I think the problem with some philosophers that question the use of logic to solve problems is that they like keeping things mysterious. Ambiguous term use is a means of keeping logic from attempting to solve the problem. If you can never define what it is you are talking about and are evasive and contradictory, then it seems to me that you like having the problem more than having a solution. — Harry Hindu

The problem is not that some philosophers keep things ambiguous, but that some believe ambiguity can be eliminated. It is OK that there is still some fuzzyness around the edges!

Logic is just a tool. Useful, yes. But certainly it is only one aspect of thought.

I don't really care much to equate programming with philosophical thinking. At most it can only map to a logical modality of thought. In programming you create the world entirely and the only thrown errors are the ones which you explicitly check for. Programming doesn't help you to think, it helps you to put limitations on thought. To set bounderies. Programming is all rules and no pathos. Yet philosophy is brimming over with affect (yes even the analytical tradition and the so called logical positivism).

In France it's mandatory in many places. So, I am wearing a masque not because I believe in its efficacy at preventing virus spread, but because I literally cannot enter my bank without one. No virtue involved.

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing. They are a result of energy converted into mass. So, we can't find 'nothing' there either.

It all depends how you conceive of "nothing". If you break the word down to "no" and "thing" then it is possible that it describes chaos where no thing has formed, nothing to point at so to speak. However chaos is a source of potential for somethingness, it just requires will to organise it. — Chester

It's not clear what you mean by chaos exactly, but nevertheless, chaos would still be the chaos of something. It may even be a fact that chaos represents the absence of organisation, but that absense is not the ontological absence which 'nothing' typically denotes.

"why is there persistent disagreement in philosophy?"

I suppose because we haven't got everything figured out yet. And disagreement could be considered part of the process of dialectics.

poorly written knock-off :D — I like sushi

A knock-off of who?

Dissappear?

ah OK. I'm not very familiar with peirce's work.

I suppose the answer to the irony of Bergson using those spatial analogies is that he was attempting to point towards an understanding of time that is impossible to completely capture using language. Bergson asserted that it was the function of our analytical intelligence to delineate experience up into what is necessary for our virtual action. Science and language as useful for mastery of our environment, yet limited for doing metaphysics. So, the metaphors were intended to point the way, or give some kind of 'intuition' for that which cannot be properly expressed in words.. Durée.

Or, something like that.

I am confused by what you mean true continouity. — BB100

I wonder if aletheist is referring to Bergson’s notion of durée. Continuous time (durée) is a heterogeneous multiplicity, which differs in kind to that of mathematical time, which through spacialization has become homogeneous multiplicity. For Bergson true continuity cannot be stitched together from snapshots, or points, as these discrete moments are themselves cleaved off from real, time par excellence (durée) which is essentially indivisible.

Or perhaps aletheist is not drawing from bergson at all...

One problem: I never asserted that dreams were non temporal. — neonspectraltoast

"We only experience time when we're awake"

I suppose it doesn't necessarily follow that dreams themselves are non temporal (iyo), but in any case you assert that time is not experienced in sleep. My assertion that time is experienced outside of the waking state remains. And the rest holds.

What would your take on a formal semantics approach to 1's referent be? Like, taking it to be by definition the successor of 0, or the equivalence class under bijections of { { } }. — fdrake

Different signifiers, same signified?

So I dispute your assertion that dreams are a non temporal experience. Is there any conscious experience outside of time? If the answer is no, then we can begin to posit at least something about reality. That it is essentially durational (Of course, this depends on whether you think the brain creates the attributes of subjective experience) .

We only experience time when we're awake, too. — neonspectraltoast

I have experienced dreams that had temporality as an important factor. To give a general example, imagine a nightmare, in which the dreamer is aware of some impending sense of doom, but also having to wait for the cause of said doom to occur. There is a felt duration that makes the nightmare all the more agonising.

Who else has so fallen from grace? — Banno

Henri Bergson.

I said I believe in an objective reality. I can't prove the existence of one. No one can. — neonspectraltoast

Ah objectivity is faith based then

He's trying to imply that because we can be objective about knowing little, we can be objective about knowing a lot, which obviously makes no sense. — neonspectraltoast

I agree that a generalised rule shouldn't be formed from an objective specific.

And like I said, I believe in an objective reality we know next to nothing about. To say that it's an objective truth that we know little about reality isn't self-defeating. — neonspectraltoast

How can you know nothing about reality and also know that it's objective?

You just asserted an objective truth, implying that we can indeed be objective. Your assertion of the lack of objectivity is thus limited in scope. — Cidat

It seems like you both made assertions, but actually it was just his opinion and your post was just your opinion. Clearly your opinion differs from that of neonspectraltoast, doesn't this difference therefore point away from objectivity?

In a nutshell, chess or war or poker maybe "constructions" or "inventions" but the strategies utilized within these frameworks can either be better or worse and this is not a matter of subjective opinion. — BitconnectCarlos

Really? What is better? For some 'better' is winning in the shortest amount of moves possible. For others 'better' is the ingenuity of play. If you mean 'better' as simply winning the game, then isn't that merely the performance of a logic that is fundamentally a subjective framework? Winning a game invented by humans; whereby the semantics and rules are collectively agreed upon, acting as a kind of subjective constraint.

