There have been some materialists in the ancient times, but they were just a few individuals scattered here and there, and in the pre socratic times. It is not that they were the materialists who denounced minds and souls, but when they were asking what the universe is made of, the materials were what they were seeing and touching. In that regard they were not the diehard materialists as such, but rather pseudo or scientific materialists.

The main domineering philosophical school was the idealism headed by Plato and his followers.

Great info and the links. Thanks. :fire: :up:

Would esotericism, fortune telling (astrology and tarot card readings) and magical rituals in the cult and pagan religions come under mysticism?

yeah, I heard that Norman Kemp Smith is the de facto Kant scholar, but he is also well known for his works on Hume and Descartes I believe. Not sure on the bookplates and antiquarian bookseller stories, but it would be certainly nice to have the 1st edition copy from 1920s.

It is great that I can have both NKS and the Guyer/Wood copy(file from the link) of CPR, and take turns in the reading when one version is not clear to me, I can always go to the other version.

The 1929 1st edition must be super rare copy to find these days. :up:

I've given the matter of language acquisition and animal communicatiom some thought but, luckily or not, I lack the wherewithal to conduct a proper investigation into it. — TheMadFool

I was thinking about it, and I feel they communicate with what looks like emotional language. They definitely do communicate, but their language is not obvious, regular, versatile than humans. Even if a few uttered barks and meows or glares and wagging the tails - not sure if these can be classed as language as such. I think not. But still there seems some form of communication going on in the animals world.

I'll say this though, children acquire language in ways that seem rather mysterious. The sound "ma" and "mama" seem to be hardwired into our brains. At other times, we need to teach children words. — TheMadFool

I think they pick up language as they grow up up to a certain level. But above that point, for writing skills, grammar and the foreign languages, they must learn and be taught.

But getting back to Wittgenstein, I feel that language cannot exist itself. It works together with the real world situations and the users psychology. I agree with Quine in that regard.

So those symbolic logic statements AND OR cannot represent much on the language of the real world. If you read Wittgenstein's language game and family resemblance, it is really a simple story. No need to bring in AND OR stuff to explain it.

wow nice full copy of CPR !! Thank you. I also have ordered a 1950 hb copy of CPR translated by NK Smith printed by Macmillan, and it is on the way to me.

Sure. Great post thanks :fire:
I will embark on CPR reading soon, and your posts are going to be good foundation for the read. :up:

This simply means, to my reckoning, that words definitely do possess an essence but due to the fact, as herein described, that they're being (mis)used with complete disregard of definitional criteria (OR instead of AND) it creates an illusion of an absence of essence which Wittgenstein falsely believes is real (Language games/family resemblance). — TheMadFool

I don't believe words have essence. Words have meanings which are contingent, traditional and empirical, and people use them by the rules and learning the meanings. Is there any word which are a priori? Some say words like ma ma mom are, because without being taught, the new borns utter it. But it would be like saying dog barking is their a priori language, because all dogs bark without getting taught.

the word "game" (Wittgenstein's favorite) couldn't be applies to chess, battle simulations (war games) and sports - there's nothing that unites these three thematically to permit the use of the same word for all. — TheMadFool

Are they not the activities that people do for fun and leisure mostly (well some do for money - but the fun factor still there) using their mind and body? There are clearly something common resemblance in there. The good definition in the core don't have to be misused to use the word.

It would depend on what subjects they are. Science and Politics have moved on. Literature, Art, Psychology and Philosophy are timeless.

The thing-in-itself is a real, physical, space/time thing, — Mww

Any examples of them? I used to understand The "Thing-in-Itself" was impossible for us to know or perceive with out sensical perception. Could we then say, they do exist? How can we even talking about things that we don't perceive or know?

About Camus, I have in my room “The Plague” waiting for been read by my lazy ass! — javi2541997

"The Plague" will remind you the Pandemic we have had. A great work of Camus.

I used to read Camus, Beckett and some Sartre.

Would logical I belong to the category of Thing-in-Self?  It is not a perceptible and not a describable condition for Think.  Not sure if the objects in Thing-in-Itself are similar in nature to this logical I, or does it have substance in its construction and existence.

I tend to agree with the late Australian critic Clive James - there ought to be prestigious literary award going for the person who doesn't write a novel. — Tom Storm

I can see the point too. Many great authors have never received prestigious literary awards.

