• Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Since "someone" is pointing to an object in front of him "this" refers to whatever it is that he or she is pointing to.

    The term translated as "special" is Besondere. It can also be translated as particular. In some cases it makes sense to say "This is here". It is not being used in the same way however, when "This is here" is meant to point something metaphysical (§116). In this case "here" means exists or is real, which is not what the word means when used in those circumstances where it does make sense.

    In what circumstances does it make sense? If we are looking for the object and find it: "This (the car key) is here. Or if mapping the location of objects in the room. Or giving an inventory of the things in the room. There is nothing "special" about these circumstances. They are all quite ordinary, but they are not the same circumstances in which one claims "This is here" and means something metaphysical.
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    God is how all things stand, how it is all related (NB 1.8.16)

    To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter. To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning (NB 8.7.16)     — NB
  • Houses are Turning Into Flowers
    It is easy to imagine and work out in full detail events which, if they actually came about, would throw us out in all our judgments [...] then I should say something like "I have gone mad; but that would merely be an expression of giving up the attempt to know my way about. And the same thing might befall me in mathematics. It might, e.g., seem as if I kept on making mistakes in calculating, so that no answer seems reliable to me.

    But the important thing about this for me is that there isn't any sharp line between such a condition and the normal one (393).     — Wittgenstein, Zettel

    Do I want to say, then, that certain facts are favorable to the formation of certain concepts; or again unfavorable? And does experience teach us this? It is a fact of experience that human beings alter their concepts, exchange them for others when they learn new facts; when in this way what was formerly important to them becomes unimportant, and vice versa. (It is discovered e.g. that what formerly counted as a difference in kind, is really only a difference in degree. (352) — Zettel

    The same proposition may get treated at one time as something to test by experience, at others as a rule of testing. (98) — On Certainty
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    And yet words do have a aura that is the ghost of all the uses in all the games of the ancestors ... The inseparability of meaning from use must work both ways, so when I use 'supernatural' in this game, the aura of the Roman gods is somehow invoked, whether I intend it or not. — unenlightened

    I agree.

    Wittgenstein said:

    My account will be hard to follow: because it says something new but still has egg-shells from the old view sticking to it. (Culture and Value, 14)

    Husserl points to the sedimentation of meaning. Words accrue meaning over time. We see this clearly with the term 'soul'. Whole mythologies became part of its meaning.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    §117 — StreetlightX

    When the philosopher says “This is here”, I think he is referring to Moore's claim "here is one hand". Moore's point is that it exists, it is real. But when not doing philosophy does such a statement make sense? It would make no sense for me to walk up to someone and say "here is one hand, and here is another". The example in §117 is some object. Now it might make sense to say “This is here” if we are looking for the object, but in this case the object is right in front of him. In this case, "here" does not mean in this place, as if a hand could be misplaced, but intends something metaphysical - I know irrefutably that it exists. But that is not how the word 'here' is ordinarily used, except perhaps if we are looking for something whose existence is in question; but not as confirmation of existence in general.
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    ↪Pussycat


    As far as I can see, on the existence of the world. His view is in this sense similar to Deism. But given his silence on such matters and his mysticism I would not go so far as to posit a theory.

    Edit:

    The comparison with Deism was meant with regard to being hands off. For Deism God is a being. I don't think W. would say that.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Bye bye Frankie. Some day you may grow up and realize that you are only playing at doing philosophy, but given your age, I doubt it. I think you are probably capable of stating things in a clear and simple way, but you prefer to deal in ambiguities. When I asked you what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? Your answer was:

    Because that was the point I was making. — Frank Apisa

    The point you were making is that you can phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding?

    One thing that is of value in Plato's dialogues is what it reveals about the character of Socrates' interlocutors. Other noted philosophers have also pointed to the importance of character. Wittgenstein said that working in philosophy is working on one's self. You have a lot of work to do, but I suspect you will only continue to play games intended to mislead and think that your playing at philosophy is doing philosophy.

    I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    This is the kind of condescending comment I was referring to. Have I really given the impression that I'm not at least fairly well versed in Wittgenstein? — Isaac

    And this is why I think it is best that I no longer respond to you. Being well versed in Wittgenstein does not mean that you cannot be mistaken. There is a great deal written about "form of life" by well regarded scholars of Wittgenstein that is in dispute.

