None, it seems to me, since they're describing very different things. "Possible worlds" is a tool for modeling abstract hypotheticals or counterfactuals. — Andrew M

Yes, I understand that; but, what are we to make of claims made in physics as counterfactual definitiveness? Don't they derive from Lewis' work on possible worlds or Kripke?

Pretty interesting video:

I'd like to resurrect this relatively old thread, given what is happening in Europe, France, The U.K., and such.

It seems to me that there is no apparent threat to US soil as far as my limited knowledge spans. Yet, Europe is experiencing a crisis in my view of immigration, domestic nativism, and terrorism.

Trump doesn't seem to care much about what's going on in Afghanistan, and given the short attention span of most Americans on these issues, then I don't think much willpower exists to change Afghanistan or Iraq for the better.

I'd ask @ssu to chime in again, out of my curiosity, just what is Pakistan's role in all this. I know that Syria imploded, and is the next Afghanistan, Africa is fucking experiencing a profound ideological shift...

It seems to me, that the War on Terror is failing (relatively speaking, if not for the US, then for the world, which Trump doesn't give a shit about), not winning. Am I correct on this or is this just me stating some random anecdotal opinion.

Side note, some members of my family are linguists for the military, and they're jammed up with work on the issue. I even considered learning some Pashtu and Farsi from my family and asking my uncle if he could hook me up.

And thoughts, opinions, or ideas on the issue?

One might as well prescribe quietism about the natural sciences and say to stop investigating things and just accepted the world as it is; that would be absurd of course, but quietism about philosophy is equally absurd. — Pfhorrest

But, Wittgenstein postulated, that the majority of philosophy is language on holiday. We tend to find the answers we seek in a pragmatic method nowadays, and as someone who would rather lean towards pragmatism on issues that science can address, then all the better. Then, what remains are rather psychological issues, which the existentialists tried fiercely to address, yet end up mired in their own misery or satisfaction (if any can be attained from existentialist thought).

Then your either a closet pragmatist or simply lost your way into this forum, I believe.

Here's an example:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/134/How_To_Be_A_Stoic_by_Massimo_Pigliucci — Amity

More of a Cynic as of late. It oscillates, a lot between the two. And, I have interacted with Massimo, on Facebook, good guy. Likes ducks a lot for some reason.

Cheers, my love. :love:

But when it comes to communicating philosophical/metaphysical or scientific ideas on forum like this, what useful information would be missing? — Harry Hindu

You don't see people talking in full sentences in every-day life. At least, here, there's a demand for rigour and logicality, which is good and all. On the flipside, remarkably (rather), philosophers have been able to put into words existential issues that are deep moods, and feelings that go sometimes beyond the trivial and mundane of every-day life. Isn't that rather remarkable, given how much of communication is actually non-verbal?

The reason I post this is that in as few words as possible, I think, that the Many Worlds Hypothesis renders Kripke semantics as redundant. No wavefunction collapse, no necessity. Everything goes so-to-speak.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/linguistic-turn/v-1

Use lib-gen or sci-hub and insert the DOI for the fulltext.

I’m glad reading Wittgenstein was emotionally helpful to you, even if I end up not agreeing with his philosophy much. (I take pretty much the same attitude toward religious texts, for what that’s worth). — Pfhorrest

I get that some people might find him as a philosophical fanatic; but, he really changed the whole field of philosophy with not one but two works. Have you ever entertained the idea of the linguistic turn in philosophy?

Hungry... Mmm, I am poor and enjoy the occasional goat pizza.

I doubt that 95% would be how much information is lost in communicating on these forums. Maybe when communicating with Banno you'd lose 95% of what he means, but what do you expect from someone who thinks language is a game? — Harry Hindu

Yeah, I may have overestimated. But, some large percentage of communication is non-verbal, and that's something you could use as an argument for volitions or intentionality existing, just throwing that out there.

Yes, there are studies of mystical experiences while a person was undergoing an fMRI. Google it. Sounds like fun.

What questions would you be trying to answer? — Harry Hindu

Existential ones. Mainly ethical ones.

Sorry, I've been neglecting my own threads.

What does Schopenhauer mean when he says "the problem of existence"? Can someone help me understand the problem he's speaking of? — Magnus Anderson

I think, that the point here is that existence is problematic because of the things we normally associate life with at times. Schopenhauer might have engaged in hyperbole here; but, it seems clear to me that existence can actually be a problem for some or many.

