• An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Well, if all you are saying is that animals think and believe, then what you claim is nothing controversial, but something that I believe most would take for granted. — Janus

    Well sure, if that was all I was saying... I'm sure most folk would agree. On the other hand, there is a large swath of philosophers who would not... lest they would suffer incoherence and/or self-contradiction...

    The position I'm arguing for has the broadest scope of rightful application that I am aware of. It rightfully applies to everything ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written - as a measure nonetheless. I don't think most folk would take that for granted.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    ...words enable thoughts and beliefs to be held before the mind in determinate forms. — Janus

    Well of course. Language enables us to become aware of the fact that we have thought and belief, in addition to allowing us to be able to think about our own thought and belief. Furthermore, it also allows much more complex thought and belief to be formed.

    As it pertains to the OP...

    Metacognition is existentially dependent upon language. Some thought and belief exists prior to language. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it. Some thought and belief cannot be existentially dependent upon language. That which exists prior to something else cannot consist of it. Some thought and belief cannot consist of language or metacognition.
  • On Disidentification.
    Well, if you're ok with it, then who am I to dissuade you?
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    In short, all thought and belief consist entirely of mental correlations.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    All you are saying is that the constituents are what thought and belief consist of; which is really saying nothingat all or just expressing a tautology. So, what exactly are those constituents? — Janus

    Well not really. It's expressing the fact that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon other things.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Because words enable thoughts and beliefs to be held before the mind in determinate forms. — Janus

    So, thought and belief that are dependent upon language are determinate objects?
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    I don't know what you mean by "elemental constituents". Are you proposing some kind of reductive atomism? — Janus

    Well, for someone who has levied several different charges against my position, I'm surprised that you do not know what I mean by "elemental constituents". Those would be what all thought and belief consist of, thought and belief that is existentially dependent upon language notwithstanding.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    To sum that I would say that thoughts and beliefs as the kinds of things that can be held; are dependent on language; whereas thinking and believing as organic pre-linguistic processes are not. It's not rocket science! — Janus

    Why is it ok to talk about thought and belief that is existentially dependent upon language in terms of being held but it is not ok to talk about thought and belief that is not existentially dependent upon language in the same terms?

    And no...

    It's not rocket science. It underwrites rocket science.
  • On Disidentification.
    Well, I think coming to understand what one values and why is imperative to understanding oneself. Understanding oneself is necessary for overcoming depression.

    Above all... as stupidly simple as it may sound...

    Accept the way things are. Change what can be changed for the better. Accept what cannot. Learn the difference between the two.

    Habits of thought play a crucial role... Habits of thought.
  • On Disidentification.
    See above...
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Secondly, I'm wondering what counts as being a determinate object?

    I strongly assert that all thought and belief consists of the same basic set of elemental constituents, of which, we can acquire knowledge thereof.

    Does that require me believing that thought and belief are determinate objects?
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Well they are not things in the sense of being determinate objects; and I think the idea that you think they are such things is what Banno was criticizing.

    Activities and processes are better thought of as doings or becomings, not as beings. I have had this disagreement with you before; where I have pointed out that there is pre-linguistic believing and thinking, but that it is misguided to say that there is pre-linguistic having of or holding beliefs or thoughts, because the latter is a confused way of talking that suggests that pre-linguistic beliefs and thoughts are determinate objects which can be mentally 'held'. This is a deceptive analogy with the notion of physically holding an object that many minds fall into; and I believe Banno is right to think that you are one of them.     — Janus

    I've a couple of directions to go from this.

    First...

    Indeed. Banno has raised this point a number of times. I'm not denying that I'm prone to talk in terms of having and/or holding a belief. That's just layman's talk.

    Do you find that such talk is somehow instrumental to the position I argue for? I mean, do you find that I cannot effectively set out thought and belief without saying those things?
  • Living and Dying
    I don't feel as though we are taught to fear it. Think about elephants or chimpanzees that mourn the dead. They don't show fear towards the dead, just a sense of loss. — Posty McPostface

    Certainly some animals mourn. I do not see the relevance of that to death being a taboo subject to some people.

    You may not have been taught to fear death. Many are. Not all.
  • On Disidentification.
    Simply put, be very careful when you decide what's important and what's not.
  • On Disidentification.
    Yes. Have I identified too closely with depression then? What use can disidentification serve? — Posty McPostface

    I cannot help you with that.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Activities and processes are things... are they not?

    :yikes:
  • Living and Dying
    So, why is it taboo to talk about death? — Posty McPostface

    It's only taboo to those who've not come to acceptable terms with it. Many are taught to fear it. That teaching can run deep. Others are taught that it can be an honorable thing, in specific instances, including suicide in ancient Japanese cultures. This is honorable as a result of not allowing oneself to be captured or killed by the enemy. Hence, the kamikaze pilots and the samurai falling onto his own sword.
  • On Disidentification.
    Don't forget that one's self-identity is largely a social construct, and as such is not at all immune to people doing things to fit in or simply to get a certain kind of attention from others. Hence...

    Trans-trenders...

    :wink:
  • On Disidentification.
    So, you've never had mixed feelings creativesoul? — Posty McPostface

    Mixed, as in more than one kind? Sure. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones all at the same time? No. Mixed, as in having completely contradictory ones at different times? Sure. That can lead to confusion and uncertainty.

    I just do not see how one can be depressed and happy all at the same time.

    I would think that many folk have had some depression of some sort for so long that they get used to it...

