Regardless of their fidelity on this particular mostly-apolitical topic, your appeal to them damages your reputation in my eyes, just FYI. — Pfhorrest

I just Googled it and pasted it. I never went on that website before now.

You can find a different source. I probably read it first in a scientific paper or article. I hate Nixon, and I'm not a conservative. I think Putin is a decent leader, but I am not Russian, so it doesn't really matter.

Your reply is a fallacy btw. It's poisoning the well. Even if Satan said 1+1=2 it would still be right, whether you liked Satan or not.

Depends on how you'd define science. I'd probably say no. But then I'd say Neo-Darwinian Biology isn't a science either. Neither is String Theory. And other things.

Sociology, much of Psychology, much of Anthropology, Political Science.

You leave out the most important: climate change. — Xtrix

What about climate change? Do you seriously believe governments and corporations and people are competent enough to make a difference?

If you’re talking about Pluto, that’s really not an accurate characterization. — Pfhorrest

NASA: ‘Disappearing Planet’ May Never Have Existed

Could I conclude that that which is not known is not conscious experience, and hence it does not exist? — Daniel

No. Because the existence of things in the world are based on universal consciousness (i.e., God) and not on the individual subjective consciousness. The moon is still there if we're not looking at it. It just isn't "the moon." It's a different state of reality when not observed than when observed. But it still continues to exist because it exists independently, outside of subjective conscious beings.

I would apply the same logic to mathematical objects. Conceptual things are not experienced consciously by subjective individual consciousnesses, but conceptual things still exist because they exist in the mind of God.

Actual, conceptual, potential, possible and probable things all exist in the mind of God.

So even things which are not known are within conscious experience, but I'd say they're outside our conscious experience. They're within God's.

So by c) I mean that as an ontological statement, not as a epistemological one. I'm saying that universal consciousness is the grounding of all possible knowledge, even if our subjective consciousness can only comprehend a limited set of actual knowledge.

can something be conscious experience without being consciously experienced first? — Daniel

Yes. God's consciousness is the conscious experience that exists without being consciously experienced.

I'll vote for creepy uncle Joe if he forgives student loans. Why not?

I'm trying to prove it here objectively, without resorting to assumptions. — bizso09

You can't prove it objectively. Too many epistemological obstacles you cannot hope to climb.

like all important philosophers, his is a toolbox: it ought to be used when appropriate, and moved-on from when not. — StreetlightX

Yes. That's how I view philosophy also. I am not tied to any particular view, as long as it makes sense logically.

LOL

My professor in University, one of my favorite professors, was a Wittgensteinian. I definitely see merit to his view, but I prefer Plato, Kant and Rorty (three very different philosophers) to Wittgenstein. I tried to make it obvious that I did so, but it always came back to Wittgenstein.

To be honest, I'd like to hear the reason you believe this is true. There must be something that forms the foundation of your belief (an experience, perhaps), and I'd like to know that something if you want to share it with me. — Daniel

Logic. There's nothing else.

a) Conscious experience exists.
b) All knowledge comes through conscious experience.
c) Nothing can be known outside of conscious experience.
d) Conscious experience is all that exists.

I know there are some people who have mystical experiences or whatever. I never had that, I've just had the same intuition that Plato and Plotinus had. That what I see and experience about reality is nothing but shadows on the cave wall. I've always thought so. Reality isn't as it seems.

Just curious if you could name 15 more important philosophers than Wittgenstein in the 20th C. — jacksonsprat22

What are you actually saying? 15 philosophers that are more important? Or 15 more than Wittgenstein?

I can't do the former, because there aren't all that many. There are a few, but not 15. The latter, I could easily do because the 20th century was the most important century in the intellectual history as of yet.

Juvenile. Learn some manners. — jacksonsprat22

Oh please. I'm absolutely convinced you don't know what that word means, and you're just upset because I used the wrong word.

Literally what Derrida pointed out about language is basically the definition of arbitrariness. But, because you don't like the word arbitrary you're being picky.