    As to the position you are holding, I cannot say if I am actually interested in that position until I know what it is. As of now, I do not know what that position is.
    — Fooloso4

    A fact which doesn't surprise me as you haven't even asked yet     — Isaac

    I am not here to solicit opinions. If you have a position you want to present then do what everyone else does, present it. Why would you wait for me to ask? If you do present it, I think it best, given your sensitivity to my criticism, that I simply ignore it.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    But the statement "I do not believe any gods exist" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa

    That is not the statement I said was ambiguous. The statement in question is: "I do not "believe" there are no gods". That statement is entirely consistent with your believing that there are gods. That is the point you avoid addressing. Since it is also entirely consistent with your not having any beliefs about gods, the statement is ambiguous with regard to your beliefs concerning gods.

    Do you really think that using ALL CAPS makes it less AMBIGUOUS? Have you forgotten the context or do you think context does not matter? We were talking about belief in gods. One cannot tell from the statement what you believe, only what you do not believe. That makes it ambiguous.

    When you provided further context, namely that you hold no beliefs about gods, then and only then was your statement no longer ambiguous as to what you meant.
    — Fool

    Bullshit.     — Frank Apisa

    If I say: "I do not believe it is not going to rain" do I mean it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether or not it will rain? If you cannot give me a definitive answer then the statement is ambiguous. In the same way your statement is ambiguous. So, tell me: do I believe it is going to rain? How do you know?

    YOU were mistaking the comment "I do not believe X"...to mean "I believe not-X" — Frank Apisa

    No, that is the mistake you were fishing for. You were so intent on setting the hook that you disregarded what I actually said and substituted the assumptions that you hoped for.

    But, you apparently are not very bright. You thought they were contradictory. — Frank Apisa

    Where did I say they were contradictory? What I said is that you are free to hold contradictory beliefs. And you are, plenty of people do. You apparently are not very bright. YOU were mistaking the comment "You are free to hold contradictory beliefs" to mean "You hold contradictory beliefs".

    There is NO WAY they are contradictory. — Frank Apisa

    Of course there is a way in which the statements can be contradictory. Again, the second statement is entirely consistent with believing that there are gods. There is NO WAY that "I do not "believe" there are no gods" entails "I have no beliefs regarding gods". But you are unwilling to admit that either. Instead you use all caps and insult me.

    If you see my statements as contradictory...which you said you did...your "educational level or training" is inadequate. — Frank Apisa

    But I did not say they were. That was your assumption. You are so intent on setting the hook that you missed what I actually said and substituted statements of your own making. "You are free to hold contradictory beliefs" does not mean "You hold contradictory beliefs".
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    We are discussing the meaning of signs, yes? Signs in the broad sense of the word, as in symbols or structures to which people respond in a manner not directly resultant from the physical form of the object. A signpost was one example, the amber traffic light another. — Isaac

    At the moment, we are or were talking about traffic lights. It is, however, part of a larger discussion that includes the relationship between intention and meaning. You asked:

    Yes, but how does their setting up a standard and legally enforcing it make it 'mean'? — Isaac

    You rejected the claim that the meaning is established by law and said it was a matter of community assent. But yellow does not mean caution because the community assented to that meaning. What they assented to is the law. And that does not mean the law that yellow means caution but assent to the establishment and enforcement of law, which includes traffic laws, which include use caution when the light is yellow.

    The meaning of the sign is the message contained in its structure. — Isaac

    And what is the meaning of the message? Clearly a sign contains a message. The question we have been dealing with is what it means.

    To say their meaning with further signs (such as ostension or samples) becomes circular, hence the conclusion that our form of life teaches us how to respond. — Isaac

    It is not our form of life that teaches us how to respond, but rather what we are taught as part of our form of life. And this happens in a variety of different ways - training, explanation, following the example of others, and so on.

    So, are you actually interested in the position I'm holding, or are we just going back to the same pissing contest which has dogged this thread thus far for the prize of sitting in the 'teacher's chair'? — Isaac

    First, I did not think it was a pissing contest. If you are vying to sit in the 'teacher's chair' then have at it. As far as I am concerned Wittgenstein holds the chair. As to the position you are holding, I cannot say if I am actually interested in that position until I know what it is. As of now, I do not know what that position is.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    There is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe gods exist" and there is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe there are no gods."

