — Bitter Crank

The OP is futurism that I've pondered for the last couple of years (since I became skeptical about there ever being a global government.) In futurism, you're exploring possibilities. It makes sense to talk about feminism, for instance, winning in the end... or not. Just add a touch of grace to your clanky thought processes. :P

The object seen is partly visual data and partly ideas. The idea of the tree is the core about which all the green and grey, light and dark orbit.

Why should the objects seen by the mind's eye be any different?

When a population is having trouble supporting the group, they kill the ones everyone is least attached to. — Wosret

Bunch of dudes standing around watching a human sacrifice. One says, "You know... I never liked that guy."

I don't think it's clear where 4 leads, but I agree that it's the open door.

Aristotle wasn't an ancient culture. (I'm mocking your style.. ha)

And as a related question, in what practical sense does it matter if someone does the right thing or not? If I'm right in arguing that a world physically identical to ours but without any obligations (or different obligations) is possible then there's no practical difference between a world in which I kill children and killing children is wrong, a world in which I kill children and killing children is right, and a world in which I kill children and there are no moral facts at all. — Michael

Ancient cultures pictured morality in different ways. The ancient Hebrew perspective is fairly materialistic, linking morality to a covenant (deal) with God. The Persian view is very abstract, as JK Galbraith said, is probably the origin of the concept of progress. The Roman view associates evil with disease. It's been said that the Greek view is most essentially expressed by the play Agamemnon, in which evil is perpetuated in a chain-like way as the victim, in search of justice, becomes the villain.

We in the western world have inherited all of these diverse views because each one is represented in some way in the Christian view. This diverse inheritance makes Christianity very ideologically dynamic. Morality is a cosmic drama. It's a path tread by every human that starts with a fall from innocence and ends with redemption and transformation.

All of that drama is lacking in a view that reduces morality to a set of obligations. The question becomes: why should I follow the rules of chess? Can't I just throw the knight out the window?

Uh... yes, of course you can.