Meaning occurs only in individual's heads. It can't be shared in any manner. It's something inherently mental.

Communication does not at all require literally sharing meanings. That's not how it works. — Terrapin Station

@Banno, @unenlightened, what do you chaps think?

Yes, but succinctly what's your point here?

You're never going to get everything you want need, but your wants and needs are not independent of each other. They can't be. Rather, it would be that some wants you just don't value very highly, or maybe some you know are unrealistic/not practical, if not unattainable because they're pure fantasy, or maybe some you're relatively too lazy to pursue (that's the case for me, for example). But all of those wants would imply needs. They can't be independent of needs. For any want, there are going to be things that have to be the case (even if just hypothetically--for example, for fantasy wants) to make the want be the case. — Terrapin Station

I figure that @macrosoft would disagree here.

Well, I'm lost on what we disagree on here. We seem to be saying the same thing to some degree.

So understanding that needs always hinge on wants, you'd have to conclude that you can never get what you need, because fulfilling a need necessarily fulfills a want.

Since presumably you've been able to fulfill some needs (otherwise you woudln't still be alive to type here), you actually HAVE really gotten plenty of stuff you want. Thus, (the) Schopenhauer (in you) is wrong. — Terrapin Station

It is wrong and right at the same time. I have wants that haven't been actualized, and I have needs that most are taken care of. Most of my wants are independent of what my needs are. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

What's funny is that we 'live' what I call 'meaning holism' even as we debate it. And arguing against its existence requires its living application. We tend to stare at an object language and take the metalanguage that makes that staring possible for granted. The eye is not in its own field of vision. But there are mirrors. — macrosoft

Cool. I agree for the most part. But, I suppose there are hinge propositions or a priori truth that we must deal with first, and guarantee the intersubjectivity of meaning. If we wanted to communicate with other people, then it is through such a priori truth, such a mathematics, and such.

It's an elementary feature of most ethical theories to delineate wants from needs. That we can't satisfy some or others is the cause of our disenfranchisement with the world. Hence, we must begin with ourselves to reach a feeling of stability and purpose in life.

Not only do I agree, that actually illuminates the position I'm trying to communicate. We live in language which is social and 'enworlded.' — macrosoft

Cool. I thought so myself. I just have a gripe with our lack of agreement on what abstract concepts such as "justice", is.

"so what" doesn't seem to gel well with "important insight" haha

"That's a very important insight............but so what?" :grin: — Terrapin Station

Heh, I just fail to see the implications of describing needs as hinging on wants. Care to expand?

The topic is usually treated/understood as if they're two very different things, rather than needs being solely a result of wants. — Terrapin Station

But, the topic here is that needs and wants are distinct. That one can hinge on another could be an important insight; but, so what?

That sounds kinda-like what I mean. I am saying that attitude is entangled with method. And I am saying that the functioning ground is global and largely automatic or unconscious. — macrosoft

But, that doesn't mean that method's fail us every time. Sure, methods are prone to fallibilism. But, then we pull ourselves by our bootstraps and are able to share meaning. A private language in principle could not exist.

Our basic sense of who we are has a top-down effect on the details, the 'trees.' If my hero is the scientist who gazes at the cold hard truth without bias, then I will reach for methods that make that possible. My whole grasp of what philosophy is will be in terms of gazing at cold hard truth heroically, while all the sissies gaze at their navels. — macrosoft

Haha, I understand. So, the point of your posts is to highlight that we can't have an attitude independent of meaning obtained in an abstract sense? Which comes first, though? Meaning or attitudes?

In other words, there is no need to (do) x if one does not want/desire y, for which x is necessary. — Terrapin Station

Oh, indeed. One can always suppress needs over wants. That's true. But, I don't see how this contributes to the discussion in any manner or form.

But what is a subjectivist out of context? See all of these little positions, these 'mini-identities,' are just like atomic words. The big context is the entire personality, which I can only reveal through conversation (such as in this response.) — macrosoft

Understood. So, how does this relate to attitudes?

So are all of those things equally needs in the needs/wants sense? — Terrapin Station

I need water is distinct from "I want water".

I suppose we can live in a fantasy world where wants and needs are equated with one another; but, that's fallacious.