    Both are truthful.     — Frank Apisa

    You need to look up the definition of ambiguity. The fact that a statement is truthful does not mean it is not ambiguous. It I say: "I do not believe it is not going to rain", that is a truthful statement if I do not believe it is not going to rain. The question is, what do I mean when I say this? If I believed that it was going to rain that would be consistent with the statement. If I meant I have no belief one way or the other that too would be consistent with the statement. So, how do you know on the basis of the statement which one I meant?

    If you are too stupid to see the point I was making — Frank Apisa

    Of course I saw the point! I do not think it helpful to call people stupid but if I did I would say that you are the one who is stupid for your inability to see why your initial statement was ambiguous. Not believing X does not mean that you believe not-X, but that could be what you meant. I would also call you stupid for not understanding that meaning involves a great deal more than making a true statement. A member sent me this privately:

    'Donald Davidson argues that language competence must not simply involve learning a set meaning for each word, and then rigidly applying those semantic rules to decode other people's utterances. Rather, he says, people must also be continually making use of other contextual information to interpret the meaning of utterances, and then modifying their understanding of each word's meaning based on those interpretations.'

    When you provided further context, namely that you hold no beliefs about gods, then and only then was your statement no longer ambiguous as to what you meant.

    If you are too stupid to see the point I was making...or why I was making it...go talk with someone about movies or TV programs, because these kinds of discussions are beyond you. — Frank Apisa

    You know nothing about my educational level or training. There are several reasons why I do not make it known, but one is that it is a good source of amusement as some with little or no training in philosophy draw conclusions about me that only demonstrate their lack of education.
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    So in other words, for Wittgenstein, without God, there is no meaning, there cannot be one, the world is meaningless without God. No God = no meaning, there is God = there is meaning, as simple as that. — Pussycat

    But W. talks about the meaning of the world, only it is not to be found in the world. (6.41) The world and God are not the same.

    And as long as the will cannot be transformed into actions - because these actions would then be facts — Pussycat

    One can do what one wills, but your are right, he actions would be facts. Wittgenstein says though that it is not a matter of the consequences of the act in the world. He places the value of the action in the act itself. (6.422)

    then we reach the conclusion that God's will cannot ever be shown in the world, one way or another. — Pussycat

    Right, because what happens in the world is a matter of accident. God's will is not a matter of what happens in the world. He says:

    God does not reveal himself in the world. (6.432)

    He goes on to say:

    It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists. (6.44)
  • Discussions About God.
    ↪YuZhonglu


    The pious person might answer that they are talking about the God but each according to his own understanding or according to his own way of expressing what goes beyond all human attempts to express.

    But I agree that if there are different concepts of God then to treat them all as if they are all about the same entity or Being or ground or source of being or what have you is problematic.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    In my last post I wrongly credited you with saying that we were of the same mind. You asked the question and I answered that we were of the same mind regarding the first statement.

    What you fail to realize is that we are not talking about logical entailment. We are talking about what some guy on the internet says. What some guy says and what he means are not always the same, and what he mean is often not clear, even to himself.

    Once again, when you say that you do not believe 'X' that does not mean that you have no belief about 'X'. It might be that is what you mean that but you might mean that you do hold this belief. The statement is ambiguous. It is up to the people you are talking to decide for themselves what you mean.

    Two can play this game. I said:

    You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

    I did not claim that you do hold contradictory beliefs. It does not follow from the statement that you are allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, that you do or that I claimed you did.

    I see that you love to argue, but if you think that is what philosophy is about then we have very different views on the matter. I am not going to waste any more time with this game of ambiguities.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    I didn't say the intent would change or go away, I said the meaning would no longer be related to it. — Isaac

    But it is still related to it, that is, to regulating the flow of traffic.

    the intent of the wider community might just be to get to work on time. — Isaac

    The wider community interested in getting to work did not install the traffic light.

    So you keep saying, but I've yet to see how. I get that the law becomes what it means if the community assents to using it that way, but then it is the community's assent which causes meaning. — Isaac

    The community assents to give the law makers power to make and enforce the law. If they do not like the law they attempt to change it. But until the law is changed members of the community can be fined or jailed for breaking the law.

