Just decide to change and change and stop being lazy and accept responsibility for your state of affairs. If, though, all of this is out of your control and you're just telling us you're a one legged person forced to hop about ten steps behind the rest of us your whole life and it really sucks, then I'll cry for you if it makes you feel better. — Hanover

Oh, dear. I hope you don't start calling me a snowflake, Sir/Ma'am or whoever the person behind your alter-ego of "Hanover" is. Anyway, if you've followed my posting here, then I suppose it bears repeating that I'm a disabled individual due to mental health. As much as I'd like to pull myself up from my bootstraps, my metaphorical "back" isn't in great shape, and never will be. Hence my lamentation, wallowing, reclusiveness, escapist tendencies, and resignation from life.

Your consistent attempt to instigate intimate social interaction here by openly revealing and discussing the personal details of your life belies your claim that you wish to live as a hermit without social interaction. — Hanover

That's not entirely true. The life we experience here only is fundamentally different than real life interaction. What does that say about me? A lot, and little (I hope we can leave it at that, as I also am aware of certain boundaries). I already, in an inverted manner, explained the reason why I prefer online contact over real-life confrontation.

Speaking about boundaries, I find the internet a medium where artificial boundaries are dashed away. I could be a woman posting on this forum, or a serial killer. You really don't know that. But, you can infer that my intentions and alter-ego is true and accurate based on the consistency of my posts about myself and life which you touched on.

Again, elaborating on boundaries, I believe that the internet abolishes them, an interesting phenomenon. I might have no social circle (again, a circle establishes the very concept of a boundary), but, I'm quite fine with that.

Well there you have it, language is two dimensional, but it operates - and operates recursively, and that makes it dynamic. So there is TLP, the last word in philosophy, and the fact that the limits of expression have been expressed extends the limits of expression, so that they cease to be the limits, though there are still limits. ( I'm struggling at my own limits of expression here, but if I can make this understandable, then it becomes possible to explore further again.) Looking at the picture of language as a picture, I see something that has been unclear, become clear. So my world has changed. — unenlightened

Yes, and I think that is what Wittgenstein was getting at with the Tractatus. The only thing left out and latterly added ad hoc in the PI was the fact that we can learn and expand our limits. But, the TLP is beautiful and neatly sealed whereas the PI is open for doubt, which then also gets elaborated on, ad hoc in On Certainty.

But, the issue arises that solipsism never was solved; by which I mean to say that it persists. I might be mistaken about this. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I might have a go at a separate thread if I can find the right levers... I think I'm talking about transformations of insight - awakenings. — unenlightened

Please do. I think it might be of use to analyze. And if you do, please reference this exchange we had as the template of thought upon which about getting the fly out of the bottle is made possible, or not...

Key excerpt:

Primary and secondary education will always be a matter of familiarizing the young with what their elders take to be true, whether it is true or not. It is not, and never will be, the function of lower-level education to challenge the prevailing consensus about what is true. Socialization has to come before individuation, and education for freedom cannot begin before some constraints have been imposed.

But, for quite different reasons, non-vocational higher education is also not a matter of inculcating or educing truth. It is, instead, a matter of inciting doubt and stimulating imagination, thereby challenging the prevailing consensus. If pre-college education produces literate citizens and college education produces selfcreating individuals, then questions about whether students are being taught the truth can safely be neglected. — Richard Rorty

Highly relevant paper by Richard Rorty:

http://www.greatbooksojai.com/the-agora-foundation_rorty_education_as_socialization_and_as_individualization.pdf

A social mask is necessary, we use clothes for this reason, we deny sexual and bodily functions or wrap them up in acceptable ways. In fact anything we hold private is part of social masking. We use the mechanism of joke making to allow us to address some of these no go areas in a mostly well managed process of comedy, but even here we violate the boundaries on multiple subjects. It reduces to the truth and fictions we create to protect ourselves and others from these truths. Some people are quite comfortable with two or more faces, politicians are used as good examples but anyone who wears clothes is just hiding facts that we all observe for ourselves but not able to tolerate for most others. Since you struggle to put on various social faces, imagine that we also fart in company, but silently so as to conform, and clothes give a semi permanent social face, hiding our bodies, bodily habits, thoughts etc. Even acquiring a language and accent from our early years becomes a social face and identity, while it’s a conforming mechanism its also a social mask that we show to rest of the world. Imagine if we developed personal language expressions? Aside from the communication issues, it would prevent us from forming tribes and groups that are important parts of our social masks. — tmb

For some reason, the parable of Adam and Eve comes to mind. I tend to agree with this but it leaves out one important fact which I will address in the following paragraphs.

