What do you think it is? — Banno

No idea, honestly.

REM sleep is closest to one of waking state during sleep phases. I answered "a combination of conscious and subconscious".

So what's the problem?

Here's how I read it. Some folk say that there is a problem in identifying individuals in other possible worlds. Kripke points out that other possible worlds are specified by our musings... and hence that there is no problem with such a grand title as "transworld identification". — Banno

I don't see any problems, I am just interested in the 'identity criteria' to which Kripke refers to. What is it?

I too was enamored with drugs for a good portion of my life. But, then I realized that they aren't conducive to being happy. What keeps you interested in their supposed utility? I'm sure something can be said about ones attachment to them and detriment to attaining lasting happiness.

Not entirely for me, and even then only the memory of them I think. — Janus

You seem to be the kind of person that wants the experience the highest of highs and lowest of lows in life. Is my caricature of you accurate?

Yeah, well that requires no decision on your part; in fact you have little choice in the matter. Your only option would be to take some other drug to suppress your dreams, or at least your awareness and/or memory of them. :grin: — Janus

Haha, THC is one drug that suppresses dreams. Just pointing that out.

Some researchers believe that DMT (which is produced endogenously) is active in the brain during the dream phase of sleep. If this is so, then it should be no surprise that dreams are psychedelic. — Janus

That's about as psychedelic as I'm willing to go. Heh.

I attached some other supplementary reading books in my previous comment here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/231811

Let me know what you think.

So : the question of transworld identification makes some sense, in terms of asking about the identity of an object via questions about its component parts. But these parts are not qualities, and it is not an object resembling the given one which is in question. Theorists have often said that we identify objects across possible worlds as objects resembling the given one in the most important respects. On the contrary, Nixon, had he decided to act otherwise, might have avoided politics like the plague, though privately harboring radical opinions. Most important, even when we can replace questions about an object by questions about its parts, we need not do so. We can refer to the object and ask what might have happened to it. So, we do not begin with worlds (which are supposed somehow to be real, and whose qualities, but not whose objects, are perceptible to us), and then ask about criteria of transworld identification; on the contrary, we begin with the objects, which we have, and can identify, in the actual world. We can then ask whether certain things might have been true of the objects. — Kripke pg. 53

Although the way he applies that logic is different. — Sam26

What do you have to say about that, if you don't mind me asking?

I hold the notion that "suicide" is the conclusion of emotional reasoning gone wild. Otherwise, if you're happy, then why would you want to commit suicide? It seems like the misery of life, that can get to a person is the reason why one would want to commit suicide.

Hence, the need to be cautious about the conclusions derived from emotional reasoning.

The professor I studied under studied under Cora Diamond who is one of the proponents of the resolute reading. I'm definitely not a fan of the resolute reading, and that article explains part of the reason. — Sam26

I think there is some merit to that professed belief; but, it is common knowledge that Wittgenstein wanted the Tractatus to be published alongside the Investigations. Even if on face value it doesn't seem that Wittgenstein has no continuous narrative between the two works, that simply cannot be true.

What do you mean?

As Wittgenstein remarks, the crystalline purity of logic (and, a fortiori, of the Tractarian eliminativism) rendered it no longer applicable to actual uses of language (Wittgenstein 1958/1999, §107). Instead of pursuing the former, Wittgenstein decided to return to the rough ground, to the philosophical problems of everyday language. Although this violates the principles of scientific philosophy, it allowed his work to have content that would have been lost with the Tractarian eliminativism. Thus, instead of throwing away the ladder after ascending it, Wittgenstein threw it away before climbing it, for in order to get to the rough ground, no ladder is needed. — William Manninen

That pretty much sums it up.

The best book I've read that sums up Wittgenstein is K. T. Fann's, Wittgenstein's Conception of Philosophy. You can get it used for just a few dollars. It's sums up his philosophy from the Tractatus to the PI. — Sam26

Thanks for mentioning it again. I just bought a paperback for a cheap 14 greenbacks. It arrives Friday. I'm busy with my other reading groups on Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation and Kripke's Naming and Necessity. I'm enjoying them both and hope I can find time to address the Investigations thread here. It's definitely a tough book to analyze given its format and lack of apparent narrative, which can only be seen (IMO) through a resolute reading of the Tractatus and then the Investigations. There are of course reoccurring themes in the Investigations from the Tractatus if one is observant enough.

Then can you advise us on which companion to use? Or PMS Hacker?

:up:

Can you show us the way?

However it might be induced, an altered state is an altered state; i.e. an extra-ordinary or abnormal state. — Janus

But, those aren't natural. In my experience dreams are incredibly psychedelic if you compare them with induced altered states from various drugs.

As Wittgenstein said, "Logic takes care of itself."

As to how that is so is a mystery to my mind, and invokes metaphysical abstraction.

How far from natural and normal can we go and still come to credible conclusions? — Jake

Good question. Do I really want to be enlightened? Maybe I just settle with being just "me", whatever that is.

Ah, time. Gotta love it when you have it. I think I've reached my quota on starting new topics. But, I will hope to see you offer your advice on resolving the issue of communicating abstract concepts like ones awakening into intelligibility.