So, you are consciousness experiencing consciousness? or are you different from consciousness? — Daniel

In a manner of speaking. I believe in a Universal Consciousness which underlies all individual consciousnesses. And I also believe in inanimate objects which exist "within consciousness" (either in the Universal Consciousness or our consciousnesses, or both).

If you want an explanation as to how this works, you can read Plotinus' Enneads. Or just Wiki it. That's a pretty decent explanation. But I have others too.

In summary, all that exists is Universal Consciousness, and states of consciousness or unconsciousness which all "exist within" the Universal Consciousness.

I do not think Derrida argued that language is arbitrary. — jacksonsprat22

Then, maybe your problem is the word "arbitrary" and not actually the argument I'm making. Do you know what it means to be ad hoc? Or arbitrary? Do you know what that means?

Hello, I just wanted to ask you if you could elaborate a bit more on that. Specifically, I'd like to know what it is that makes you believe that consciousness is all that exists. — Daniel

Because that's all I can, and perhaps ever will, experience. It's the same as anybody else. Why would you believe in Dualism or Pluralism? "Don't multiply entities unnecessarily" is more reasonable.

Don't agree with him on what? He never claimed a language game is arbitray. — jacksonsprat22

You're right. I DID. I keep saying that. Jacques Derrida makes the argument that all language is arbitrary. There are no words that self-define themselves. All words are defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words, defined by other words ad infinitum. Ergo, all words are arbitrary. There are no words that are self-defined. There is no outside text.

Players agree on what the piece is--but only in friendly games. i don't believe you could do that in a tournament. — jacksonsprat22

Right. But what about a tournament held 4000 years in the future? Do you really think it would play out the same way it does today? Is online chess, still chess? There's no pieces involved. Just clicks on a screen. What about mental chess? Totally in the mind. This isn't objective. There's nothing objective behind this.

Chess is not utter nonsense. I think you really don't know shit about Wittgenstein. — jacksonsprat22

I mean, I read him. And I've made it pretty clear I don't agree with Wittgenstein. So I don't see why you keep saying I don't know anything about him. I'm not him, I'm not pretending to be him, I never claimed to be him.

Chess has rules. If you do not play by the rules it is not chess. Why is this hard to comprehend? — jacksonsprat22

Okay? So if you're missing a King piece and you decide to use a pawn instead, it's not chess anymore? You're really arguing for a Platonic form of chess right now? You can't be serious.

I do not think you understand what Wittgenstein meant by language game. If you think he meant they are arbitrary then you know nothing about Wittgenstein. I tried to be nice, but clearly you are ignorant. — jacksonsprat22

Wittgenstein believed two different things at two different times. So, even he didn't understand anything about Wittgenstein. But that doesn't matter. I'm not debating how Wittgenstein understood anything. I'm pointing out how it actually is.

I know Wittgenstein believed that within the rules of the game, as long as you followed those rules, then things had meaning and truth. But I'm saying those rules are total nonsense. So I know what he said, I'm not saying what he said. I'm saying what I'm saying.

Never heard about any aliens. — jacksonsprat22

You're totally missing the point. You made a statement about chess' "universality" which is a metaphysical statement about how chess always is and always will be. I'm saying that you're really confusing or not understanding, what you're saying. Chess isn't "universally" played in any way. It's played in this way at the current time, as far as we know. It's not universal. And that makes it arbitrary, by definition. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. But so far every point I've made goes over people's heads, so maybe it's my fault for wasting my time.

What aliens? — jacksonsprat22

Like, any of them. Because any possible alien will not play chess "universally" like we do. That's silly. There's no planet in the ether where some alien overlord castigates his subjects for moving the pieces from white boxes to black ones. It's preposterous.

No, chess is universal and has the same rules. You can play fantasy chess but both players have to agree on the rules. — jacksonsprat22

Chess is universal? lol Ok dude. Good luck convincing aliens that chess is universal. Forget aliens, how about other humans on remote islands?