He argued for that. But to what he extent he "showed" that to be true is another matter. There isn't consensus among philosophers that he was correct. Some agree and others have not. I don't believe what he argued rises to the level of proof. So it comes down to whether Witty's arguments make one's metaphysical itch go away. — Marchesk

In regards to the underlined. Well, we can't really say there is a consensus on an issue that would leave nothing more to consent over?

That might have been the end of the story, but in mid-life I had a minor epiphany which revolved around the reality of number (epiphanies are always instantaneous and transient, by the way - like the glimpse of a distant vista in lightning.) The basic intuition was that numbers are real, but they are neither transient nor compound; they're not made from parts (later I realised this was only true of primes) and they don't come into or go out of existence. Ergo, they're real on a different level to things/particulars/material phenomena. That was my realisation of one of the fundamental truths of Platonism, and led me to understand that there are indeed levels or modes of being, which is precisely what, I maintain, modern philosophy had rubbed out, so as to arrive at the 'one-dimensional man' or 'flatland' of scientific materialism, with its abundance of fact and absolute absence of meaning. — Wayfarer

One of the critiques of Platonic idealism that I haven't seen is what is sustaining these entities in some dimension? Is it their function or are they exempt from thermodynamical laws? Or in even other words, is there any intersectionality between the higher realms, and their abstractions, and the lower realms, a la Max Tegmark?

EDIT: Sorry to hijack a thread, but I don't think this deserves a new thread, or I may be wrong?

Hey Harry,

Perhaps there is some disagreement here. What I meant by volitions and intent, was not separate from words, otherwise, it would rather lead us to the sort of conclusions of a homunculus living in the brain of sorts. What I do think actually happens, is something @creativesoul has been talking about for a great while now, about prelinguistic "content" or the 95% of communication that gets passed over on these forums because we can't see behavior or hear tonality.

I have thanked Wallows before for provoking thought and interest. — Amity

No need to thank Wallows. It was only natural.

I think it a pity that a continuing sense of failure in overcoming difficulties can be so overwhelming.
It can stifle creativity and drive.
It's kind of a vicious circle. — Amity

Yes, dear Amity, it is very wallowsome. But, I find consolation in some threads hereabouts and the reading-groups. Perhaps everyone should wallow at least a little on this Sunday.

Here's John Maynard Keynes, whom as a pseudo-economist I almost entirely adhere to:

God has arrived. I met him on the 5.15 train. — Keynes

It was that kind of effect he had on people.

Anywho, Wittgenstein had some okay ideas, but I think some of it comes down to word-play and an almost religiously-faith-based adherence to him and only him. — Artemis

I don't know. It's something that deeply connected with me. I was going through a mental breakdown and was pulling on the carpet I was standing on. I felt so lost, and it's like Wittgenstein found me. I don't know how to compare it to, maybe something like winning the lottery or something like that?

Thank you.

He makes Faust look like a peon.

No, it's his life that amazes me more than his philosophy...

*shh*

I don't understand this sentence. — Artemis

Wittgenstein showed that philosophy, yes in it's entirety, consists in language on being on holiday. And that's it really. It supposedly ends in quietism.

I think Rogerian agreements are the most fruitful.

Profundity lays here.

I think he's busy trying to figure out the best angle of approach.

EDIT: wallows isn't a wanker — bert1

Nowadays even if I try it doesn't work itself out.

Ok, that's a rarity for me.

Well, mention it to Terrapin Station that facts are mind-independent in logical space. His idealism fails for superfluous facts that only he perceives.

What about logical space, @Banno?

This is simply how Banno works.

We actually have a reading group here of his Tractatus and Investigations. Underappreciated content on this website.

I wish I could do that for you and for the field of philosophy. Give his Philosophical Investigations a try.

Probably in The Republic.

Have you read Wittgenstein by any chance, Forrest? He really expunged the futility in trying to create a methodology in philosophy.

There's nothing special about perceiving thing in a different way as long as you can compare the same object in question to other features in the world.

As far as I know what goes on inside a black hole might not be in any way sharable other than some noumenal aspect of the mind, which may or may not have private content. And even if there is such a thing as a private language of sorts, then what else can we do about it? Nothing much really.