I can say to the extent that I understand your point, I have not had this experience. — Tom Storm

Philosophy can take ones to some land of weirdness at times away from the real world. I call it philosophical dreams :D

It does sound like the opening of a 20th century novel. :razz: — Tom Storm

Wish I could write novels :D

Nice to know my sentence reminded you the Hesse's work. I am honoured thank you :) Yeah, must admit my OP is a bit of semantic of jungle. Sorry :D

Thanks for your info on the book. I like Hesse. I read "The Glass Bead Game" and some others.

I am only aware of one self and it appears to be integrated. — Tom Storm

Usually that is what I think too, but in my dreams, I appear as some 3rd party person, whom I have no knowledge or control of. He I wonders around in the field sometimes, or wines and dines with people I never met, or sometimes people I know. I thought there might be another self of me hiding somewhere while I am awake waiting for me to fall asleep, appearing in the dreams.

The same is the case in my imaginations and intuitions and sometime in memories. I mean the "I" on Sunday in the garden, is definitely me who cut the grass, but I can no longer control him I. I am in my chair reflecting the I on the Sunday, and it is all vivid and clear memory of I working away in the garden, but the I in the garden on Sunday is a disembodied I from I now in the chair reflecting on him I, because I now can no longer control or talk to him I on last Sunday afternoon. :)

Technically, in Kant, “I think” accompanies representations in intuition, but “I am” accompanies judgements. The former is the synthetical unity of self-consciousness, while the latter is the transcendental unity of apperception, so-called. The former is itself an intuition, representing the determinable in me, the latter is merely a thought, representing the determining in me. — Mww

Great post !! :pray: :up: Yeah, I thought about it again, and it sounded somewhat Kantian (existential and logical "I"s) and also somewhat Heideggerian ( being and time). :) = Kandeggerian.

I reread your previous post a few times, and saw what you were meaning on the distinction between the 2 "I"s - I as an object and I as subject. They are not the same. One is existential and the other is logical which must not be predicated.

In effect, “I” represents the form of, or is the presupposed condition for, both intuitions and judgements. “I” represents the totality in consciousness, or, the transcendental ego, by which it is possible, “that all my representations are united, or can be united, in one consciousness, otherwise I must have as many and varied a self as there are representations....” — Mww

This answers the question then why self can be just one instead many I suppose.

Bring your own salt; most folks require it by the truckload. — Mww

It is an essential ingredient, and I always use the sea salt. :D

The idea of self for me depends a lot of what Descartes developed as “cogito ergo sum”. If I think and I am able to reasoning, myself exists. That’s what I consider a true self. Perhaps the exterior or my environment cheats on my but at least I don’t have a doubt about my existence. — javi2541997

It sounds like very much Cartesian self to me, and quite rightly so. Because before Descartes, philosophical topics had been usually on about the universe, nature, ethics and perception in general. It was Descartes who turned the attention to "I" for basing the whole undoubtable criteria for finding any further truths. Whether one agrees with him or not, Descartes is the monumental philosopher in the history.

To be honest with you, I don’t know if I have a true self... and if I have so, I want to keep with me. This is a good treasure. — javi2541997

I feel that I also have more than one selfs hanging around somewhere either in my consciousness or in my memories and imaginations, but a true self for me is a "doubting self" :D
According to Kant, my conscious is not able to catch my self. But I guess what he meant was that it is already presupposed as logical "I", rather than existential "I".

Sure.  The I in the garden in the afternoon is now an object of my thinking, and I in the chair at night is the subject of thinking, because the thinking I cannot perceive the thinking.So my idea that the I in the garden and I in the chair are the same identical I is wrong. They are different "I"s.
Would it not then suggest that there are different "I"s for one's self identity?  Even if one does not conceive one's idea of self, that does not mean that it is non-existent.
So, could we not then say that one can have numerous disembodied self identities?  Must you not indeed decide which you are the real you? :)

Another way: The thinking “I” cannot think a thinking “I”. The thinking “I” cannot think itself. A subject cannot think a subject; a subject can only think an object. — Mww

In Kant, is "Ich denke" not a presupposed condition for all intuition and judgment? So, one does not have to try to think the "thinking I". The fact that you intuit your own self proves that it is perceiving the thinking you, and it is the transcendental a priori condition in making judgments and intuitions.