This thread is just a collective stream of consciousness. How can consciousness be objective?

You and I both perceive this post; we perceive the very same post.Yet, according to the perception game, these are two distinct perceptions of the same post. — Banno

Of course there are 2 distinct perceptions. We are not an identical entity, we are disparate.

One philosophical games tries to play this out as showing that it is the perception that is pivotal, not the post. As if it is the perception-of-this-post that is real, not the post. We never have the post-in-itself; all we have is the perception-of-post. — Banno

I did not argue for idealism. So your gem argument has nothing to do with me. The term in the thread title is 'strict objectivity'. What I doubt, is that truth claims are either absolutely objective or absolutely subjective and it seems to me that framing the issue in either/or terms is an error. Since it seems that truth claims are always a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity. I doubt whether they can be so clearly delineated. This is why I have used expressions like 'partial-truth'.

Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon

I don't object to the statement but I do have to understand it through my subjectivity. How could I not? I have my doubts about strict objectivity.

What do you mean by "true" if not that it is the case for everyone? If it's not true for everyone, then why say it? What use would it be for others? Keep it to yourself as it only applies to you. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't need to be the case that 'true' is exactly identical for everyone. It is sufficient that everyone finds enough truth in a statement to make practical use of it. Do you believe that your words are delivered without lack? Yet I still understand you.

Are you making true statements, emancipate? If so, then aren't you're statements objective? — Harry Hindu

Do truth statements need to be absolutely objective? Can truth statements be both objective and subjective at once? In that case, I would prefer to say that my statements were partially true or that they contained an element of truth. While also being partially false.

does perception require a reference point?

Hm. I'm not convinced of the relevance of this. I can understand what it is like to see something from another perspective. As we sit facing each other at table, I can understand that my knife is on my right, and yours on your right, despite yours being on my left. — Banno

This is just your imagination of another perspective, from your reference point.

Mathematics, physics, and formal languages require no reference point as an "I". They're about as objective as you can get. — Shawn

They do require a reference point though, because the data provided through these domains must be subject to interpretation.

when i say that an object is spatially extended, I mean that it has volume, and when i say that an object is not spatially extended, I mean that it does not have volume. According to my understanding, volume is contingent upon perception; meaning that there is no independently existing spatial reality — TheGreatArcanum

You do not have to account for extention if the act of perception occurs at the object itself; that is to say that perception operates from the periphery to the centre. However, you do have to account for how unextended representation becomes extended when perception occurs from the centre and is projected outwards. Infact you have to account for how all the attributes that were stripped from the object and made ideal, map back onto the object. Does this make 'sense' ?

It is an intrinsic function of our perception that breaks time up into discrete moments and spatializes it. This is an external perspective. Real time is indivisible, as is evident from our lived, internal experience of time. When you move your arm from one point to another, it is experienced as one complete movement. Yes you could stop the movement at any given point, and then let it continue on it's path, but this would just be experienced as a whole movement with an interval.

Bergson already solved this paradox adequately in my view.

The language is of wartime; 'frontline' 'volunteers', factories being 'turned over' to 'new essential uses' 'brave sacrifice'... and specifically, the language of WW1. — unenlightened

'Blitz spirit!'
Here in la France 'nous sommes en guerre', as macron has repeatedly stated.

No, narrow minded.

To take it to an extreme: would you be capable of "not giving a fuck" if someone raped and murdered your children? I think not.

It's also important to note that 'Notion' (or concept) is used here (beginning in section 6 iirc) in contrast to 'intuition'. Hegel is critiquing those thinkers, and philosophies, which propose truth can be apprehended in an unmediated way; Via some kind of direct experience. Instead truth is aprehended through a systematic process - which is what hegel regards as 'scientific'. The word begriff itself signifies a grabbing onto. Notion therefore, conveys an image of ascertaining truth through effort, whereas intuition does not.

I think it would be preferable, to avoid cluttering up screen space, in simply referencing sections, rather than quoting whole chunks of text at a time. It is a format that has worked well before and will continue as long as we all use the same numbering system. I speak about clutter and screen space as one who browses solely via mobil, so perhaps it is a non-issue for most other members.

(I'm interested in this reading group and look forward to participating. Atm I'm in the French alps though and cannot keep pace until my vacance finishes).

It will pass. Go see a psychoanalyst perhaps.

So your definition of art is that it shouldn't be defined.

Alright OP, but why make it a universal?

Emily Apter - Continental Drift: From National Characters to Virtual Subjects

Emily Apter - Feminizing the Fetish: Psychoanalysis and Narrative Obsession in Turn-of-the-century France

Thanks!
You are correct, there is not much around this topic. I found this set of podcasts though:

http://generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk/rhythmanalysis/seminar/

"The seminar series comprised six sessions exploring various approaches to time and rhythm as those found in the work of key critical theorists, such as Gilles Deleuze, Henri Lefebvre, Rudolf Laban, Roland Barthes, Henri Meschonnic, Emile Benveniste, Gaston Bachelard and others."