My temptation is to say that only things have ontological existence. Facts are generated by minds. Facts are a product of language, and language is dependent on the evolution of social animals like us. — Marchesk

But, after all the world is the totality of facts, not things. Facts are not mind-independent though. On a hard reading, you can designate facts as having ontological significance superior to things.

So early Wittgenstein actually thought reality consisted of atomic facts and not things like apples, trees, people, etc? — Marchesk

Both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I like to think that Rogerian agreements are the best. But, unenlightened is correct I. That we can still be wrong, although it's a matter of degrees of truth here.

Wittgenstein "bakes bread"? — tim wood

No, he was a philosopher. A mystic of sorts.

Is design a subject you could follow? Or maybe some aspect of art? There's so much concentration on science these days that almost anything else, as a balance to over-sciencing the world, would be worthwhile. Just my two pennyworth. — Pattern-chaser

I think mathematics is something I could double major in. I have the mind for it. Although, I hate vector calculus with a passion.

Why? That is, what is college going to do for you? — tim wood

I'd think it would provide some framework where I could enhance my skills.

Wittgenstein would tell you that you would be better off learning something like carpentry. I would say that most philosophers do not contribute much. Why? Because much of what passes for good philosophy is mostly confusion. This might be a bitter pill, but it is the truth.

Good luck Posty. — Sam26

Yes, that's my main gripe with doing philosophy academically. Wittgenstein wouldn't approve.

But would there not be need of a set of facts in order to make something? Or is it possible for things to just appear? — Sir2u

I'm not sure, I suppose that one can have facts that are mind-dependent. I wouldn't assert that facts are mind-independent.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all this "life is meaningless" business, but when they tell me I have Parkinsons disease, well, I'm not sticking around for that. Adios amigos! — Jake

I find the unrestrained individualism problematic. At one end fine, if that's what you want to do. But, there are cures for the disease that are being devised and implemented in clinical trials.

And speaking of your loved ones left behind, YOU would be the one to selfishly leave the suicide legacy in your family history, something that can be looked to by future generations. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I never really tried committing suicide. But, it takes some real balls to go through the act. I hope that my comment wasn't meant to insinuate anything, as it's a touchy subject.

So which came first, the picture or the thing that is made up in the arrangement described in the picture? — Sir2u

Both, I think. Wittgenstein of the Tractatus would say that the objects exist in logical space and their representation is what can be made apparent through their respective configurations in terms of atomic facts.

Can a topic in psychology be over psychologized? Interesting concept. — Bitter Crank

Hard to say. It's not in my ability to assess the merit of psychological profundity.

What do you mean? — frank

Read about overdetermination.

The vigor with which you seek interpersonal conflict reflects what? The need to develop personality? Or perhaps personality needs an occasional workout to remain alive. — frank

It can be revealing to some psychoanalytic literature on the subject. However, overpsychologizing the subject is happening here.

From the mouth of my favorite cat Mayor of Simplton: Attitudes are like assholes every one has one. :brow: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ahh, dear MOS. How is he?

I can't keep up with all your threads. lol — Sam26

Just random musings on my part. Nothing too serious. Be easy,

If you're referring to bipolarity, my inclination is to say that it's not persuasive. — Sam26

Have at the thread I started.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4290/principle-of-bipolarity

It is a persuasive thought no?

What are your thoughts on the Principle of Bipolarity and Wittgenstein?

Be the kind of person you want to attract. — matt

Thank you Matt.

Perhaps you can be a friend. Probably not a good friend, certainly not an ideal friend, but we are lonely, and not all that fussy. — unenlightened

Sometimes I think you write all your posts on MDMA.

:rofl:

Have you considered selling sex toys door to door? I'm pretty sure you would meet at least a few people that way. You would at least have quite a few interesting stories to tell later on.

"Good morning, Ma'am. Is your old dildo ready for a retread? How about a turbo-charged vibrator? Perhaps I could interest you in this irresistible pheromone that is guaranteed to draw men! No? This penis enlargement pump works on breasts too. Here, let me demonstrate..." (door slams in face; or worse, she pulls you into her house). — Bitter Crank

Laughs ensure.

@Benkei

Here's the fruition to my question that you postited:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5728-how-do-you-convince-a-skeptic/?pageNo=1

That gave me a chuckle.

Is that all. — Banno

Well, yes how don't you see the Principle of Bipolarity as something significant?

Yes, the things in themselves do seem to have a strange, shadowy existence; and yet we seem not to be able to do without them. — Janus

It goes without saying that Wittgenstein was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer and Kant.

Well, if you insist, then what I had in mind is that the Principle of Bipolarity, only applies to contingent truths, but the more I think about it, why not necessary ones too?

OK, but that still leaves the question as to how they could be anything at all apart from their relations. — Janus

Yes, and hence the world is the totality and non-totality of facts not things.

Sorry, I must have made that up. My apologies.

I can think of a couple of ways that something that is one way could be otherwise; one to do with actuality and the other to do with logical possibility. In terms of actuality something could change and become something it previously was not. In terms of possibility, something could have been other than it is.

I am not seeing how either of these relate to falsifiability, at least as Popper, according to my understanding, conceived it.. — Janus

Yes, that is under the guise that you believe in metaphysical necessity and determinism.

But then the question seems to remain as to whether objects (or things) are something over and above their relations. — Janus

No, their relations are atomic facts. They themselves just are. This is part of the Tractarian ontology of "things"

According to the Principle of Bipolarity, you can have negative states of affairs. Which makes sense to me given that Wittgenstein argued passionately that you can't disprove an elephant in a room.

The thing with suicide is that you can't be wrong about it, and that's a scary prospect.

So, objects are not reducible to, but transcendent of, their relations? — Janus

I'm not sure if transcendent of their relations is the correct term. I'd say they constitute the world, and that's all.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4290/principle-of-bipolarity

Facts are odd things; they are both of language, and of the world. There is a way of understanding a fact that is not given in saying that fact, but shown in using it. — Banno

Yes, that much I understand. I just am having difficulty with the Principle of Bipolarity present throughout the Tractatus.

Well yes, objects and their relations in logical space. Just that objects are an irreducible substance that comprises the world.

I'm not too sure what that could mean. — Janus

Show me where I lost you.

So for him were objects not constituted by "atomic facts"? I'm not really that familiar with Wittgenstein, so please excuse my ignorance. — Janus

Atomic facts are constituted by objects that make up the substance in the world (or logical space if you prefer the original terminology).

Of course this insight may be found already implicit in Hume and explicit in Peirce. I'm not familiar with the 'Principle of Bivalence' so I can't see how it might relate to the notion of falsification. — Janus

The Principle of Bipolairty, states that anything that can be, can be otherwise.