    No, it absolutely doesn't, people break the law all the time and it doesn't mean that they have declined to be governed by law in general. It just means that law is only seen as set of proscription, not the final word on the meaning of life. — Isaac

    You have lost me here. I said nothing about declining to be governed by law. And I have said nothing about the meaning of life. We were talking about traffic lights, not the meaning of life. Or at least that is what I was talking about.

    Traffic lights came first (with the intention of controlling traffic flow) — Isaac

    The lights did not come first. They did not appear before the intention or simultaneously with the intention of controlling traffic.

    then the community learns the pattern (amber indicates its about to turn red), and derives a meaning (rush to get through) depending entirely on it form of life, not on the original intention of those who made the lights. — Isaac

    The lights have a legal meaning. If you run a red light because you rush to get through, it does not matter what meaning you or others derive. You have broken the law. The meaning of the light is clear and unambiguous. No judge would buy your story.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Apparently you are not able to acknowledge that saying "I do not believe "X"...IS NOT the same as saying "I believe not-X." — Frank Apisa

    If you do not believe no gods exist then either have no belief about gods or you believe gods exist. You might mean one or the other. It is ambiguous. Saying it is ambiguous is not the same as saying you must believe X or not-X. Are you able to acknowledge that?

    You go on to say:

    There were NO "beliefs" held there, Foolso. — Frank Apisa

    I did NOT express a "belief." I mentioned that I do not hold certain "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

    But earlier you said:

    I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso. — Frank Apisa
    We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. — Fooloso4

    My belief is that gods do not exist. If we are of the same mind regarding this then when you say you also do not believe any gods exist then you are expressing the same belief as I am. You no longer have the option of claiming you do not believe any gods exist because you hold no beliefs about the gods. In that case we would not be of the same mind. Are you able to acknowledge that?
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Right, so if 'the community' dynamically evolve a standard which differs from that of the people who created or instigated the lights, then that is what the meaning is, not the intent of the instigator. — Isaac

    The intent is to regulate the flow of traffic. That does not change even if the standard by which the flow of traffic is regulated changes. To use one of Wittgenstein's tribe examples, a colorblind tribe would not have color coded traffic lights. They would have some other standard, but the intent would still be to regulate the flow of traffic.

    Acceptance by the community is the final arbiter, and if the community say amber means 'rush to get through' then that's what amber means. — Isaac

    If it becomes the law then that is what it will mean. If it is found that there is an increase of accidents at the light, they may revise the law. It is still a matter of established standards and the intent to regulate traffic.

    Community acceptance. So it is not correct to say that the meaning of an amber light is determined by the law-makers. — Isaac

    In a community governed by law the community accepts the law or attempts to change it.

    It may or may not be depending on how law abiding the community is. They could theoretically ignore their wishes completely. — Isaac

    In that case the issue is not the color of the light but the lights themselves. They would no longer function as they are intended to. Without consent, either voluntary or involuntary, the law cannot be enforced. Suppose at some time in the future the traffic laws are ignored and not enforced, but the traffic lights still change color. If I were to ask what it means for the lights to change color the answer might be, "it does not mean anything" or "when people obeyed the traffic laws amber meant proceed with caution". There is no inherent meaning in an amber light, it is part of a practice, what Wittgenstein would call a way of life.

    so it is simple to say that the communities accepted use determines meaning — Isaac

    This does not mean that intent plays no role in the practice. It is not as if traffic lights came first and then the community decided what the meaning of these lights would be. Traffic lights are installed with an intended purpose.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa

    But that is not what you said. You did not say you do not have a belief that 'X' you said I do not "believe" 'X'.

    If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa

    Again, that is not what you said. When you say that you do not believe 'X' that does not mean that you have no belief about 'X'. As you said, precise language is a must.

    You agreed that it was AMBIGUOUS when I used rain in place of gods. Or when you say "Okay" you are simply being non-committal? AMBIGUOUS?

    I strive to express myself simply and clearly. I learned this from "The Elements of Style" many years ago. although it took me many years to put it into practice. Given what you have said about yourself, I think it likely that you too have come across this idea. But evidently you do not recognize its value. Why else would you say something like "I do not believe 'X'" when you mean "I hold to no beliefs regarding 'X'" in the context of this discussion?

    I'll ask again: what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding?
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Yes, but how does their setting up a standard and legally enforcing it make it 'mean'? — Isaac

    Are you asking what makes a standard a standard? Its general acceptance by the community. The United States does not use the metric system. I cannot tell you how that came about. From time to time there is talk of changing to the metric system, but it has not happened.