Most people want fulfillment, some get it by dominating, or being dominated. Ultimately social interaction requires a tradeoff with our individuality and its needs. Hierarchies in social groups appear universal across all species. Individuals rarely win this with taking a beating at many stages of life or compromising individual needs. — tmb

Yes, the issue of crime comes to my mind when I read about this and how unfair and unjust society appears to be to the criminal. Boundless rationalization ensue...

You did not say what age of children you endow with these attributes. I have four adult daughters and work with kids of various ages. No question they are different in may positive ways to adults but are still selfish and generally thoughtless. Teenagers go through a stage of self centricity, boys differently to girls, and show many negative attributes as well as serious consequences at this stage. I understand their neurons get pruned during puberty to provide resources to sexual maturity, so brains don’t work that well. By 25 the prefrontal cortex is mostly developed and then they realise their parents do know a bit, and they grow up and start learning about life. — tmb

Now, I agree with this; but, it neglects to mention the fact that children are extremely malleable. At that age, a great deal of plasticity is in play. I believe that this is an important factor in professing my 'hope' about children.

Just thinking aloud about what you said, the problem seems to be how we educate the young? Is that correct?

Perhaps this is the change from TLP to PI, from static to dynamic (see Pirsig). — unenlightened

What does Prisig have to say about this?

The reflexivity of depicting language as a picture is static; TLP is the correct picture, and having the correct picture 'once and for all' there is nothing more to be said that can be said. — unenlightened

Yes, the TLP is two dimensional. But, that's how language seems to operate.

Difficult question without knowing more about the person or specific circumstances. If you are interested I will give you my perspective on this as it has affected me — tmb

Do go on. I am interested. What are your thoughts about children prior to puberty. I don't see the development of the prefrontal cortex by age 25 as that big a deal as long as the individual doesn't deviate from the norms of what you call socialization.

Your post comes close to what I am trying to understand when an individual goes through socialization while trying to maintain individuality or the socialization vs individualization problem.

This only seems like a problem that children or teenagers face when confronted with sexual maturity.

Thoughts? I would prefer a dialogue with interested parties.

So, I want to talk about solipsism in the Tractatus, just to spur interest given that a casual chain of progressing from proposition 1 through 7 would require something superhuman or magical to accomplish. So, we will resort to talking about the Tractatus.

Wittgenstein says the following proposition 5.62. Which states:

Thus, we can infer that:

Then, the introductory grand statement will become clearer:

So, what are we to do now? Resort to quietism? That seems like the only logical conclusion from a Tractarian solipsist...
Without going too deep, as to from which philosopher (most notably Kant, and Schopenhauer) was Wittgenstein dialectically opposing or affirming, we can just take what Wittgenstein says on face value. So, the issue becomes about whether Wittgenstein is professing realism or idealism. The clue as to what Wittgenstein chooses is revealing here:

Thus, we are constrained to talk about the limit of thinking and thought. To put this another way, we are all solipsists unaware of our limits. Those who understand their limits with respect to the world as opposed to the perceptual or phenomenological perception of reality will understand the point made by Wittgenstein in talking about leading the fly out of the bottle.

I'll stop here for a moment and post after this later.

Why do you think it might be necessary to state such an argument? — Wayfarer

Although I don't believe in this, the indispensability argument suffers from the critical flaw of question begging.

As to how my cognitive dissonance can come to be is another question.

Anyway, this is far beyond the OP. — StreetlightX

That's fine. I'm curious too how this discussion progresses.

I was just thinking earlier that I can think of few philosophers who were quite as diametrically opposed to Plato than Wittgenstein. — StreetlightX

Yes, I agree with that.

I think Wittgenstein was opposed to Plato. Yet, I'm not sure how to prove it? Could you spell it out?

This music has the power to change lives. Beware.

Do you have a point? I don't care to semantics. — Relativist

No, I just thought this was a place, that's all.

Off a cliff, preferably. — StreetlightX

Is this some Spinozian turn? I'm attentively listening if so.

Forget minds. Minds are overrated and largely uninteresting. Think in terms of behaviour, action, practice. Math is a practice. — StreetlightX

So, you're a nominalist or instrumentalist of math? I'm not sure we can throw 'minds' out of the window...

No. — Relativist

How so?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetics

Relevant seemingly.

As with the whole issue of math, which is not an abstraction of the 'mind', but an abstraction of the sign. — StreetlightX

So, the sign exists independently of the mind, and the mind only makes it intelligible?