Absolutely not. Chess is a game. You cannot move the king like a queen. Not arbitrary. — jacksonsprat22

Within the logic of that game, you cannot. But you can change the game's logic. The game's logic is arbitrary. There's no law of nature that says chess needs to be played in a specific way. It's arbitrary.

You can play a hack of Pokemon, or use cheat codes, play online, glitch it to hell and back. Arbitrary.

Wittgenstein never said language use was arbitrary. Words have meaning withing any 'game.' — jacksonsprat22

That's basically the same thing as being arbitrary. I can play a language game where a word means something you eat on a hot sunny day, or I can play a language game where that word means something obscene and vulgar. That basically is no different than arbitrary.

The irony of you using language games to argue philosophical points in a discussion about Wittgenstein is apparently totally lost on you.

We are using English. You did not invent that language. — jacksonsprat22

Humans invented English. Based on nothing.

No. Words don't become what you want them to. That is solipsism. — jacksonsprat22

Actually, they do. Calling a word "word" as opposed to "logoi" or "kalam" or "mot" or "slova" is arbitrary. Totally and completely. God didn't make English. It's just a sociological reality.

Heisenberg would not call himself a philosopher. Most know him as a physicist. — jacksonsprat22

And? Science was a form of natural philosophy. Newton called himself a philosopher, so did Galileo. Words are arbitrary descriptions.

They call Wittgenstein a philosopher, but he essentially rejected all of the classical issues philosophy deals with.

Solipsism in a nutshell. — A Seagull

It's not Solipsism. I didn't say my consciousness in particular was the only thing that existed. I said consciousness in the general. This is a classic case of misreading universals and particulars.

He's the most important philosopher of the 20th Century. — jacksonsprat22

Most important? I don't know about that. One of them. 20th century had dozens of important philosophers. I think Werner Heisenberg was more important than Wittgenstein. But Wittgenstein was definitely the most important in the Anglo-American analytic tradition.

You repeatedly ignore the OP. Hello? Wake up! — I like sushi

Not really. Unless "no human error" means egalitarianism is somehow true.

If you’re making up your own hypothetical be explicit in doing so. — I like sushi

lol What "hypothetical"? This isn't hypothetical. This is what's literally happening right now.

So what? Explain. Governments are related to humans directly whereas events in the world are related indirectly. If there is no human error do you think different governmental systems would act differently? If so show me why you think this.

Again, the OP removed human error! It’s irrelevant what system of government exists if humans never er. — I like sushi

What are you asking me? I didn't say there is no human error. I just said that human error is not the only reason why systems fail.

In a governmental system where there is no human error the system would work flawlessly. The parameters for success or failure of a social system is wholly dependent upon humans. — I like sushi

I'm not totally onboard with that either. I mean, there are factors which swing the world one direction or the other that are unrelated to humans. Like, viruses.

there has to be some order, otherwise there would be pure random chaos or noise. The order comes from the force field of want, just like electro-magnetism or gravity. — bizso09

I think there is an order in the universe. But not in society. Society is a construct of the machinations of the elites who run it and the dumb herd who are ran by them.

ANY form of government is perfect if everyone agrees to it. Therefore there is no ‘perfect’. — I like sushi

Well, I think there is no perfect. But I couldn't give a rat's tail whether people agree to it or not. Consent of the governed doesn't really matter to me. It doesn't matter to the people who run the world either. And actually, it doesn't matter to the average person. Most people don't consent to their form of government, but they go on living and not caring anyway.

The way you write confuses me, so I don't know what you mean. Not very clear in your writing. I think the Critique of Pure Reason is easier than your website.

They want to do something good and avoid something bad. — bizso09

Really? I don't think so. People just "do things"

I don't think there's rhyme or reason. People might dress it up like there is though.

Late Wittgenstein remains one of the most influential philosophical contributions of modern times.