    The conversation doesn't make sense. — Isaac

    Meaning is not monolithic. What a traffic sign means as a matter of law may not be what it means in the rules of a race. Different activity, different rules.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa

    If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

    There was nothing contradictory expressed.

    This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must.     — Frank Apisa

    If your point was to say that you hold no beliefs about gods then why not say that? Instead you expressed a belief - using a double negative. It is not a question of logic but of determining what you are trying to say.

    If I say that I do not believe that it is not going to rain, that may mean I believe it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether it will rain or not.

    You play on the ambiguity but why? To what end? If you hold to the idea that precise language is a must then why use ambiguous language?
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    No judgement intended, but isn't this what theologians have been arguing for centuries? — Pussycat

    Yes, in some form or other.

    Wittgenstein emphasized the will of God. He understands this as something inexplicable. We cannot say why God wills as he does. There is a link here with the contingency of the world and the idea that things could be other than they are.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

    AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

    Are you of that same mind?     — Frank Apisa

    We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    The law-makers say "amber means get ready to stop" how does their saying so make it mean that? — Isaac

    Because that is the standard that was set up and enforced.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa

    I do not have to concede that possibility since I have acknowledged it all along. See the distinction I made between epistemic agnosticism and pistemic atheism. Allow me to help you with that. I make no knowledge claims about the existence of gods, they may or may not exist, I do not know. But I do not believe they do exist.

    If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa

    I am not telling you anything about the gods. I know nothing of gods. I am telling you what I believe. It is not a guess and it is not blind. It is a matter of not finding anything that leads me to think there are gods, but that is not a guess about whether there are or not. If I were asked to guess I say that barring some further development it seems me that there are not. It would be blind from an epistemological standpoint, but beliefs involve more than what we think we know.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    The amber light means what it means to the community of light-users. — Isaac

    The meaning of the light is determined by law. The community may have some say in what the law should be, but this is not so straight forward. The laws are part of the community. Members of the community might push to have the law changed, but drivers do not get to decide what the traffic laws will be simply because they use the roads.

    It's meaning (which is what matters philosophically) is its current use. — Isaac

    If some percentage of drivers speed through a yellow light this does not change the meaning of the light. They are breaking the law, even if they are the majority of drivers. The law is not simply what "everybody does". The law is does not take into consideration only what people do, but what they should do to ensure the safely of everyone who uses the road.

    The traffic light is intended to regulate the flow of traffic. It does not leave it up to the drivers of motor vehicles to determine what the light means.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    Which is to say that you make a blind guess one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

    I do not make a blind guess unless I take seriously the possibility of the existence of gods. And unless I find some persuasive reason to take seriously the possibility of their existence, I find no reason to rule them in, and so, do not blindly guess about their existence any more than I make a blind guess about the existence of the monster, or any of the countless things I might imagine are possible without any reason to think that they might be actual.

    But if there are gods...what makes you suppose this places an obligation on you. — Frank Apisa

    Well, it is also possible that the gods do place obligations on us.

    The question I am getting at is about the significance of such possibilities. In what way does it matter that it is possible that gods exist? If I take seriously the possibility that there is a monster under the bed I might be fearful. I might not want to get in the bed or out of the bed. But if it does not change anything I do or fear then what difference does it make? If a child is fearful, what do we take seriously, the possibility of the monster or the reality of the fear? Do we act to eliminate the threat of the monster or alleviate the fear?
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    "The only way we have to judge whether a person followed a rule or not is to judge whether the person behaved as intended.". It is important, I think, to stress (as you have done in your post) that a single person's intent does not make a rule. — Isaac

    Intent is not limited to what a single person intends. If we come across a sign and do not know how to read it, we may ask about its intended meaning, which means, "what are we supposed to do?" We might also ask "what is the convention that determines the meaning of the sign?".

    It is only when someone knows how to read the sign that a judgment can be made as to whether the rule is being followed. Here we are not talking about some idiosyncratic intent that stands opposed to the convention, but about what one is to do in accord with the intended meaning as determined by convention.