You just answered your own question, but is TPF a place? — Relativist

I don't know, is it?

If you have to ask, you need to get a better grasp on the English language. — StreetlightX

:fear:

What do you mean by that?

It is the specific place that the speaker of the sentence has in mind, and has presumably referenced in another way. — Relativist

I mean, this place, the TPF? Right here?

They persist over time for an individual. — Banno

Fascinating stuff, don't you think?

Hmm, interesting. Do the colors persist over time for each individual or change also depending on the context?

Hmph. If they agreed as to the colour of seven. — Banno

If I could conduct a survey of people with Grapheme-color synaesthesia, that would be the first question I would ask, if they perceive each color the same.

What colour is seven?

I suspect you might agree that this question is not helpful. — Banno

Not to someone with Grapheme-color synaesthesia! An interesting phenomenon that I think offers a glimpse into the Platonic realm.

Square objects in the world have squareness (and other properties, including spatio-temporal lications). "Square" (qua square) has no real world referrent, so squares do not exist in the world. — Relativist

Where's the referent in the sentence, "I like this place."

I do! I think people overlook this all the time. — Wayfarer

Glad there are other's out there that recognize this fact. I'm using "fact" loosely here, and I don't even know why, heh.

In other words, the reality of abstracta, if established, undermines materialism. And that's why most of your plain-language philosophers won't have a bar of it, although they won't necessarily put it in those terms. Instead, they'll talk about 'language as use', thereby hoping to sidestep the whole issue. — Wayfarer

Don't you think the appearance of this forum or this very place, is a metaphysical construct enabled by the very logically of computers? This gives me the impression that the simulated reality hypothesis isn't as farfetched as it sounds or that we could simulate reality some day.

Hence the remission rate. — Banno

Pleasure talking with you. :victory:

You see, there is little justification above its own dictates. — schopenhauer1

How so?

I'm suspicious of a philosophy that reports to follow "nature" through "reason". There's a lot of "well, of course, "reason" (aka the philosopher's preference for what is deemed reasonable sounding) dictates this or that action, and "reason" is part of nature. You see, there is little justification above its own dictates. — schopenhauer1

So, you're saying Stoicism is committing the naturalistic fallacy?

One thing that has concerned me, and has prohibited me from recognizing Seneca as a true Stoic is the matter of selflessness? What does Stoicism have to say about selflessness or being selfish? Is that contrary to our nature, and if not, then how do you explain the majority of other people's behavior? Maybe the issue can be framed as in how often one ought to be selfless? All the time, some of the time, or at no time?

Usually I find that if I reflect on who I am that I share in the faults I find frustrating, and it tempers my anger or frustration; we are only human, and we are all faulty because of it. — Moliere

Kudos to you for being so honest in your self-reflection. I tend to get angry at myself for petty faults whenever I conduct a self-analysis.

In the passage you quote it's worth noting that these were the sorts of things Marcus would say to himself -- so it's not like he necessarily lived up to his code at every moment of his life. They were the sorts of things he would say to himself to help him live a better life and achieve some kind of contentment with the way things are. — Moliere

Yes, it remains a mystery how the ID or ego dealt with the reality and enormity of the task of being an emperor other than the glimpse we have of his super-ego at work in the Meditations.

All we can do is take off the lid. The fly has to find its own way. — Banno

On dear, that attitude won't help anything for the poor fly.

I tend to be a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. — Bitter Crank

You're a 'dude' then. Sorry, had to say that.

In fiction I have also found that sort of comfort, that there are other people like me in the world. And in life, too, I have found that comforting insight. — Bitter Crank

Sadly, or happily (depends which generation you are of, as I'm a millennial) you can only find them open and uninhibited online (or in college, if you're willing to do that sort of thing).

So, you were dealt a bad hand. Sorry about that. Your diagnosis is explanatory, in part. I can understand better how your immobilization might happen. On the other hand, you are tending to the condition with which you must live. That is no small thing. Tending or not tending will have dramatically different outcomes. So keep up the good work of taking care of yourself. — Bitter Crank

Ehh, C'est La Vie. Life goes on. I'm high on it as of recently.

At least the ego dominates the individual. What else could dominate? — Bitter Crank

It seems like a knot though, the need to dominate at least. Why be dominative? For more things? Here's the cynic in me voicing its concerns.

The king: "The people are revolting."

The Queen: "Yes, I find them very revolting." — Bitter Crank

Cool. :cool:

And moreso why throw away the Wittgensteinian ladder??? Leave it for some other.