It's pretty basic stuff. — Sam26

Seemingly yes. Yet, the parable exists insofar as to experienced of not, and individual particular fact can obtain or not in the world.

And we're back at ground zero, with the question about how do facts obtain or not....

Perhaps, you are longing about the future. — Caldwell

Yes, I am. I don't know what that future will look like and that causes me great distress. Am I getting you with this piece of information?

Thanks for posting, Caldwell!

I'm trying to elucidate the part with the paradoxical obtaining of a state of affairs is mystical in some sense?

Show me what you mean... — creativesoul

That we obtain facts from things it presupposes that there is something more to the world we see.

It's a paradox, no?

Are you asking me to answer the question I posed to you? — creativesoul

If that's how you see things, then go for it.

By the way, one of the definitions of a fact is, a state-of-affairs which obtains. — Sam26

Obtains by what?

There are a whole range of facts from physical facts, metaphysical facts, to logical facts, and how they obtain varies, some are a necessary feature of reality, so they do not obtain in the same way, if they obtain at all. — Sam26

What does this mean? Is the status of facthood obtained by what?

Yes, what is it?

They're status of facthood.

?

So there isn't a metaphysical problem about the meaning of, or the how of, the obtaining of abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, that's true. I wonder how can it be addressed?

Any thoughts?

My topic on the Principle of Bipolarity might elucidate where stipulative definitions can attain meaning or even facthood.

Stipulative definitions are derived from what then>?

Is it somewhat metaphysical to talk about where stipulative definitions derive their meaning?

So, what can be gathered from this exchange is that stipulative definitions need to be expressed in language to survive. The forms of life as Wittgenstein would say from these language games is derived from the usage of a stipulative definition.

Thoughts, criticisms, puns welcome.

Don't leave, just adapt.

:)

I disagree. — tim wood

So, it's not question begging; but, what then? It seems like to stipulate a definition, one has to know the entirety of the how the ordinary dictionary definition is used in some context. Hence, confusion and ambiguity is often the case when dealing with stipulative definitions.

I suggest not reading any more Schopenhauer. His metaphysics of the Will-to-Life makes sense, as a start that could lead to Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism, but his negative view of how things are is way wrong. — Michael Ossipoff

I just got in the mail his Volume I of The World as Will and Representation. I also got his Essays and Aphorisms. I think I will soon study him in detail.

Other than by their standard meanings, you mean, yes? Yes. It would seem as if anyone with a new idea has to invent, adopt, or co-opt language. It becomes a subject of complaint; it ought to be part of the package that we admire, even as we try to understand it. — tim wood

So, then the question becomes, what are stipulative definitions at all? It rings of question begging.

I see them as being like traffic signs - here's the road, if you want to travel this way. — tim wood

But, they attain their meaning by describing the world another way than what is usually attributed by virtue of their stipulative definitions. Is this correct?

"Solipsism" is variously defined, but Subjective Idealism is routinely called "Solipsism", with an implication that that name discredits it. — Michael Ossipoff

There's also what Hacker calls: "transcendental solipsism" as defined in the Tractatus.

What's the basis of this statement? Is it supposed to be scientific? Ethical? What? — frank

Keynesianism is what it is.

Sometimes definitions can be omitted, but usually for some reason, perhaps to see where the discussion might go with freely varying understandings. — tim wood

For example. Wittgenstein has a very specific stipulative definition on many things (die Welt, reality, sachlage, sachverhalten, etc.). The fact that he does inspires interest in his philosophy. The same can be said of Heidegger. Therefore, stipulative definitions are the cornerstone of philosophical inquiry.

Would you agree?

MMT is not a plan that you implement - it is an explanation of what is happening. — Rank Amateur

I see. So, what does it have to say about excessive credit and debt levels in the US, and how those can be solved? Can too much credit ever be a problem for MMT?

A sovereign government can never become insolvent in its own currency — Rank Amateur

This is dangerous to implement. It creates conditions for hyperinflation and such.

Shameless bump.

What an exciting time to be alive. — tmb

Indeed. Thanks for posting!

I think solipsism is a logical position to reach on its own via reflecting on nature of subjective consciousness and the object/subject divide. — Andrew4Handel

I agree. I think solipsism is a logical conclusion of self-reflection. It intrigues me that solipsism is seen with such contempt as if philosophy's joke on the world. It's a logical conclusion, again, of self-reflection. There is no other alternative than adopt a pseudo-solipsistic view of life. You might find comfort in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Join me in my Ongoing Wittgenstein reading group.

If the angst has a rational basis, philosophy can deal with it. — Dfpolis

Agreed, therefore, either it is rational to profess angst or irrational to profess angst. If it is the former, then it's philosophy's task to deal with it. If the latter, then yes, pharmaceutical and neurochemical balances must be checked by a professional.

Check LPP Fusion. They are the only guys operating without LENR reactions that I hope can make a product possible. Dense plasma focus is what they are trying to create.

Look where? Rossi's E-cat? :rofl: — Benkei

There is a weight of evidence supporting what Rossi has been doing. I don't know if you care to explore what evidence is available in regards to the topic. The evidence is available through websites like http://brillouinenergy.com/...

I won't play the role of I know more than you, as I'm quite uneducated on the topic.

Depression, Anxiety, Aspergers ,family, family religion, uncertainty and so on. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sorry to hear. I hope you feel better.

Let's talk about depression then. How is it affecting you? What can you say about it philosophically?

LENR is just a rebranding of cold fusion. It is largely the province of cooks and scammers. — SophistiCat

You should look into it more. Seems you have a provincial view on the subject.

Have you heard of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions)? It's like cold fusion with a twist. I'm betting hard on LENR and think it will provide the energy required to provide for us. It sounds like fantasy; but, I sincerely think it is real.

As for fusion, I think there's enough geothermal energy to sustain our needs too. Just that there seems to be no interest in geothermal. The LCOE is the lowest for geothermal. See:




Elon Musk is betting heavily on solar, and I think it's the right solution if the intermittent problem can be solved with some energy storage system.

I also think fission is undervalued and overly regulated. I hope thorium reactors or breeder reactors can be devised and implemented.

Any thoughts about the Principle of Bipolarity?

I think you're neglecting individual efforts and private enterprise venture capitalists. I've witnessed something amazing. About 20 some private initiatives to create nuclear fusion, LENR, and fission projects. Bill Gates is betting on fusion.

https://lppfusion.com
http://brillouinenergy.com/
http://generalfusion.com/
https://deneum.com
https://brilliantlightpower.com/ (questionable)
and so many others...

In essence, the market has already provided the answer. The only thing lacking is implementing the solution to the problem.

I hope that doesn't sound too neo-liberal.

As for internalizing the externalities, that's a tough question. How do you calculate (quantify) the externality of something that is prone to factors like the butterfly effect or chaos theory?

Well, yes. The whole premise of this thread is that some form of guided influence is required to instantiate a solution for the problem. It's an interesting perspective that a top-down governance is required to fulfill the solution to the problem. So, I'm quite befuddled that Trump is doubling down on coal. But, that's to be expected from a country that now exports gas, oil, and other fossil fuel intermediates. It's quite amazing economically that the US has turned to a net positive exporter of gas and oil. But, it's quite obvious that the fossil fuel industry is a conglomerate of an oligopoly. I don't think they will cooperate much longer given the dramatic shift in public perception about the state of affairs of climate change.

I have hope that people will realize that sinking the Netherlands over our greed is an idiocy.