:up:

"6.4311 Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through." - T.

Do have the actual source info? I looked into my copy of "A Wittgenstein Dictionary" trying to find what he actually said about death. Nothing. Non-existence. Maybe that was what he intended to say. Nothing.

Sure. — Banno

Did he ever say anything about death?

Great post :fire: :fire: :up:

I think I understand what you mean - in a sense you are saying there is no mind independent object, and all this thinking about it never leaves mind. I agree, and believe idealism would agree with you. — Pop

Would mind independent objects be what Kant called "Thing-in-Itself"? Kant seems think they exist, but outside of the reason's boundary. They cannot be known, but are postulated?

Sure. I only speak of an intuition or vague idea, but nothing beyond that. — Manuel

Fair enough. I don't see any contradiction with that at all.

Just pointing out the facts, that's all :)

None of your tedious objections to my analogy hold up under scrutiny nor add much to the topic. Sorry this simple discussion has sailed so far over your head. Have a good one, Corvus. — 180 Proof

My definition of "to conceive" is not my own semantics, but it is the standard definition from the English Dictionary and Etymology. You are trying to distort the facts.

Conceive of a donut hole? Good. No contradiction. Your own semantics confuses you. — 180 Proof

I thought we have been discussing about conceiving one's own non-existence. What donut hole are you meaning? Why do you want to conceive a donut hole?

Sure. I am not saying you cannot have your own intuition or inklings on your own non-existence. Of course you can, supported by your own imagination too.

But what I am concerned about was, that if you say that you can conceive your own non-existence, be it before birth or after death, then I think there is some contradiction there. Because to conceive something means that you take something into your mind, and form a correct notion of. Now that is too far-fetched an assertion no matter what analogy you bring in with the motivation of trying justify that.

I see. Whatever, man. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Think about it.  Memory is a mental activity which retrieves what had been stored in the past in the depth of mind. But without ever having experienced non-existence directly as a living being, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with memory or gap between memories, hence suggesting any type of analogy between the two (memory, forgetfulness, and non-existence) is simply nonsense.

If you can't think it through yourself, then documentary corroboration is just a appeal to authority (or popularity) anyway, and therefore you may learn something without ever understanding it. In this case, apparently, you don't understand my analogy in the context of this topic and, instead of trying to think it through you're searching for a supporting citation like an answer to a multiple-guess exam. Whether or not my analogy makes sense, Corvus, you'll never know unless you think it through in context for yourself. — 180 Proof

It sounds like you are trying force down something analogous to your religious beliefs (faith) or intuition to others throat. It is not going to work.

Think it through. I wasn't quoting from an article when I wrote that. It's an analogy not a theory. If it does not make sense to you, Corvus, then tease out and clarify why. Otherwise, consider it, or don't. — 180 Proof

The reason why I went and searched for articles or information on the topic was, that it didn't make sense to me no matter how I tried to think or imagine. You cannot just make up some statements from your imagination or gut feeling, write them out, and expect others to accept your creations in philosophical discussions.

All your statements must be backed by the universal reason to some degree. Otherwise, whatever you utter becomes a pile of poetry or fiction.

Actually I was paraphrasing Wittgenstein. Perhaps you ought read him. — Banno

He is an interesting philosopher of language. But outside of the linguistic topics, he has his limitations. The universe and its content are far more than any language can grasp.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must reason, analyse, and break his silence.

On the contrary. A gap in memories (i.e. forgetting) in an object like a donut hole, thus conceivable and, as a conception, memorable. — 180 Proof

Cannot find any philosophical articles or information on "conception under gap in memories or forgetfulness". There are some articles from psychological researches on the memory loss and forgetfulness, but all seems related to some illness or abnormal symptoms in clinical level from ageing or causation by drugs.

If I understand that correctly, it is exactly wrong; the opposite of what is the case. Being dead is not something you will live through or experience, not part of your life; so it can have no significance for you. It's significance is in those left behind. It is not meaningful to the dead.

But I must have misunderstood you; I can't see how you could get this so wrong. — Banno

You should read some Heidegger :D It sounds like you are talking about death from emotional and sentimental point of view. Here we are discussing death from the stone-cold metaphysical and logical point of view :)