    What does a yellow traffic light mean? If one's answer is based on observed practice he might conclude that it means to speed up to get through the light before it changes to red. This, however, is not its intended meaning, which is to proceed with caution. It's intended meaning is set by law.
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    There is a difference between "nothing I do is predicated on their possible existence"...and "they do not exist." — Frank Apisa

    Right, that is my point. I make no claims of knowledge, but still hold beliefs on the matter.

    You may feel it reasonable to "not take seriously the possibility that they do exist"...BUT the unavoidable fact is that it IS possible that gods exist. — Frank Apisa

    The trap one falls into is thinking that it follows from the claim that something is possible, which is to say, not impossible, that this possibility has any bearing on what one does or believes. It is possible that there is a monster under my bed that has the ability to disappear whenever I look for it. It IS possible that it exists, BUT what follows from this?
  • Why are most people unwilling to admit that they don't know if God does or does not exist?
    It does not follow from the claim that we cannot or have not determined whether gods exist that we should take seriously the possibility that they do exist. Not ruling something out does not mean we should rule it in. There are various reasons why one might want to rule it in, but if I do not find any of those reasons compelling then I have no reason why I should rule it in.

    My position is epistemologically agnostic, but with regard to belief I "pistemically" atheist or "apistemic", that is, without belief in gods. I could be wrong, but I do not believe in gods and nothing I do is predicated on their possible existence.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    What if a moronically stupid sign maker had decided that the blunt end would point to Dublin, and he expected that one follow that. Who's made the mistake, the person now walking away from Dublin, or the sign maker? — Isaac

    It is a matter of convention that the blunt end does not point in the direction one is to go. The convention may have been based on the shape of an actual arrow or spear, but in any case its meaning is a matter of convention. Those who know the convention know how to read the sign. The sign maker's intent may be simply to make a functional sign, that is, one that will be read according to the convention. He does not have to intend for the pointed end to point in the direction one is to go. That has already been established by convention.

    But not all signs are meant to be read by everyone. If one intends to lead some in the right direction and others in the wrong direction, he might make a sign with the blunt end pointing toward where he intends those who know how to read this sign will go, but not those who read it according to established convention. He cannot, however, simply intend the sign to be read this way or that, he must either establish or make use of an exclusive convention .
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    the transcendent or transcendental — Pussycat

    Transcendent means to go beyond. Transcendental, following Kant, means the conditions for the possibility of experience, or more generally, the conditions that make something possible. The conditions that make experience possible, according to Kant, are found in the structure of the mind, the a priori categories of the understanding. For Wittgenstein, however, logic as a transcendental condition is not a condition of the mind or understanding. It is the structure of the world and of language, inherent in the simple objects of the world and their names. In what sense ethics is a transcendental condition is more difficult to see. It is clear that, according to Wittgenstein, it transcends the logical limits of the world, and thus the facts of the world. It has nothing to do with the necessity of logic or the accidents of the facts of the world. The transcendental condition of ethics lies in the freedom of the human will and willing in accord with God's will.

    Wittgenstein asks:

    What do I know about God and the purpose of life?

    That my will penetrates the world.
    That my will is good or evil.
    Therefore that good and evil are somehow connected with the meaning of the world.
    The meaning of life, i.e. the meaning of the world, we can call God. (NB 11.6.16)

    To believe in a God means to understand the question about the meaning of life.
    To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.
    To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning. (NB 8.7.16)
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    You are right about this: it does help to have a questioner. And having one who goes from an adversary to thinking of himself as part of a team is interesting. The problem is, I was not aware of this turn in your thinking. I often wondered whether you found any of my explanations helpful or were just moving on to the next thing, trying to catch me up, to demonstrate that you were right in your initial judgment of me and my lack of understanding of the text. It sometimes seemed to be a bit of both.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Part 1 was completed by 1946, so there's every reason to think it his final draft. — Isaac

    According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    Part I, consisting of 693 numbered paragraphs, was ready for printing in 1946, but rescinded from the publisher by Wittgenstein.
    It hardly comes into the same category as the notebooks. — Isaac

    What about the manuscripts, typescripts, and dictations? Where do the collections entitled Bemerkungen or Remarks stand? Or the slips of paper he collected that was published as "Zettel" (German for notes or slips of paper).?
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Only a very small proportion of Wittgenstein's writing was published — Isaac

    The only work that was published during his lifetime was the Tractatus.

    Many of the notebooks contain Wittgenstein's 'wrong turns' — Isaac

    The same could be said of the Tractatus.