Well, you said the atomic meaning was apparent, and I was just trying to get you to introspect and see that words out of context don't have much force. Meaning is distributed. As you read this, your mind flows along the sentence and through time putting the words together in a mysterious complex thought. — macrosoft

Does that make you a subjectivist too? Or contextualism reigns supreme?

People unnecessarily make trouble for themselves. — Michael Ossipoff

What do you mean by that Michael?

Is that so? So what lights up in your mind when I just offer the word 'justice' out of context? — macrosoft

Yes, "justice" is an abstraction. What more can I say?

In the same sense that you have a non-want need to drink water, you have a non-want need to not drink water. Do you agree with that? If not, why do you disagree? — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding you here. It seems like words are failing us here.

So, if that's what we're talking about when we talk about needs/wants, do you list (b) as a need? Do you say, "One of my needs is to not drink water"? — Terrapin Station

That's a want admittedly, but, I fail to see how it contrasts from the need to drink water.

What is the atomic meaning of 'justice'? Is it crisp in your head? Can you hold the exhaustive concept of justice in a single thought? — macrosoft

Justice is an abstraction of the mind. Sure, we can disagree about it; but, the atomic meaning is apparent when we want to communicate it to another.

Exactly. We all stand on the same ground more or less, else we would not be able to make sense of one another at all. Now we are getting there. There is a basic intelligibility, a basic know-how, that we don't have to work for. — macrosoft

So, hence, words have atomic meaning.

In the sense you've shifted to, your need to avoid drinking water to die of thirst/dehydration is independent of any want, right?

So when we talk about needs and wants, would you list a need to avoid drinking water? — Terrapin Station

I don't understand this. Please explain.

My point is that the ground is somewhat obscure. Do you have any real doubt that you live in a world with others? — macrosoft

How so? We all stand on the same ground more or less.

I'm saying that the ground is not a few ultra-important meanings but the language as a whole. — macrosoft

What is the ground without bedrock beliefs and truths?

Seems obvious to me. What would you propose as a counter-example? — Terrapin Station

My need for water to survive is independent of any want.

You don't have any need without having an underlying want. — Terrapin Station

This can't be true. Can it?

It isn't possible to achieve all likes. No problem. — Michael Ossipoff

Big problem. We live in strife over trivialities in life. How could you neglect to mention this is beyond me.

Another approach is to just think about what it means to know English. Now you are not at all aware of every English word just now or every meaningful combination of words. But you have this know-how. The words pour out of you, their supposedly atomic meanings deeply interwoven through time. IMO, there's no way you can ever get behind this massive know-how to justify it or ground it. It is a 'groundless ground.' (Lee Braver's term.) — macrosoft

Understood. Yet, those atomic relations stand out from the rest. They are what ground meaning.

Two big revolutions for me were (1) self-consciousness with respect to the 'pose' and (2) meaning holism. And of course they are related. Meaning holism is opened up more and more as one lets go of the idea that philosophy is word-math because one starts to see that the word-mathematician is not the best role or pose available. — macrosoft

What is "meaning holism"?

To me there's never really been a stable system. Maybe this is a Hegelian idea, but I think every position tends to manifest some gap or blindspot. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

I learned from it. I like that it is has the guts to face the monsters. — macrosoft

But, you didn't become a philosophical pessimist yourself? Kudos.

Who should I be? Who can I manage to be? — macrosoft

Indeed. I think, attitudes are paramount to philosophical talk.

Sure. I may be interrupted, but I may not. — macrosoft

What are your thoughts on philosophical pessimism? Is it perfunctory?

We left off on attitudes.

@macrosoft, shall we continue our discussion?

Indeed. Now give me back my avatar, hehe.

Yes, I agree.

If you are fulfilled with romantic notions of home and poems, great. — schopenhauer1

What's wrong with denying people happiness with such notions? People live in the realm of the ideal for the most part of their lives.

If you are fulfilled with romantic notions of home and poems, great. Still has to be maintained, paid for, worked, and entertained. However, I think we both agree that perhaps imagination has something to do with getting by. The freedom of the mind to find significance and insights. — schopenhauer1

I take the Kantian or Platonic notion of noesis with "imagination" here interchangeable. Schopenhauer based his philosophy as a form of idealism with noesis.