Well, he does mention a sort of Sorities paradox in regards to identity along with the problem of maintaining that same identity over time. Logic doesn't deal with such vageness as he mentions in a footnote to the above passages.

He goes on:

Does the 'problem' of ' transworld identification' make any sense? Is it simply a pseudo-problem?
[...]
Similarly, given certain counterfactual vicissitudes in the history of the molecules of a table, T, one may ask whether T would exist, in that situation, or whether a certain bunch of molecules, which in that situation would constitute a table, constitute the very same table T. In each case, we seek criteria of identity across possible worlds for certain particulars in terms of those for other, more 'basic', particulars. If statements about nations (or tribes) are not reducible to those about other more 'basic' constituents, if there is some 'open texture' in the relationship between them, we can hardly expect to give hard and fast identity criteria;
[...] — Kripke, pg.50

He adds this as a footnote to the above:

Of course I don't imply that language contains a name for every object.
Demonstratives can be used as rigid designators, and free variables can be used
as rigid designators of unspecified objects. Of course when we specify a
counterfactual situation, we do not describe the whole possible world, but
only the portion which interests us. — Kripke footnote (16) on page 49

I'm asking a question about the process of identification or the criteria of identification according to Kripke. Here is a snippet from the text:

In these lectures, I will argue, intuitively, that proper names
are rigid designators, for although the man (Nixon) might not
have been the President, it is not the case that he might not
have been Nixon (though he might not have been called
'Nixon'). Those who have argued that to make sense of the
notion of rigid designator, we must antecedently make sense
of 'criteria of transworld identity' have precisely reversed the
cart and the horse; it is because we can refer (rigidly) to Nixon,
and stipulate that we are speaking of what might have happened
to him (under certain circumstances), that 'transworld identifications'
are unproblematic in such cases. — Kripke pg. 49

Given that the Investigations' reading group is flourishing, any more takers on this one?

Very interesting point worthy of starting a topic. How have you been able to resolve the issue?

In general, one could claim, that the central theme of Stoicism was not simple “indifference” and becoming “apathetic,” but also a passion of working on self, of indifference while being fully involved in the "external" events. — Number2018

Yes, there has been a perversion of the term "apatheia" towards the modern day definition of "apathy". I guess I'm rebelling over this perversion here.

I was actually suggesting that she sleep with another woman, namely her ex's new girlfriend.

Also, there's nothing bad about a woman having casual sex. Although admittedly it isn't very nice to steal someone's girlfriend. But I ain't gonna apologies for making a joke about that. — Michael

Yeah, but, who's laughing?

I included a the simple The Routledge Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations by Marie McGinn and a more technical Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations by Arif Ahmed. I hope others might benefit from any of these two supplementary texts.

Cheers.

I also added Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigation by David G. Stern...

I know this is all jokes and fun by @Hanover, and @Michael; but, @Waya informed me that she felt treated like a "slut" or perceived that injury from the above posts about her sleeping with other men. Due to that, she is considering leaving this forum altogether, which I find displeasing. Please refrain from making insensitive posts at a time when she is sad and unhappy about her breakup.

Thanks.

Perhaps you ought to simply participate and contribute rather than proliferating reading groups and readings which you don't commit yourself to. — StreetlightX

I've committed myself to the reading groups that I started, which are the Naming and Necessity one by Kripke, and The World as Will and Representation Vol. I by Schopenhauer. I just progress slowly on reading those books as I tend to analyze things in a slow and laborious fashion. I don't like how we are progressing with this current reading group. My preference would be to have a companion, such as Marie McGinn's, The Routledge Guidebook to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and have that supplement whatever questions may arise.

I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, and since I'm not the leader of this reading group I don't feel compelled to post anything or direct how we go about addressing each part of the book.

That's my take.

If “indifference” is the central theme of Stoicism, how could you explain that both Marcus Aurelius and Seneca were the most powerful people of their time, effectively ruling and governing the Roman Empire? Were they The Lame Stoics? — Number2018

No, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, we're not "Lame Stoics", however, Epictetus literally was. I speak of just the "apatheia", characteristic of Stocism, which is actually encouraged by the Stoics. What are your thoughts about that?

I've noticed a mention of essentialism in reading Naming and Necessity. Is that what instantiates identity?

I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody looked at me and it shocked me that they could see me. I carry that experience with me. It does feel good. — frank

Sorry that you felt like a ghost. Only in dreams, I suppose.

A mask is like a coat you put on. — frank

I had a dream that I was walking naked and nobody was paying attention to me. Felt pretty good.

:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

My best friend is an autist. I don't have many friends because I value honesty and the quality of 'not putting on masks' above all else.

@Hanover, whatever floats your boat, dude.

There is a Buddhist slant to the OP; but, lacking in compassion if one becomes indifferent towards 'desire' then one is left with apathy. Just a passing thought that I didn't want to mention in the OP; but, deserves mentioning nevertheless.

They are making a connection between courage and understanding.
Or put another way, the stoic response assumes the ever present influence of Strife. — Valentinus

So, are you saying that courage and understanding are the proper responses towards Strife? How does one not indulge in too much indifference, then?