    If we trust the man to give us insight we may not ourselves have found, then we should also trust him to discard that which is not so insightful, and yet with his notebooks we have not afforded him that opportunity. — Isaac

    The Philosophical Investigations were published posthumously.

    The first half of 'On Certainty', for example, was written during a time when he himself describes his philosophy in very negative terms, and if you remove the first half from the second, the overall conclusion of the work is markedly different. — Isaac

    I do not want to get sidetracked with a discussion of OC, but I see no plausible reason to divide the text based on what he said about his frame of mind at the time. I question the idea that there is an overall conclusion. There are a great many books that if you divide them in two the conclusions one draws from them would be different. After all, half the book is missing.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    It's that there are multiple meanings, shades of meaning, and too many variables in social encounters for there to be a clear set of rules for each one. — frank

    I agree. I would add to this meaning in the sense of significance, importance, and value.
  • Ongoing Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus reading group.
    Never crossed my mind that we were playing crossbows and catapults, with myself in the role of the attacker and you the defender. — Pussycat

    I will let the record speak for itself.

    Are you in for teamwork or do you prefer going solo? — Pussycat

    What teamwork? What part of the heavy lifting did you contribute when I went through the text?
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    'Us' being the key word, not me, or you, not the air stewardess or the passenger, but some collective of us. — Isaac

    We are in agreement on this. It is because of this that we can say that the passenger did not understand what the instructions meant.

    Intention within a language game, however, is an individual thing, not a collective. The intention of the builder might be to obtain a slab, the intention of the builder's mate might be to pass up the correct object. The intention of the community of language users in that game is to build a wall. — Isaac

    What one intends to do does factor into it, but I was referring to the intended meaning. If you were to say that I did not understand what you meant, then whether or not I did understand you depends on your intended meaning. If we are both given a set of instructions and cannot agree on what we are to do, then the disagreement can be resolved by asking the person who issued the orders what it is she intends for us to do. If such a person cannot be consulted then there may be no way to resolve the issue in some cases, but in others it might be resolved by the success or lack of success that follows from what we take it to mean to follow the rule. In the case of the plane example the window either opens or it does not depending on whether one pushes or pulls. In other cases, however, as unenlightened says (quoting Zhuangzi?), "a path is made by walking on it".

    So the intention of the air stewardesses in using the word "pull" gets to play a part in the development of what the word 'means', but it doesn't get an executive role. — Isaac

    The meaning of the word "pull" has already been established. There is nothing novel in her use of the word. It is actually not even her use, she is repeating the rules for how to proceed if one needs to exit the plane. Once again, the example was about the passengers understanding or lack of understanding of what he is to do.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    Eh, i don't think either of us are going to particularly budge on this. I'll settle for noting that the idea of 'improper meaning' simply appears nowhere on any page of the PI. — StreetlightX

    I just went back over the discussion to find where the phrase 'improper meaning' came from. I used the phrase 'improper use'. Luke took this to mean that since meaning is use improper use means improper meaning. You then claimed that 'improper meaning' is not a thing, that there either is or is not meaning.

    It was not my intention to defend the use of the phrase 'improper meaning', it is not a phrase I would use, but rather to address the larger questions of meaning. It is my contention that meaning is not something that exists on its own. I have no problem jettisoning the phrase improper meaning.
  • Philosophical Investigations, reading it together.
    You seem to be reading 125 as saying that a person's intention has some bearing on the 'proper' meaning of a word, — Isaac

    If a child points to a dog and says "cat" we correct him. "Cat" is not the proper name for the animal. That has nothing to do with intention. If I say, "Give the dog a pet", the child might become confused. The dog is a pet, but is to be given its own pet? Here intention plays a role.

    he is no longer describing language. He is talking about the effect of laying down a set of rules (of our own devising) and then, when those rules do not produce the result we expect, we claim "I didn't mean it like that". — Isaac

    The entanglement in the rules is not limited to the rules of mathematics. But since different members are in different places in the text I will hold off on saying more.

    So the reference to a personal form of "that's not what I meant" at 125 is not intended to give authority to intention ... — Isaac

    If you mean that words do not mean whatever we intend them to mean then I agree. But this does not mean that meaning has nothing to do with intention. If I say: "Meet me at the bank" it matters whether I mean a financial institution or the bank of the river.
Home » Fooloso4