    Is that what you're describing here? That you've become so used to being depressed that it's basically your normal state of being, and that during the rare times of happiness that when you allow your mind to wander into the realm of the future, that you 'see' yourself being depressed again, and that that negatively affects/effects the happiness at the time?
  • Stating the Truth
    I just know that I dont get any enjoyment from philosophy anymore. It feels more like a very tense and nervous imperative to organize thought into some arrangement of leakproof compartments. — csalisbury

    Hey csal. I may be wrong here, but could it just be the case that you've been faced with a reality check, so to speak? I mean, it sounds like you may just be experiencing what it's like to be suddenly overcome by the fact that you hold false belief somewhere along the line.

    Is the imperative to root these out?
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    My birth is/was not existentially dependent upon my death. My death is existentially dependent upon my birth.

    The whole of my experience is all of it. The whole of my experience does not exist prior to any particular part of it. Thus, the whole of my experience is not a problem at all for the outline.

    It's not that I'm denying such notions. It's rather, that such notions aren't a problem. This was already demonstrated earlier with Dennis...
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    I have provided a contradictory example... — Blue Lux

    Oh, but you have not. You provided a contradictory claim. A gratuitous assertion, nonetheless, that has been subsequently, and quite validly, shown to be false(by reductio).

    Unless, that is, you wish to claim that the discovery of carbon was existentially dependent upon my birth. Seeing how my birth happened about 5700 years after carbon was discovered, if that's the case you're making, I've nothing further.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, which may or may not be real yet — Blue Lux

    Rubbish.

    The discovery of carbon was an experience. The discovery of carbon is not, was not, and is/was in no way at all existentially dependent upon my birth. My birth was/is also an experience.

    See?

    That's how it's done. A valid counterexample, I mean.

    Now you try.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    ...the law that everything that CAN happen WILL happen... — Blue Lux

    Making up your own laws?

    Nice.

    Does that make them true?

    :lol:
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    So you are indeed operating within your own closed system. — Blue Lux

    Strictly speaking, we all are.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon it... — creativesoul

    There's the claim in question.

    Fill it out with your counterexample. There are two variables. Given them value.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    You're making no sense.

    Talking in terms of a continuum is not a problem for the outline. Evidently, you do not understand what a valid counterexample requires...

    The irony.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    Just reiterating your completely unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it. — Blue Lux

    What proves it is that there are no examples to the contrary. None. That's the strongest possible justificatory ground.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, for if there were no more experience, then experience would no longer exist. So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. Im not talking about a specific experience incommensurate with the specificities of another experience. I am speaking of experience as such. — Blue Lux


    Alright, let's fill this out a bit...

    My mother gave birth to me. All my experience prior to this conversation cannot be existentially dependent upon this conversation. It didn't exist. My being born is not existentially dependent upon this conversation. This conversation is existentially dependent upon my birth.

    That general idea holds good across the board.

    Your claiming that something can be existentially dependent upon something else that doesn't even exist.
  • An Outline Of Existential Dependency
    So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. — Blue Lux

    What I'm arguing only requires one example to the contrary in order to negate it.

    Ya got one or not?

    Vague bald assertions won't do here.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does. — Sam26

    A badge of honor. The price of novelty.

    Many more do today than did a decade ago. What I'm talking about hasn't changed much at all.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    creativesoul Then I don't know what you're talking about... — Sam26

    I think that how we're using the term "justify" is the root of our misunderstanding.

    When one justifies his/her claims, they provide the ground(s) to another.

    All I'm saying is, and you've agreed with me before, that one need not provide their ground to another in order for the belief to be well-grounded. Being well-grounded is the criterion for being justified. It is not providing that ground to another.

    Right?
  • Knowledge without JTB
    Set out the difference between belief and knowledge.
    — creativesoul

    Gladly, if you'll set out the difference between a belief of knowledge and knowledge.     — Cheshire

    It's one in the same difference.

    I've already set it out. Have a look for yourself.
  • Knowledge without JTB
    If you don't understand this point, then you don't understand the difference between a claim to knowledge, and having knowledge. One's claim is not equivalent to, or amount to knowledge. So l don't follow your reaction. — Sam26

    I would concur that a claim to knowledge is not equivalent to having knowledge..
  • Knowledge without JTB
    I do not agree with Sam regarding what counts as justified belief. It does not require being argued for(the act of justification) on my view. — creativesoul
  • Knowledge without JTB
    When someone states that he or she knows that something is the case, as in JTB, someone else may come along and ask, "How do you know?" - and it's at this point that you demonstrate your knowledge. If it turns out that you cannot demonstrate, i.e., justify your claim, then it's not knowledge. — Sam26

    :yikes:
  • Knowledge without JTB
    ...his idea that justification can happen to prelinguistic humans. — Sam26

    Not my idea... Actually against the position I've been arguing for...
  • Philosophical Cartography
    Philosophy can be very therapeutic in several different ways. That doesn't make it(being therapeutic) a good thing.
  • Philosophical Cartography
    The map/territory distinction is inherently inadequate for taking account of that which is neither. A philosophy which captures what's missing from the map/territory distinction cannot be adequately accounted for by the framework itself.

    It is for this reason that I would shun looking at doing philosophy in such terms. Those terms will inevitably delineate one's ability to take account of some things, and as a result will render one incapable of understanding some of what philosophy has had to offer. That said...

    If we're looking to understand all of the famous historical philosophers' positions, then it could be useful. I wouldn't call that doing philosophy though.
  • Philosophical Cartography
    What is the territory existentially dependent upon?
Home » creativesoul